Tag: Douglas

Categories
Columbia Economists

Columbia. History of Economics Department. Luncheon Talk by Arthur R. Burns, 1954

The main entry of this posting is a transcription of the historical overview of economics at Columbia provided by Professor Arthur R. Burns at a reunion luncheon for Columbia economics Ph.D. graduates [Note: Arthur Robert Burns was the “other” Arthur Burns of the Columbia University economics department, as opposed to Arthur F. Burns, who was the mentor/friend of Milton Friedman, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, chairman of the Board of Governors of the Fed, etc.]. He acknowledges his reliance on the definitive research of his colleague, Joseph Dorfman, that was published in the following year:

Joseph Dorfman, “The Department of Economics”, Chapt IX in R. Gordon Hoxie et al., A History of the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955.

The cost of the luncheon was $2.15 per person. 36 members of the economics faculty attended, who paid for themselves, and some 144 attending guests (includes about one hundred Columbia economics Ph.D.’s) had their lunches paid for by the university.

_____________________________

[LUNCHEON INVITATION LETTER]

Columbia University
in the City of New York
[New York 27, N.Y.]
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

March 25, 1954

 

Dear Doctor _________________

On behalf of the Department of Economics, I am writing to invite you to attend a Homecoming Luncheon of Columbia Ph.D.’s in Economics. This will be held on Saturday, May 29, at 12:30 sharp, in the Men’s Faculty Club, Morningside Drive and West 117th Street.

This Luncheon is planned as a part of Columbia University’s Bicentennial Celebration, of which, as you know, the theme is “Man’s Right to Knowledge and the free Use Thereof”. The date of May 29 is chosen in relation to the Bicentennial Conference on “National Policy for Economic Welfare at Home and Abroad” in which distinguished scholars and men of affairs from the United States and other countries will take part. The final session of this Conference, to be held at three p.m. on May 29 in McMillin Academic Theater, will have as its principal speaker our own Professor John Maurice Clark. The guests at the Luncheon are cordially invited to attend the afternoon meeting.

The Luncheon itself and brief after-luncheon speeches will be devoted to reunion, reminiscence and reacquaintance with the continuing work of the Department. At the close President Grayson Kirk will present medals on behalf of the University to the principal participants in the Bicentennial Conference.

We shall be happy to welcome to the Luncheon as guests of the University all of our Ph.D.’s, wherever their homes may be, who can arrange to be in New York on May 29. We very much hope you can be with us on that day. Please reply on the form below.

Cordially yours,

[signed]
Carter Goodrich
Chairman of the Committee

*   *   *   *   *   *

Professor Carter Goodrich
Box #22, Fayerweather Hall
Columbia University
New York 27, New York

I shall be glad…
I shall be unable… to attend the Homecoming Luncheon on May 29.

(signed) ___________

Note: Please reply promptly, not later than April 20 in the case of Ph.D.’s residing in the United States, and not later than May 5 in the case of others.

_____________________________

[INVITATION TO SESSION FOLLOWING LUNCHEON]

Columbia University
in the City of New York
[New York 27, N.Y.]
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

May 6, 1954

 

TO:                 Departments of History, Math. Stat., Public and Sociology
FROM:            Helen Harwell, secretary, Graduate Department of Economics

 

Will you please bring the following notice to the attention of the students in your Department:

            A feature of Columbia’s Bicentennial celebration will be a Conference on National Policy for Economic Welfare at Home and Abroad, to be held May 27, 28 and 29.

            The final session of the Conference will take place in McMillin Theatre at 3:00 p.m. on Saturday, May 29. The session topic is “Economic Welfare in a Free Society”. The program is:

Session paper.

John M. Clark, John Bates Clark Professor. Emeritus of Economics, Columbia University.

Discussants:

Frank H. Knight, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago
David E. Lilienthal, Industrial Consultant and Executive
Wilhelm Roepke, Professor of International Economics, Graduate Institute of International Studies, University of Geneva

 

Students in the Faculty of Political Science are cordially invited to attend this session and to bring their wives or husbands and friends who may be interested.

Tickets can be secured from Miss Helen Harwell, 505 Fayer.

_____________________________

[REMARKS BY PROFESSOR ARTHUR ROBERT BURNS]

Department of Economics Bicentennial Luncheon
May 29th, 1954

President Kirk, Ladies and Gentlemen: On behalf of the Department of Economics I welcome you all to celebrate Columbia’s completion of its first two hundred years as one of the great universities. We are gratified that so many distinguished guests have come, some from afar, to participate in the Conference on National Policy for Economic Welfare at Home and Abroad. We accept their presence as testimony of their esteem for the place of Columbia in the world of scholarship. Also, we welcome among us again many of the intellectual offspring of the department. We like to believe that the department is among their warmer memories. We also greet most pleasurably some past members of the department, namely Professors Vladimir G. Simkhovitch, Eugene Agger, Eveline M. Burns and Rexford Tugwell. Finally, but not least, we are pleased to have with us the administrative staff of the department who are ceaselessly ground between the oddity and irascibility of the faculty and the personal and academic tribulations of the students. Gertrude D. Stewart who is here is evidence that this burden can be graciously carried for thirty-five years without loss of charm or cheer.

We are today concerned with the place of economics within the larger scope of Columbia University. When the bell tolls the passing of so long a period of intellectual endeavor one casts an appraising eye over the past, and I am impelled to say a few retrospective words about the faculty and the students. I have been greatly assisted in this direction by the researches of our colleague, Professor Dorfman, who has been probing into our past.

On the side of the faculty, there have been many changes, but there are also many continuities. First let me note some of the changes. As in Europe, economics made its way into the university through moral philosophy, and our College students were reading the works of Frances Hutcheson in 1763. But at the end of the 18th century, there seems to have been an atmosphere of unhurried certainty and comprehensiveness of view that has now passed away. For instance, it is difficult to imagine a colleague of today launching a work entitled “Natural Principles of Rectitude for the Conduct of Man in All States and Situations in Life Demonstrated and Explained in a Systematic Treatise on Moral Philosophy”. But one of early predecessors, Professor Gross, published such a work in 1795.

The field of professorial vision has also change. The professor Gross whom I have just mentioned occupied no narrow chair but what might better be called a sofa—that of “Moral Philosophy, German Language and Geography”. Professor McVickar, early in the nineteenth century, reclined on the even more generous sofa of “Moral and Intellectual Philosophy, Rhetoric, Belles Lettres and Political Economy”. By now, however, political economy at least existed officially and, in 1821, the College gave its undergraduates a parting touch of materialist sophistication in some twenty lectures on political economy during the last two months of their senior year.

But by the middle of the century, integration was giving way to specialization. McVickar’s sofa was cut into three parts, one of which was a still spacious chair of “History and Political Science”, into which Francis Lieber sank for a brief uneasy period. His successor, John W. Burgess, pushed specialization further. He asked for an assistant to take over the work in political economy. Moreover, his request was granted and Richmond Mayo Smith, then appointed, later became Professor of Political Economy, which, however, included Economics, Anthropology and Sociology. The staff of the department was doubled in 1885 by the appointment of E. R. A. Seligman to a three-year lectureship, and by 1891 he had become a professor of Political Economy and Finance. Subsequent fission has separated Sociology and Anthropology and now we are professors of economics, and the days when political economy was covered in twenty lectures seem long ago.

Other changes stand out in our history. The speed of promotion of the faculty has markedly slowed down. Richmond Mayo Smith started as an instructor in 1877 but was a professor after seven years of teaching at the age of 27. E. R. A. Seligman even speeded matters a little and became a professor after six years of teaching. But the University has since turned from this headlong progression to a more stately gait. One last change I mention for the benefit of President Kirk, although without expectation of warm appreciation from him. President Low paid J. B. Clark’s salary out of his own pocket for the first three years of the appointment.

I turn now to some of the continuities in the history of the department. Professor McVickar displayed a concern for public affairs that has continued since his time early in the nineteenth century. He was interested in the tariff and banking but, notably, also in what he called “economic convulsions”, a term aptly suggesting an economy afflicted with the “falling sickness”. Somewhat less than a century later the subject had been rechristened “business cycles” to remove some of the nastiness of the earlier name, and professor Wesley Mitchell was focusing attention on this same subject.

The Columbia department has also shown a persistent interest in economic measurement. Professor Lieber campaigned for a government statistical bureau in the middle of the 19th century and Richmond Mayo Smith continued this interest in statistics and in the Census. Henry L. Moore, who came to the department in 1902, promoted with great devotion Mathematical Economics and Statistics with particular reference to the statistical verification of theory. This interest in quantification remains vigorous among us.

There is also a long continuity in the department’s interest in the historical and institutional setting of economic problems and in their public policy aspect. E. R. A. Seligman did not introduce, but he emphasized this approach. He began teaching the History of Theory and proceeded to Railroad Problems and the Financial and Tariff History of the United States, and of course, Public Finance. John Bates Clark, who joined the department in 1895 to provide advanced training in economics to women who were excluded from the faculty of Political Science, became keenly interested in government policy towards monopolies and in the problem of war. Henry R. Seager, in 1902, brought his warm and genial personality to add to the empirical work in the department in labor and trust problems. Vladimir G. Simkhovitch began to teach economic history in 1905 at the same time pursuing many and varied other interests, and we greet him here today. And our lately deceased colleague, Robert Murray Haig, continued the work in Public Finance both as teacher and advisor to governments.

Lastly, among these continuities is an interest in theory. E. R. A. Seligman focused attention on the history of theory. John Bates Clark was an outstanding figure in the field too well known to all of us for it to be necessary to particularize as to his work. Wesley C. Mitchell developed his course on “Current Types of Economic Theory” after 1913 and continued to give it almost continuously until 1945. The Clark dynasty was continued when John Maurice Clark joined the department as research professor in 1926. He became emeritus in 1952, but fortunately he still teaches, and neither students nor faculty are denied the stimulation of his gentle inquiring mind. He was the first appointee to the John Bates Clark professorship in 1952 and succeeded Wesley Mitchell as the second recipient of the Francis A. Walker medal of the American Economic Association in the same year.

Much of this development of the department was guided by that gracious patriarch E. R. A. Seligman who was Executive Officer of the Department for about 30 years from 1901. With benign affection and pride he smiled upon his growing academic family creating a high standard of leadership for his successors. But the period of his tenure set too high a standard and executive Officers now come and go like fireflies emitting as many gleams of light as they can in but three years of service. Seligman and J. B. Clark actively participated in the formation of the American Economic Association in which J. B. Clark hoped to include “younger men who do not believe implicitly in laisser faire doctrines nor the use of the deductive method exclusively”.

Among other members of the department I must mention Eugene Agger, Edward Van Dyke Robinson, William E. Weld, and Rexford Tugwell, who were active in College teaching, and Alvin Johnson, Benjamin Anderson and Joseph Schumpeter, who were with the department for short periods. Discretion dictates that I list none of my contemporaries, but I leave them for such mention as subsequent speakers may care to make.

When one turns to the students who are responsible for so much of the history of the department, one is faced by an embarrassment of riches. Alexander Hamilton is one of the most distinguished political economists among the alumni of the College. Richard T. Ely was the first to achieve academic reputation. In the 1880’s, he was giving economics a more humane and historical flavor. Walter F. Wilcox, a student of Mayo Smith, obtained his Ph.D. in 1891 and contributed notably to statistical measurement after he became Chief Statistician of the Census in 1891, and we extend a special welcome to him here today. Herman Hollerith (Ph.D. 1890) contributed in another way to statistics by his development of tabulating machinery. Alvin Johnson was a student as well as teacher. It is recorded that he opened his paper on rent at J. B. Clark’s seminar with the characteristically wry comment that all the things worth saying about rent had been said by J. B. Clark and his own paper was concerned with “some of the other things”. Among other past students are W. Z. Ripley, B. M. Anderson, Willard Thorp, John Maurice Clark, Senator Paul Douglas, Henry Schultz and Simon Kuznets. The last of these we greet as the present President of the American Economic Association. But the list grows too long. It should include many more of those here present as well as many who are absent, but I am going to invite two past students and one present student to fill some of the gaps in my story of the department.

I have heard that a notorious American educator some years ago told the students at Commencement that he hoped he would never see them again. They were going out into the world with the clear minds and lofty ideals which were the gift of university life. Thenceforward they would be distorted by economic interest, political pressure, and family concerns and would never again be the same pellucid and beautiful beings as at that time. I confess that the thought is troubling. But in inviting our students back we have overcome our doubts and we now confidently call upon a few of them. The first of these is George W. Stocking who, after successfully defending a dissertation on “The Oil Industry and the Competitive System” in 1925, has continued to pursue his interest in competition and monopoly as you all know. He is now at Vanderbilt University.

The second of our offspring whom I will call upon is Paul Strayer. He is one of the best pre-war vintages—full bodied, if I may borrow from the jargon of the vintner without offense to our speaker. Or I might say fruity, but again not without danger of misunderstanding. Perhaps I had better leave him to speak for himself. Paul Strayer, now of Princeton University, graduated in 1939, having completed a dissertation on the painful topic of “The Taxation of Small Incomes”.

The third speaker is Rodney H. Mills, a contemporary student and past president of the Graduate Economics Students Association. He has not yet decided on his future presidencies, but we shall watch his career with warm interest. He has a past, not a pluperfect, but certainly a future. Just now, however, no distance lends enchantment to his view of the department. And I now call upon him to share his view with us.

So far we have been egocentric and appropriately so. But many other centres of economic learning are represented here, and among them the London School of Economics of which I am proud as my own Alma Mater. I now call upon Professor Lionel Robbins of Polecon (as it used sometimes to be known) to respond briefly on behalf of our guests at the Conference. His nature and significance are or shall I say, is, too well known to you to need elaboration.

[in pencil]
A.R. Burns

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection, Box 9, Folder “Bicentennial Celebration”.

_____________________________

[BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION FOR ARTHUR ROBERT BURNS]

 

BURNS, Arthur Robert, Columbia Univ., New York 27, N.Y. (1938) Columbia Univ., prof. of econ., teach., res.; b. 1895; B.Sc. (Econ.), 1920, Ph.D. (Econ.), 1926, London Sch. of Econ. Fields 5a, 3bc, 12b. Doc. dis. Money and monetary policy in early times (Kegan Paul Trench Trubner & Co., London, 1926). Pub. Decline of competition (McGraw-Hill 1936); Comparative economic organization (Prentice-Hall, 1955); Electric power and government policy (dir. of res.) (Twentieth Century Fund, 1948) . Res. General studies in economic development. Dir. Amer. Men of Sci., III, Dir. of Amer. Schol.

Source: Handbook of the American Economic Association, American Economic Review, Vol. 47, No. 4 (July, 1957), p. 40.

 

Obituary: “Arthur Robert Burns dies at 85; economics teacher at Columbia“, New York Times, January 22, 1981.

Image: Arthur Robert Burns.  Detail from a departmental photo dated “early 1930’s” in Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection, Box 9, Folder “Photos”.

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. James Buchanan’s Dissertation Outline, 1947

James McGill Buchanan, Jr.’s Ph.D. in economics at the University of Chicago was awarded in the summer quarter of 1948. The title of his dissertation was “Fiscal Equity in a Federal State”. From the Milton Friedman papers at the Hoover Institution we have the following transcription of the mimeographed dissertation outline submitted by Buchanan that was discussed in the economics department faculty meeting of October 24, 1947. The agenda of that faculty meeting along with Milton Friedman’s handwritten additions (in square brackets) are included at the end of this posting. The procedure for admission to Ph.D, candidacy is described in a 1949 memo written by Milton Friedman to members of the Department’s Ph.D. Thesis Committee.

_____________________________________

If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled. You can subscribe to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror below. There is also an opportunity for comment following each posting….

_____________________________________

 

2. Present Procedure
[1949, University of Chicago, Economics]

a. Admission to candidacy. As I understand it, we have no very formalized procedure or requirements. Students typically discuss possible thesis topics with one or more faculty members, construct outlines of the projected thesis, ordinarily get the reaction of one or more faculty members to it, revise it accordingly, and then formally submit the thesis topic and outline to the Department for approval and admission to candidacy. The submitted outline is occasionally extremely detailed, occasionally very general, and is sometimes accompanied by a general statement of objective and purpose, sources of material for the thesis, etc.

[…]

Source: Undated memo (early 1949) written by Milton Friedman to members of the Committee on Ph.D. Thesis Outlines and Requirements from Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers, Box 79, Folder 5 “University of Chicago Minutes, Ph.D. Thesis Committee”.

_____________________________________

Dissertation Outline, James M. Buchanan, October 1947

J. M. Buchanan

EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS IN INTERGOVERNMENTAL FISCAL ADJUSTMENT

I. The Problem —

A. The federal political structure

1. Federalism in political theory. Varying degrees of dual sovereignty. The question of the finality of a federal structure. Is it a final point in political organization or merely a stage in an evolutionary process?

2. The historical development of federalism in the United States. Trends toward centralization and opposing tendencies. The expanding role of government on the whole. The expanding sphere of activity of the central as opposed to subordinate units. Projection of future trends.

3. The case for federalism as a permanent political structure in the United States. Its value as a means of a division of power, as a protection against a tyranny of the majority, etc.

4. Statement of viewpoint on federalism taken in this study.

B. The national economy —

1. The historical development of the expanding scope of the economy. The extension of the market, the trend toward economic centralization, in the sense that the nation has become the unit which defines the area of the allocation of resources.

2. The extent to which the economy is national — increasing specialization, increased resource mobility, etc.

C. Conflicts which arise in the financing of government due to the superimposition of a federated political structure on a national economy.

1. The heterogeneity of the subordinate units of government. Resource heterogeneity. Cultural, social differences. Income disparities leading to differentials in tax burdens and service standards. The basic fiscal inequity inherent in such a structure.

II.            A Theoretical Solution –

A. What is fiscal equity in such a structure?

1. Definition and limitation. For present purposes concept narrowed to that of “equal treatment for equals and unequal treatment for unequals”. Abstraction from any attempt to determine equity as between unequals since such a concept not needed for problems considered.

B. Application of the concept —

1. Necessity of benefit calculation for any determination of equity among individuals in separate subordinate governmental units. Difficulties in benefit calculation, aside from special cases. Assumption of per capita general expenditure as best measure of benefit.

2. Definition of the “fiscal residuum” or “net tax” – Net value of services available less net value of taxes paid. Considerations of “government” as the total of all layers in structure, federal, state, and local.

C. Arithmetical Examples –

Examples illustrating possible application of the equity criteria in hypothetical cases. Illustration that “equal treatment for equals and unequal treatment for unequals” will impose geographical financial neutrality upon the individual.

III.           A study of Comparative Fiscal Treatment of Similarly Situated Individuals in High Income and Low Income States –

A. Selection of states considered – one with high per capita income, one with low. (Tentatively have selected New York and Mississippi.)

B. Assumptions and abstractions –

1. Assumption of the State-Local fiscal problem as solved or non-existent. Application of criterion to 2-level structure only. State-local considered as one unit. Seek only interstate differentials, not intrastate here.

2. Assumption of money income as measure of economic position. Abstraction from non-pecuniary advantages of geographical location. Individuals considered in similar economic circumstances if money income, pproperty value, same. Physical property same. Family obligations same.

C. Selection of hypothetical individuals to be compared. Determination of income ranges to be covered.

D.            Expenditure pattern of individuals considered.

1. Proportion of income saved, spent at various income levels.

2. Distribution of expenditure at various income levels.

3. Property holdings at different income levels.

E. Determination of tax burdens of individuals considered.

1. Examination of tax structures of states in question.

2. Assumptions as to final incidence of state taxes. More than one set of assumptions can be made and results collocated.

3. Tax burden of hypothetical individuals in each income group in each state can be determined by application of assumptions as to incidence to expenditure patterns.

4. Indication that validity of the study does not depend upon validity of the assumptions as to incidence since no attempt is made to compare dissimilarly situated individuals. (Such a comparison will necessarily show in the computation, however, and for this reason the assumptions should be as realistic as possible.)

F. Determination of value of benefits of government service provided —

1. Necessity to use per capita general expenditure as best benefit measure.

2. Use of value input only not value output. Value output will differ as administrative efficiency of state varies.

G. Calculation of fiscal residua of similarly situated individuals considered —

1. Possibility of abstracting from federal taxes and expenditures since similarly situated individuals supposedly treated similarly by federal government.

H.            Calculation of the interstate differential in fiscal residua of the hypothetical similarly situated individuals considered.

IV.           Existing and proposed attempts at solution.

A. Vertical Integration

1. Examination of the various proposals made to integrate and unify the whole financial structure; plans for realignment of functions, central collection, local administration, complete centralization, etc.

B. Horizontal Integration and Coordination –

1. Readjustment of geographical boundaries, consolidation of non-efficient units. The “regionalism” approach.

C. The grant-in-aid as the adjusting device.

1. The existing structure of grants-in-aid in the United States – a short summary of the more prominent characteristics of the system.

2. Proposals for extension of the system –

a.            Further use of the conditional grant

(1)  Merits of the conditional grant

(2)  Drawbacks

(a)  Effects on budgetary independence of subordinate units.

(b) Central direction and interference.

b.            The concept of a “minimum standard”

(1)  Idea of the “national interest”

(2)  Attempts at defining “minimum standards”

(3)  Violation of equity criteria

(4)  Federal assumption of a function.

D.            Realistic Appraisal of Various Proposals from Standpoint of Political and Administrative Feasibility.

V.            Policy Implications of the Criterion of Equity Proposed in this study.

A. The practicability of direct application.

1. Difficulty of measurement

2. Political and administrative barriers.

B. Effect of the Acceptance of the Theoretical Validity of the Criterion upon Practical Policy.

1. Early elimination of matching requirements in grant-in-aid distribution.

2. Early abandonment of the concept of “minimum standards”.

3. Broadening of purpose for which grants are made.

4. Further extension of so-called “equalization” grants.

5. Elimination of the idea of “charity” in intergovernmental fiscal adjustment.

6. Greater federal reliance on the income tax as a source of revenue.

C. The proposals of the Canadian Royal Commission and Possible Application of Similar Proposals to the United States.

VI.           Possible Objections to the Equity Criterion Proposed and its Policy Implications.

A. Theoretical Objections

1. The central government as the adjusting unit.

2. The inclusion of fiscal treatment by government in the criteria for the optimum allocation of resources.

3. The nation as the economic unit.

B. Administrative Objections.

1. Violation of principle of fiscal responsibility.

VII.          Conclusion.

____________________________

 

Department of Economics
AGENDA
Friday, October 24, 1947, at 3:30 p.m. in SS424

I. Students’ Business

A. Admission to Candidacy for the Ph.D. Degree

James M. Buchanan

Subject: Equity Considerations in Intergovernmental Fiscal Adjustment.
Field: Government Finance
Committee: [Blough, chairman, Perloff, Knight]

Henry Woldon Hewetson

Subject: An Examination of the Distance Principle of Railway Freight rate making with references to Canadian Conditions.
Field: [Transportation]
Committee: [Sorrell, Koopmans, Friedman]

[Inserted:

Harriett D. Hudson.

Progressive Mine Workers of America
Committee: Douglas, ch; Nef; (illegible name) Lewis]

Norman Maurice Kaplan

Subject: Models for Socialist Economic Planning
Field:
Committee: [Marschak, ch.; ch. Harris; A. P. Lerner; Friedman

Raymond H. McEvoy

Subject: Effects of Federal Reserve Policies, 1929-36
Field: Money, Banking, and Monetary Policy
Committee: [Mints, Hamilton, Metzler]

Wallace E. Ogg

Subject: A Study of Maladjustment of Resources in Southern Iowa
Field: Agricultural Economics
Committee: [Johnson, Hardin (pol sci), Lewis]

B. Admission to candidacy for the Alternative Master’s Degree (without thesis.)

Raymond H. McEvoy

C. Admission to candidacy for the Regular Master’s Degree

Peter Senn

Subject: Federal subsidization of the Banks
Field:
Committee:

D. Petitions

Guy Black—for permission to substitute work in Mathematics for the regular requirement of a second foreign language.

Keith O. Campbell—for approval to take Political Science as one of the fields for the Ph.D. Degree.

Gershon Cooper—to substitute the following courses in math. for the German language requirement for the Ph.D. Degree: Mathematics 216, 220, and 228.

Bernard Gordon—to substitute a mathematical sequence of Calculus I and Calculus II in place of one of the language requirements for the Ph.D. Degree.

Dale A. Knight—to use Political science as one field for the Ph.D. Degree.

Chih-wei Lee—to take English as the second language.

[John K. Lewis]

II. Encyclopedia Britannica Economic Articles

III. Language requirements for Foreign students.

IV. Report of Master’s Degree Committee, Spring and Summer, 1947

V. New Business

 

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers. Box 79, Folder “79.1 University of Chicago Minutes Economics Department 1946-1949”.

Image Source: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Biography of James M. Buchanan.

 

Categories
Economists

Amherst. Charles W. Cobb and Paul H. Douglas, 1926

Speaking of the Cobb-Douglas production function…   In preparing the previous posting on Paul H. Douglas’ honors section of introductory economics at Amherst in 1925, I thought of searching for an internet copy of the Amherst College yearbook, The Olio, for that year and thanks to the Digital Collections folks at the Amherst College Archive, I was able not only to get a picture of Paul H. Douglas but even a portrait of his colleague Professor Charles W. Cobb. So here we have side-by-side Cobb and Douglas during their Amherst years together. This and the following image along with some biographical information (from the 1925 Olio, p. 29) are the only images of Cobb I was able to find on the internet (I admit, I did not look for more at the Olio collection for other years).

 

1925Olio_Amherst_CobbCharlesW_p29

 

 

Image Source: Amherst College, Digital Collections. Olio 1926: Charles W. Cobb on p. 34; Paul H. Douglas on p. 36.

Categories
Chicago Courses Suggested Reading Syllabus

Amherst. Honors Section of Introductory Economics. Paul H. Douglas, 1925

Paul H. Douglas left the University of Chicago to take a job at Amherst in the mid-1920s because his wife Dorothy was unable to get a job at the University of Chicago due to nepotism rules of that time and she found a job for herself at Smith College in Massachusetts. There he began his collaboration with the mathematician Charles Wiggins Cobb that resulted in the statistical fitting of the specification of the production function now named after them. See Cobb and Douglas,  “A Theory of Production”, AER 1920.

 I found the following carbon copy of the report Douglas wrote about his pedagogic experiment with an honors section of introductory economics at Amherst during the second semester of the 1924-25 academic year in the papers of the head of the economics department at the University of Chicago in 1925. Besides the reading list of supplemental reading for his honors section, Douglas includes “teaching evaluations” written by the students.

 _______________________________________

The University of Chicago
The School of Commerce and Administration

September 26, 1925

 

Professor L. C. Marshall
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Professor Marshall:

I am enclosing a report of the Honors Section which I conducted in Economics I last year, which you may find of interest, even at this late date.

Faithfully yours,
[signed]
Paul H. Douglas

PHD:EPR

 

_______________________________________

Amherst, Mass.
June 18, 1925

 

Report to the President and the Instruction Committee of Amherst College on the Special Honors Section given in Economics I during the year 1924-1925.

I. Composition of Group

With the consent of the President and the Dean, the Special Honors Section was set up in Economics I immediately after New Years 1925. The first men invited to join were Messrs. W. B. Carter, Jr. [William Harrison Carter, Jr. (Class of 1926) from Woodhaven, N.Y.], Sperry Butler [Sperry Butler (Class of 1926) from Hubbard Woods, Illinois], O. R. Pilat [Oliver Ramsey Pilat (Class of 1926) from New York, N.Y.], M. O. Damon [Mason Orne Damon (Class of 1926) from Ft. Dodge, Iowa], W. J. Kyle [William Joseph Kyle, Jr. (Class of 1926) from Waynesburg, Pennsylvania], and E. S. Nole [sic. Everett Stearns Noble (Class of 1926) from Coconut Grove, Florida]; these men were all on the Dean’s List. A few weeks later Douglas Tomkins [Douglas Tomkins (Class of 1926) from Brooklyn, N.Y.] was added with the approval of the Dean. These men were excused from attending the regular class exercises and met one evening a week in the Economic Seminar room with the instructor. These sessions ranged from two to three and one-half hours in length.

 

II. Work Covered

The group read the text used by the ordinary section in the course, namely, Taussig’s Principles of Economics, 2 volumes, but the chief reading was done in additional assignments amounting on the whole to approximately one book a week. These other readings were in the main the cream of the literature on the economic topics considered. The list of supplementary reading covered was as follows:

First week Bagehot, “Lombard Street;” Kemmerer, “The A B C of the Federal Reserve System.”
Second Week Selected chapters from Mitchell, “Business Cycles.”
Third Week Fisher, “Stabilizing the Dollar;” Keynes, “A Tract on Monetary Reform.”
Fourth Week One of the following: Withers, “Money Changing;” Clare, “A B C of Foreign Exchange;” Cross, “Domestic and Foreign Exchange: Theory and Practice.”
Fifth Week Viner, “Dumping;” and discussion of text of McNary-Haugen Bill
[JPE 1922, part I, JPE 1922, part II]
Sixth Week Adam Smith, “Wealth of Nations,” Book IV, Chapter 2.
Seventh Week Taussig, “Some Aspects of the Tariff Problem” Chapter I or II, and “Tariff, Free Trade, and Reciprocity.”
Eighth Week Wolfe, “[Savers’] Surplus and the Interest Rate,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 1920; Selected Chapters from Clark, “Distribution of Wealth.”
Ninth Week Hobson, “Economics of Unemployment.”
Tenth Week Ricardo. “Principles of Political Economy,” Chapter 2.
Selected Chapters from Henry George, “Progress and Poverty.”
Eleventh Week Adam Smith on Differences in Wages, Book I, Chapter 10, part 1.
Twelfth Week The Basic Rate of Wages; Selected chapters from Clark, “Distribution of Wealth.”
Thirteenth Week Population—Malthus, “Essay on Principle of Population. Comparative chapters from the 1st and 2nd editions. [first edition, sixth edition]
Also one of the following: Carr-Saunders, “The Population Problem,” or J. R. Smith, “The World’s Food Resources.”
Fourteenth Week Profits—Either Hardy, “Risk and Risk Bearing,” or Knight, “Risk, Uncertainty and Profit.”
Fifteenth Week Mitchell, King and Knauth; “Incomes in the United States.” [Vol. I Summary] [Vol. II Detailed Report]
Sixteenth Week (1) Webb, “Industrial Democracy.” Chapter on “Higgling on the Market;” and (2) Fitch, “Causes of Industrial Unrest;” or Hoxie “Trade Unionism in the United States.”
Seventeenth Week Douglas, “Wages and the Family.”
Eighteenth Week Ripley, “Railway Problems, “ 1st volume; or Acworth, “Elements of Railway Economics.”
Nineteenth Week Either Haney, “Business Organization and Combination,” or Jones, “The Trust Problem.”
Twentieth Week Selected Chapters from Seligman, “Essays in Taxation.”

The members of the group seemed to read virtually all the assignments and to canvas the field thoroughly.

 

III. Personal Appraisal of Work

Personally I was very much pleased with the results of the work. The group seemed to me to cover several times as much ground as the men in the three ordinary sections of the class; and the work was much more thoroughly treated than it would have been had they been compelled to move in the lock-step of the ordinary sections. As a by-product of the work one of the men, Mr. Butler, worked out an algebraic statement of the Ricardian Theory of Distribution; to my knowledge, this has never before been done in the literature of Economics. In conjunction with Mr. Carter, he also worked out a graph of various elasticities of demand representing them on both an absolute and logarithmic scale. The group as a whole did brilliant work on the final examination which was fare more severe than that given to the rest of the class. Four men secured a grade of ninety-five or better, even with the stringent marking that I applied. Two of the men received low nineties, one of these men having been handicapped by illness. The seventh member, who was the weakest person in the group passed the final with only a grade of 78.

 

IV. Appraisal by Members of the Class

I asked the various members of the class to give me their criticisms of the work done and I am attaching those written statements.

 

Question One: Have you enjoyed meeting with the group more than you did as a member of an ordinary section? Do you think you have gained a greater knowledge of economics as a result?

“Meeting in the smaller section has been far more enjoyable than the regular class, and I believe that I have gained a greater knowledge of economics as a result. I believe that being able to talk freely with the instructor and members of a small group such as ours gives a student a chance not only to clarify himself on doubtful points, but to get the opinion of others on topics in which he is especially interested. This is impossible in the large classes, where discussion has to be conducted for the benefit of the whole section.
“Moreover, the longer classes must necessarily be retarded, by their very size, and by the fact that the class as a whole can go no faster (that is, cover no more ground) than the least capable or least industrious members. I think this is often a cause for lack of interest among the men who are able to do advanced work.”

“I have not only enjoyed meeting with the group more than the regular classes, but feel that I have derived greater benefit thereby.”

“I am very glad to have an opportunity to express myself on the matter of the honors section in Economics 1. I feel that it has been the most instructive and interesting course that I have taken at Amherst. In the first place, the group has been small enough so that each of us could have the difficulties which he encountered, explained and discussed by the remainder of the group. Then too, the group was not only small, but uniform, so that it was unnecessary for some members to be held back by other slower members, as is the case in the ordinary section. Undoubtedly we have covered more ground, and covered it more thoroughly, than we could have in the regular class.”

“My time in the honor section has been more thoroughly utilized and consequently more enjoyable than in the regular class. I feel certain that I have learned more economics, as a result.”

“The answer is emphatically yes—both in knowledge and enjoyment the honors section has far surpassed the ordinary class meeting-to this I attribute the attitude of the instructor which I think in any such course must be decisive.”

“I feel sure that as a result of the meetings with the group I have gained a much clearer and more comprehensive knowledge of Economics. This was the result partly of the discussions on the various topics and partly of a heightened interest in the course. A true interest in the subject was aroused which is impossible in the regular class meetings.”

“That I have enjoyed meeting with the group more than with the ordinary section is beyond question. Being an ardent advocate of the honors system I am delighted to find it as agreeable and valuable in practice as in theory. Before this morning (the time of the examination) I was a bit doubtful whether I actually knew more economics than if I had stayed in the regular section. While there were parts of the examination which were very complicated, I didn’t once feel that I was completely at a loss although I am aware of mistakes I may have made. As to the factual knowledge of the course I believe that probably exact definitions and the details of various parts may at this moment be better known by those in the regular division, although I would wager I have a better grasp of the fundamentals, and a clearer idea of the relation of the various factors than most of the regular members. Moreover I believe they will stick whereas the definitions and details will quickly fade from the memories of those who did not have the opportunity to tie up these principles by their application to present day conditions as we did. Therefore I feel that I know more real economics than I would have otherwise.”

 

Question Two: What is the relative amount of work which you have done in the honors section as compared with that which you did before you entered it?

“It was necessary to do more work in the honor section, for the reasons which are stated in the answer to question one. Also, there is considerable of the element of pride involved; I found that if I didn’t know a thing that others members of the section did, I was, ashamed of myself. Then, too, the honor section, with its freedom of discussion, is conducive to thinking, which is, after all, rather rare among Amherst students. More men in regular classes drop the subject as soon as they have left the class room. I believe that a little thought is particularly valuable in economics, for after the principles are grasped, a little consideration permits them to be developed and applied. I consider this “studying” of a sort more valuable than the perusal of textbooks, though the latter is essential to the former.”

“I have done considerably more reading after having been placed in the group division.”

“I have certainly done more work than I did in the regular section. Since we have not been forced to follow a fixed plan or outline of work, many interesting topics have come up which would have passed by otherwise. In general I have done the work assigned to the regular class plus reading in at least one other book. Since all the members of the group have been able to cover more work than is give, or could be given, in the ordinary section, we have been able to talk over more different books and points of view, than we could have in the regular section where the discussion, to benefit the class as a whole, must necessarily be limited by the reading capacity of the slower members. As the work has been more interesting, the extra time required has been no hardship, but has seemed to be especially remunerative.”

“I have spent from one to two additional hours a week for this section.”

“In actual time I have not done much more; but the type of work has been of a decidedly different character. Instead of rather automatic memorizing has come a feeling that this thing must be thought out independently. This sounds platitudinous, but it is true.”

“The amount of work I did in preparation for the group meetings was considerably greater than that done for the regular class meetings at the beginning of the year.”

“I have generally spent all of Monday afternoon and frequently other hours on the seminar work. This is somewhat in excess of the time needed for the regular class work.”

Question Three: As the work was given out, did it seem excessive or could more have been done conveniently?

“I could have conveniently done more work than was assigned though the hour of the section was not the best possible for me.”

“The work as assigned did not seem excessive.”

“The work did not seem excessive. Except that my schedule was unusually heavy this year, I could readily have done more.”

“The assignments seem well-proportioned. I do not think more would be advisable, however.”

“The work as assigned did at times seem excessive—at least to do thoroughly–, but this was seldom the case.”

“In general the work was not excessive usually being of an elastic nature above a certain minimum. I do not think that under our present system of college education in which every man who is at all able is expected to enter a host of student activities, I could have conveniently put in more time on the work. There were occasions when I did more and others when I did less than the average above mentioned, as the pressure of work in activities varied.”

 

Question Four: Would you favor the continuance of an honors section and if so what suggestions would you have for the improvement of the work?

“I am strongly in favor of a continuance of this system. It enables men who can and will do work that is more advanced to free themselves from the handicaps mentioned in the answer to question one. It certainly deserves a further trial, at least.”

“I am very strongly in favor of the continuance of such honor sections. We were able to pass over hurriedly some of the more elemental and obvious material, and as a result had more time for the discussion of the complex and deeper questions. A greater interest in the material discussed was aroused, with me at least, because of the removal of the drive and compulsion of the ordinary class-room.”

“I should favor strongly the continuance of an honors section, altho I realize it means much extra work for some member of the Faculty. It seems to me that such a group should not have more that eight members and that these members should not be picked before the middle of the first term. I can offer no suggestions for the improvement of the work. But I believe that this plan has not only benefitted the members of the honors section, but all the members of the ordinary section.”

“I am heartily in favor of an honors section.
“Perhaps the work might be improved by further splitting of the topics studied, allowing each student to specialize on one phase. I feel a general lack, in all my courses, of definite and exact knowledge. I think that possibly more thorough study is a limited field supplemented by well-informed discussion from several points of view would help to clarify my all too vague impressions.”

“Yes!! By all means. Caution: No more than approximately those present now should be admitted in any such section.
“The men must be genuinely interested—not those looking for escape from work—for this reason the selection of the group might well be made on the basis of the first term’s work as at present.
“I like the idea of one man leading the section each week—with a paper preferably which takes a definite stand. This ought to encourage discussion, and occasionally, controversy.”

“Yes, I would favor the continuance of such sections in Economics and other subjects also. I feel that I have derived more enjoyment and more value out of the meetings with the group than I have in any other course I have taken in college.”

“I would most certainly favor the continuance of an honors section in this,–and the introduction of the plan in other courses where the material admitted of treatment of this type. I think each group should be chosen by the professor from his regular group on the combined basis of marks, interest and ability. There are other courses in Amherst where the drag of the work due to the time necessary to explain and re-explain various fundamental phases of the work is even more noticeable than in the regular sections of the economics class. Could those who were fortunate enough to be able to go ahead without this repetition, be placed in a special section similar to our honors group, I feel sure they at least would find their college work vastly more inspiring and helpful.

“There is one suggestion I should like to make which I think might add somewhat to the value of such work. It is that any such group should carry on some definite piece of constructive investigation along the line of the course which appears most interesting to them. Each might contribute a paper or all work together under the direction of the professor on such a research. I believe it would serve to centralize much of the other work done. This might be done by the devotion of an occasional meeting to gathering together such special work at various stages in its progress. Otherwise I see very little which could be desired more than we have had this year.”

_______________________________________

From the Amherst College Catalog 1924/1925

Economics 1. Principles of economics. The present industrial system with special reference to American conditions. A study of the development of the main features of present industrial society, value and distribution and a number of modern social problems.

Elective for Juniors.

  1. Mon., Tu., Wed., 2.00, Chapel 5.
  2. Mon., Tu., 8.35, Thu., 9.30, Chapel 4.
  3. Wed., Sat., 9.30, Fri., 3.00, Chapel 5.

Professor Douglas and Mr. Taylor. [George Rogers Taylor, Ph.D., Instructor in Economics and Political Science]

_______________________________________

 

Sources:

The University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics. Records. Box 6, Folder 7.
Amherst College Catalog 1924/25, p. 33, 81, 147ff.

 

Image Source: Amherst College. Olio 1926, p. 36.

Categories
Chicago Curriculum Fields

Chicago. Advanced General Survey Courses in Economics. Memo, 1926

The memo of this posting was written by the head of the Chicago department of economics, Leon Carroll Marshall. I have chosen this to begin a category “Fields”. The groups named below were tasked with preparing bibliographies, not for use in the survey courses, but to make explicit the level of preparation expected of students in those courses. Cox and Mints by the following summer apparently established “Money and banking” as a field distinct from business finance (a memo in the same folder dated August 9, 1927).  It is also interesting to note that Marshall seems to have thought it important to pair economics and business in as many fields as he could.

______________________

November 30, 1926

Memorandum from L. C. Marshall to All Persons Mentioned Herein:

The problem attacked in this memorandum is that of carrying through effectively our arrangements with respect to our advanced general survey courses—courses that in the past we have sometimes referred to as “Introduction to the Graduate Study of X,” although we are not now following this terminology.

The following background facts will need to be kept in mind:

  1. We are to have introductory point of view courses designed to give an organic view of the Economic Order. These courses are numbered 102, 103, 104.
  2. Our next range of courses is designed primarily to deal with method. This range includes: 1. Economic History; 2. Statistics; 3. Accounting; 4. Intermediate Theory.
  3. The foregoing seven courses are the only courses for which we assume responsibility as far as the ordinary [Arts and Literature] undergraduate is concerned. It may well be that from time to time some member of the staff will be interested in giving for undergraduates a course on some live problem of the day, but this is an exceptional matter and not a matter of our standard arrangement.
  4. Our best undergraduates may move on to the type of courses referred to above in the first paragraph, such as courses 330, 340, 335, 345, etc. In general the prerequisites for admission to these courses (as far a undergraduates are concerned) would be a certain number of majors in our work plus 27 majors with an average of B. Under the regulations which the Graduate Faculty has laid down, students who have less than 27 majors could not be admitted to these courses except with the consent of the group and Dean Laing.

 

It is highly essential that our work in these advanced survey courses such as 330, 340, 335, 345, etc. shall:

  1. Really assume the method courses mentioned above: really be conducted at a level which assumes that the student possesses certain techniques.
  2. Really assume an adequate background of subject-matter content.

 

Will the person whose name is underscored in each group undertake (as promptly as reasonably may be) the responsibility of conducting conferences designed

  1. To lead to explicit definite arrangements looking toward the actual utilization of the earlier method courses in these advance survey courses
  2. To prepare a bibliography that can be mimeographed and placed in each student’s hands who enters one of these advanced survey courses. This bibliography is not to be a bibliography of the course (that is a separate matter) but a bibliography of what is assumed by way of preparation for the course. Whether a somewhat different bibliography should be made for the Economics course and the Business course in a given field is left for each group to discuss. Personally I hope that it will be a single bibliography for the two. Mr. Palyi suggests the desirability of a bibliographical article (worthy of publication) for each field. This seems to me an admirable suggestion—one difficult to resist.

 

Will each leader of the group referred to below please put the outcome of your discussion in writing and send to the undersigned? It is to be hoped that you will find other matters to report upon in addition to the foregoing.

GROUPS

  1. The Financial System and Financial Administration

Meech, Mints, Cox, Palyi

  1. Labor and Personnel Administration

Douglas, Millis, Stone, Kornhauser

  1. The Market and the Administration of Marketing

Palmer, Duddy, Barnes, Dinsmore

  1. Risk and Its Administration

Nerlove, Cox, Millis, Mints

  1. Transportation, Communication and Traffic Administration

Sorrell, Wright, Duddy, Douglas

  1. Government Finance

Viner, Millis, Douglas, Stone

  1. Population and the Standard of Living

Kyrk, Douglas, Viner

  1. Resources, Technology and the Administration of Production

Mitchell, Daines, McKinsey

 

The following fields are not included in this memorandum either because of specific course prerequisites or because of obvious difficulties in the case:

  1. Economic Theory and Principles of Administration
  2. Statistics and Accounting
  3. Economic History and Historical Method
  4. Social Direction and Control of Economic Activity.

 

Source: University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics, Records. Box 22, Folder 6.

Image Source: Leon Carroll Marshall. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-04114, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Chicago Columbia Cornell Harvard Johns Hopkins Michigan Pennsylvania

Top Eleven Economics PhD Programs in US, 1934

A listing of 22 U.S. graduate programs in economics judged by majority vote of a jury of 54 individuals (identified by name) to be adequately staffed and equipped for work leading to the doctorate in Economics. Eleven of those programs were designated to be “distinguished”.

________________________________

Excerpt from:

American Council on Education.
Report of Committee on Graduate Instruction.
Washington, D. C., April 1934.

…In preparing a list of graduate schools the following procedure was followed:

  1. A list of 50 fields of knowledge in which it seemed possible to study the graduate work was prepared. The study as concluded covered only 35 fields.
  2. A list of the 50 fields was sent to the Dean of the graduate school of every institution known to be offering work for the doctorate. The Dean was requested to check the fields in which graduate work for the doctorate was offered, to indicate the number of doctorates conferred in the last 5 years, and to submit a list of the graduate faculty in each field. The responses of the deans varied in accuracy and comprehensiveness.
  3. From the reports of the deans, supplemented by study of catalogs, lists of institutions offering graduate work for the doctorate in each field, were prepared, complete so far as our information went.
  4. The secretary of the national learned society in each field was requested to provide a list of 100 well-known scholars distributed, as far as possible, among the various special branches of the field.
  5. To each of these scholars was sent a list of all the institutions offering work for the doctorate in the field with their respective graduate staffs in the field. Each scholar was requested to check those institutions which in his judgment had an adequate staff and equipment to prepare candidates for the doctorate; and to star the departments of the highest rank, roughly the highest 20 per cent.
  6. The returns from these scholars were summarized, and those institutions accorded a star by the majority voting were placed in the starred group; those checked by a majority, but failing of a majority of stars, were placed in the group of those adequately staffed and equipped….

…Many votes on departments came in too late for inclusion in tabulations.

[…]

ECONOMICS
100 ballots sent out.
61 returns; majority, 31 votes.
535 doctorates were conferred in the period 1928-1932: 53 institutions offered work for doctorate.

Composite ratings were made from reports of the following persons: James W. Angell, George E. Barnett, J. W. Bell, A. B. Berglund, Roy G. Blakey, E. L. Bogart, O. F. Bouche, F. A. Bradford, T. N. Carver, J. M. Clark, Clive Day, F. S. Deibler, Paul Douglas, F. A. Fetter, Irving Fisher, F. B. Garver, Carter Goodrich, C. E. Griffin, M. B. Hammond, Alvin Hansen, C. D. Hardy, B. H. Hibbard, H. E. Hoagland, Grover G. Huebner, John Ise, Jens Jensen, Eliot Jones, Edwin Kemmerer, James E. LeRossingnol, H. L. Lutz, David McCabe, H. A. Millis, Broadus Mitchell, Wesley C. Mitchell, H. G. Moulton, C. T. Murchison, E. G. Nourse, E. M. Patterson, Carl Plohn, C. O. Ruggles, W. A. Scott, Horace Secrist, S. H. Slichter, T. R. Snavely, W. E. Spahr, R. A. Stevenson, G. W. Stocking, Frank P. Stockton, H. C. Taylor, Jesse Tullock, Francis Tyson, Jacob Viner, G. S. Watkins, A. B. Wolfe.

The jury named above has by a majority vote approved the following institutions as adequately staffed and equipped for work leading to the doctorate in Economics, starring which it considers most distinguished:

Brown University

*

 University of Chicago

*

 Columbia University University of Illinois

*

 Cornell University University of Iowa

*

 Harvard University—Radcliffe College

*

 University of Michigan
Johns Hopkins University

*

 University of Minnesota
New York University University of Missouri
Northwestern University

*

 University of Pennsylvania
Ohio State University University of Texas

*

 Princeton University University of Virginia
Stanford University

*

 University of Wisconsin

*

 University of California

*

 Yale University

[…]

 

Source: Columbia University Rare Book & Manuscript Library. William Vickrey Papers, Box 35, Folder “510.7/1934/Am3”.

Categories
Chicago Columbia Economists Transcript

Milton Friedman’s Coursework in Economics, Statistics and Mathematics

Before Milton Friedman could be a teacher of economics, he was of course the student of many teachers. This list of his relevant coursework and teachers is complete. I merely add here that his transcript also shows three semesters of college French and four semesters of college German and that he entered Rutgers with advanced credits in French.

Rutgers University
University of Chicago
Columbia University
Dept. of Agriculture Graduate School

Rutgers University (1928-32)

Principles of Economics E. E. Agger 1929-30
Money and Banking E. E. Agger 1930-31
Statistical Methods Homer Jones 1930-31
Business Cycles Arthur F. Burns 1931-32
Economic Research Ivan V. Emelianoff 1931-32
Principles of Insurance Homer Jones 1931-32
College Algebra 1928-29, 1st term
Analytical Geometry 1928-29, 2nd term
Calculus 1929-30
Advanced Calculus 1930-31
Theory of Numbers 1929-30, 2nd term
Theory of Equations 1930-31, 1st term
Differential Equations 1930-31, 2nd term
Analysis 1931-32
Elliptic Integrals 1931-32, 2nd term

 

University of Chicago (1932-33, 1934-35)

Econ 301 Prices and Distribution Theory Jacob Viner Autumn Quarter 1932
Econ 302 History of Economic Thought Frank H. Knight Winter Quarter 1933
Econ 303 Modern Tendencies in Economics Jacob Viner Spring Quarter 1933
Econ 311 Correlation and Curve Fitting Henry Schultz Winter Quarter 1933
Econ 312 Statistical Graphics Henry Schultz Spring Quarter 1933
Econ 330 Graduate Study of Money and Banking Lloyd W. Mints Autumn Quarter 1932
Econ 370 International Trade and Finance Jacob Viner Winter Quarter 1933
Econ 220 Economic History of the United States, not taken for credit Chester Wright Winter Quarter 1935
Econ 220 Economic History of Europe, not taken for credit John U. Nef Autumn Quarter 1934
Labor (visited) Paul H. Douglas  1934-35
Theory of Demand (visited) Henry Schultz  1934-35
Math 306 Introduction to Higher Algebra  E. Dickson Autumn Quarter 1932
Math 341 Calculus of Variations  G. Bliss Autumn Quarter 1932
Math 324 Theory of Algebraic Numbers  A. Albert Winter Quarter 1933
Math 310 Functions of a Complex Variable (not taken for credit) L. M. Graves

 Master’s thesis: An empirical study of the relationship between railroad stock prices and railroad earnings for the period 1921-31.

 

Columbia University (1933-34)

Stat 111-12 Statistical Inference Harold Hotelling Winter/Spring semesters
Econ 117-18 Mathematical Economics Harold Hotelling Winter/Spring semesters
Econ 119 Economic History V. G. Simkhovitch Winter semester
Econ 128 Currency and Credit James W. Angell Spring semester
Econ 211-12 Business Cycles Wesley Claire Mitchell Winter/Spring semesters
Econ 315-16 Economic Theory Seminar John M. Clark, James W. Angell, and Wesley C. Mitchell Winter/Spring semesters
Social Economics (visited) J. M. Clark
Labor (visited) Leo Wolman
Theory (visited) R. W. Souter

 

Department of Agriculture Graduate School (1936-37)

Statistics 17-18 Adjustment of Observations

Source: Assembled from transcripts and course lists kept by Milton Friedman. Hoover Institution Archives, Milton Friedman Papers, Box 5, Folders 11, 13 (Student years).

Image Source: Columbia University, Columbia 250 Celebrates Columbians Ahead of Their Time.

Categories
Chicago Courses Economists Socialism Syllabus

Chicago Economics. Economics 354. Types of Econ Organization. Douglas. 1938

This is the Chicago version of the course taught at Harvard by Cummings, Carver and then Mason.

The Spring Quarter  of 1938 began March 28. The lecture notes taken by Norman M. Kaplan are for this course that met Tuesdays and Thursdays with his notes dated Mar 29, Mar 31, Apr 5, Apr 12, Apr 19, Apr 21, Apr 26, Apr 28, May 3, May 5, May 10, May 12. Hence we can be certain that the following (undated) syllabus with bibliography was for the Spring, 1938 course taught by Paul H. Douglas.

To those with an eye on contemporary U.S. politics: examining this reading list, one wonders if a professor like this today could imagine getting elected into the U.S. Senate! Perhaps Elizabeth Warren fits the bill but the bench looks pretty shallow…

________________________

H. SOCIAL DIRECTION AND CONTROL OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
[…]

  1. Types of Economic Organization.—An examination of the various forms of economic organization that have been proposed, including the utopias, individualism, Marxian socialism, collectivism, the single tax, syndicalism, guild socialism, communism, capitalism, and fascism. Prerequisite: Economics 209 [Intermediate Economic Theory: “A course designed for undergraduates majoring in Economics who have completed the other Departmental requirements for the degree and for graduate students with limited training in systematic theory. It deals with the factors controlling production, value and relative prices, and distribution.” Taught by Paul Douglas (Winter)], or its equivalent, Spring, Tu., Th., 3:30-5:30, Douglas.

Source: Announcements. The University of Chicago. The College and the Divisions for the Sessions of 1937-1938. p. 307.

________________________

Topics and Assigned Reading for Economics 354
Types of Economic Organization

[Spring Quarter, 1938]

The three main divisions of the course, with the basic assigned reading to be covered under each, are as follows:

I.  The Development of Utopian Thought – (2 weeks.)

  1. Plato and the “Republic.”
  2. Thomas More’s “Utopia.”
  3. The economic doctrines and activities of Robert Owen.
  4. French Utopian Socialism: Fourier, Cabet, and Saint-Simon (omitted 1937).

Assigned reading: (1) Plato, The Republic: Sections 368-374 of Book II, Sections 412-417 of Book III, Books IV and V entire; (2) More’s Utopia, Book II; (3), Owen’s Autobiography, or one of the better lives of Owen, such as those by Podmore [vol. 1, vol. 2], Cole and McCabe. [Handwritten addition: “Aristotle, Politics, Bk. II (1st 6 paragraphs)”]

Supplementary reading: 1) Aristotle, Politics, Sections 1-7; (2) Ernest Barker, Greek Political Thought—Plato; (3) Chambers, Thomas More; (4) Campenalla, The City of the Sun; (5) Bacon, New Atlantis; (6) Robert Owen, A New View of Society, etc.; (7) Charles Gide, Morceaux Choisis de Charles Fourier; (8) Cabet, Voyage en Icarie; (9) Bellamy, Looking Backward; (10) William Morris, News from Nowhere.

 

II. The Economic and Social Doctrines of Karl Marx (4 weeks)

  1. The differences between Marxism and Utopianism.
  2. The economic or materialistic interpretation of history.
  3. The labor theory of value; the theory of surplus value; and the alleged “great contradiction.”
  4. The theory of the final cataclysm.
  5. An appraisal of Marx’ thought.

Assigned reading: (1) Marx and Engels, Communist Manifesto; (2) Engels, Socialism—Utopian and Scientific; (3) Marx, Value, Price and Profit, sections VI-XIV; Marx, Capital, Vol. I, chapters I—sections 1 and 2, and A of section 3; VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XVI, XVII, XIX; Vol. III, last pages of chapter VIII and chapter IX; Book I, chapters XXV and (XXXII).

Supplementary reading: (1) Marx Capital, Vol. I, chapter XV; (2) Rühle, Karl Marx, or Mehring, Life of Marx; 3) Marx, Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy; (4) Hook, Towards and Understanding of Karl Marx; (5) Joseph, Karl Marx’ Theory of Value [sic, The Labour Theory of Value in Karl Marx, 1923]; (6) Böhm-Bawerk, Karl Marx and the Close of His System; (7) Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism. (8) De Man, Psychology of Socialism.

 

III. The development of Proposals and Movements for Organizing Economic and Social Life. (In the main, post-Marxian). (4 weeks)

  1. The theory and practice of capitalism.
  2. Collectivism.
  3. Anarchism, syndicalism and guild socialism.
  4. Cooperation.
  5. The Single Tax.
  6. Modern Communism.
  7. Fascism.

Because of reasons of time, topics 3,4 and 5 will be scantily treated and may indeed be omitted.

Assigned reading. The material on these topics is, of course, enormous. The best treatment of collectivism is given in Fabian Essays (1888) by Webb, Shaw, Wallas, etc., and in Bernard Shaw’s The Common Sense of Municipal Trading. On anarchism: Proudhon and Kropotkin are the most suggestive writers. On cooperation, Beatrice Potter’s (Mrs. Webb) The Consumers Cooperative Movement in Great Britain; Beatrice and Sydney Webb, The Consumers Cooperative Movement; Gide, Consumers Cooperative Societies; Childs, Sweden—The Middle Way; Howe, Denmark—The Cooperative Way; are excellent.

All students of communism should read Lenin, The State and Revolution; and the two-volume work by Beatrice and Sydney Webb, Soviet Communism. See also the new constitution of Russia, reprinted by the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace.

On fascism, see Finer, Mussolini’s Italy; Mussolini, “Fascism,” in the Italian Encyclopedia; and Hitler’s Mein Kampf, to be read if possible in the original German instead of the expurgated English and American editions.

The principles of liberalism are well stated in the writings of Jefferson; John Stuart Mill, Liberty; Representative Government, etc.; Wilson, The New Freedom; Brandeis, The Curse of Bigness; Franklin Roosevelt; etc.

Supplementary reading: (1) For an able criticism of socialism and a defense of individualism, see Ludwig von Mises, Socialism; (2) Beer, History of British Socialism; (3) Norman Thomas, America’s Way Out; (4) Sidney and Beatrice Webb, A Constitution for the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain; (5) Levine, Syndicalism in France; (6) Cole, Guild Socialism; (7) Henry George, Progress and Poverty, especially Books V, VI, VII, VIII and IX; (8) Trotsky, The Russian Revolution; (9) Chamberlin, The Russian Revolution; (10) Seldes, Sawdust Caesar; (11) Salvemini, Under the Axe of Fascism; (12) Heiden, Life of Hitler; (13) Heiden, History of National Socialism; (14) Florinsky, Fascism and National Socialism; (15) Schuman, Nazi Germany; (16) Strachey, The Coming Struggle for Power; (17) Davis (editor) Modern Social Movements.

A somewhat fuller bibliography is appended.

________________________

 

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR POLITICAL ECONOMY 354
TYPES OF ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION

(Best References Starred)

1. Utopian

More, Thomas. Utopia
*Plato, The Republic (Benjamin Jowett, Trans.)
Barker-Ernest. Greek Political Theory
Aristotle. The Politics
Latimore-More. English Reprints
Engels, Frederick. Socialism, Utopian and Scientific
*Bacon, Francis. New Atlantus
*Campenella, Tomasso. The City in the Sun
*Morley, Ideal Commonwealths
Andrae, Christian Opolis
Owen, R. D. Threading My Way
Lockwood. The New Harmony Movement
Herzler, J. O. History of Utopian Thought
Mumford, Lewis. The Story of Utopias
Cabet, Reise Nach Ikarien, V. G.
Wells, H. G. A Modern Utopia
Godwin, Wm. Enquiry Concerning Political Justice
Fourier, Chas. Theorie de l’Unite universelle; Le Nouveau Monde industrial
Saint-Simon, G. Oeuvres de Saint Simon et d’Enfantin
*Morris, William. News from Nowhere
Morris, William. A Dream of John Ball
*Howells, W. D. A Traveller from Altruria
*Ely, R. T. French and German Socialism
*Bellamy, E. Looking Backward
Podmore, Frank. Biography of Robert Owen
*Autobiography of Robert Owen
*Owen, Robert. The Book of the New Moral World
Guthrie, W. B. Socialism before the French Revolution
Peixottot, J. B. The French Revolution and Modern French Socialism
*Hillquit, Morris. History of Socialism in the United States
*Noyes, John Humphrey. A History of American Socialisms
*Nordhoff, Charles. The Communistic Societies of the United States
Hinds, William. American Communities
Shaw, Albert. Icaria –A Chapter in the History of Communism
Kent, Rev. Alexander. Cooperative Communities in the United Status, in Bulletin of Department of Labor, No. 35, July, 1901
Clark, Bertha. The Huterian Brethern. Journal of Political Economy, April and June 1921
Gide, Charles Fourier
Owen. New View of Society
McCabe. Robert Owen
Cole. Robert Owen
Chambers. Thomas More

2. The Economic Interpretation of History

*Marx and Engels. Communist Manifesto
*Marx, Karl. Revolution and Counter-Revolution
*Loria, Achille. Essays on the Materialistic Interpretation of History
*Marx, Karl. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
Kautsky, K. The Class Struggle
Beard, C. A. Economic Interpretation of the Constitution
Beard, C. A. Economic Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy
Engels, Frederick. Socialism, Utopian and Scientific
Engels , Frederick. Condition of the Working Classes in England in 1844
Engels, Frederick. The Roots of the Socialist in Philosophy Feuerbach
Engels, Frederick. Landmarks of Scientific Socialism, Anti-Duhring
Simone, A. M. Class Struggles in America.
Simone, A. M. Social Forces in American History
*Seligman, E. R. A. The Economic Interpretation of History
Seligman, E. R. A. Essay on Problems of Readjustment after the War
Howe, F. C. Why War?
Brailsford, H. N. War of Steel and Gold
Hobson, J. A. Imperialism
Loria, A. Economic Causes of War
Croce, B. The Historical Materialism of Karl Marx
Ogburn, W. F. The Psychological Basis for the Economic Interpretation of History. Supp. Am. Econ. Rev. March 1919
Hansen, A. H. The Technological Interpretation of History. Quarterly Journal of Economics, November 1921
Marx, Karl. The Gotha Program
Marx, Karl. The Poverty of Philosophy
Earl, E. M. The War and The Bagdad Railway
D’Espagnel, P. The World’s Struggle for Oil
Woolf, L. S. Empire and Commerce in Africa
Woolf, L. S. Economic Imperialism
Morel, E.D. Red Rubber
Young, G. Nationalism and War in the Near East
Young, G. The Machinery of Diplomacy
Rai, Laypat, England’s Debt to India
Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism
S. Hook, Towards an Understanding of Karl Marx
Brailsford, Property or Peace

 

3. Marxian Economics

A.      Marx, Karl. Capital. 3 Vols.

*Marx, Karl. A Critique of Political Economy
*Marx, Karl. Value, Price, and Profit (Popular epitome of Marx’s Theories)
Aveling, Edward. The Student’s Marx
Hyndman, H. M. The Economics of Socialism
Correspondence of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
**Rühle, Karl Marx
Mehring—Life of Marx
Meyer—Frederick Engels

B.    Pro-Marxian

*Untermann, Ernest. Marxian Economics
*Boudin, Louis. The Theoretical System of Karl Marx

C.     Anti-Marxian

*Bohm-Bawerk, E. Von. Karl Marx and the Close of His System
*Le Rossignol, J. E. Orthodox Socialism
Cross, I. B. Essentials of Socialism
*Skelton, O. D. Socialism, A Critical Analysis. Pp. 95-137
*Le Rossignol, J. E. What in Socialism?
Scott, J. R. Karl Marx on Value
Joseph. Labor Theory of Value in Karl Marx.

D.    Pre-Marxian Economic Theories

*Menger, Anton. The Right to the Full Produce of Labor. (A review of labor theories, and a belittling of Marx’s originality.)
*Lowenthal, Esther. The Ricardian Socialists
*Whitaker, A. O. The Labor Theory of Value
Beer, Max. A History of British Socialism, Vol. I, pp. 182-270
Gonner, E. C. K. The Social Philosophy of Rodbertus
Ricardo, David. Principles of Political Economy and Taxation

 

4. Marxian Predictions of the Economic Development of Capitalism

A.     Large-scale Industry

*Bernstein, E. Evolutionary Socialism
*Simkhovitch, V. G. Marxism vs. Socialism
*Rubinow, S. M. Was Marx Wrong?
Dewing, A. S. A Statistical Text of the Success of Consolidation, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Nov. 1921. Vol. XXXVI.
Berle and Means: The Modern Corporation.
Bernheim – Big Business

B.    Agriculture

Department of Agriculture: The Economic Basis of the Agricultural Adjustment Act
Bernstein, Simkhovitch and Robinow as above
Stewart, C. L. Land Tenure in the United States
Bogart, E. L. Farm Ownership in the United States, Jour. Pol. Econ., Vol. XVI
Simons, A. M. The American Farmer
David, Edward. Socialism and Land Wirtschaft
Benjamin. Socialists and the Agrarian Question, Jour. Pol. Econ., June, 1926

 

C.    Distribution of Wealth – (Marx’s Theories of Increasing Misery and the Disapperance of the Middle Class Considered)

(1) United States

*Nationa1 Bureau of Economic Research. Income in the United States
King, W. Wealth and Income of the People of the United States
Nearing, Scott. Income
Nearing, Scott. Financing the Wage-Earner’s Family
Streightoff, F. H. Distribution of Wealth in the United States
More, L. B. Wage Earner’s Budgets
Chapin, R. C. Standard of Living in New York City
Kennedy, J. C. Standard of Living in Stockyards District
Streightoff, F. H. Standard of Living of Industrial People in United States
Ryan, J. A. A Living Wage
Ryan, J. A. Distributive Justice. Economic Review, September 1921
Soule, George. The Productivity Factor in Wage Determination. American Economic Review: Supplement. 1925, pp. 129-40, Vol. 13. (1925)
Federal Trade Commission: National Wealth and Income
Nearing, Scott. Wages in the United States.
Federal Trade Commission, National Wealth and Income.
Leven, Moulton & Warburton. America’s Capacity to Consume
Douglas. Real wages in the United States, 1890-1926
Douglas and Dennison. The Movement of Money and Real Wages, 1926-1928
Houghteling. The Income and Standard of Living of the Unskilled Laborer in Chicago

(2) England

Stamp, J. C. British Incomes and Property
Rountree, B. S. Poverty – A Study of Town Life
Booth, Ch. A Summary of the Life and Labor of the People of London
Bowley. The Change in the Distribution of the National Income 1880-1913
Bowley, A. L. The Division of the Product of Industry
Stamp, J. C. Wealth and Taxable Capacity of Great Britain
Smith and others. A New Survey of London Life and Labour. 10 vols.
Clark. The National Income

(5) Other Countries

Bägge. Wages in Sweden. 1860-1930.
Kuczynski, J. Die Entwicklung der Lage der Arbeiterschaft, 1870-1933
Kuczynski, J. Löhne und Konjunktur in Deutschland, 1887-1932
Kuczynski, J. Die Entwicklung der Löhne in Frankreich und Belgien, 1895-1933.
Simiand, F. Le Salaire. 3 vols.

D.    Unemployment (The Industrial Reserve Army)

Pigou, A. C. Unemployment
Beveridge, W. C. Unemployment
Poyntz and Webb. Seasonal Trades
American Association of Labor Legislation. Unemployment survey, 1915.
Barnes, C. B. The Longshoremen
Webb, S. and B. The Minority Reports of the Poor Law Commission
Berridge, W. A. Cycles of Employment
Hobson, J. A. The Economics of Unemployment
Cole, G. D. H. Out-of-Work
Douglas and Director. The Problem of Unemployment

E.    Crises

Mitchell, W. C. Business Cycles
Jugler, C. A Brief History of Panic
Moore, H. L. Economic Cycles
*Rodbertus, K. J. Over Production and Crises. (Translated by Frank)
Foster and Catchings, Profits
Douglas. Controlling Depressions
Mills. Economic Tendencies in the United States
Hayek. Prices and Production
Strachey. The Nature Of Capitalist Crisis
Pigou. Industrial Fluctuations
Schumpeter. Theory of Economic Development
Martin. The Limited Market
Keynes—The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money.

 

5. The Socialist Movement in Various Countries

A.    General

Postgate, R. W. Revolution
*Laideer, H. W. Socialism in Thought and Action
*Kirkup, F. History of Socialism (authoritative and reliable)
Ensor, R. C. K. Modern Socialism (gives important extracts showing attitude of Socialists in different countries)
*Walling, Stokes, Hugan, Laidler. The Socialism of Today (invaluable study of present-day tendencies in all countries)
Postgate, R. W. The Workers International
Guillaume, J. L’Internationale, 4 vols.
Hunter, Robert. Violence and the Labor Movement
De Montgomery, B. G. British and Continental Labour Policy
Shadwell. The Socialist Movement, 2 vols.
Fainsod, International Socialism During the War

B.  Specific

(1) Germany

Russell, Bertrand. German Social Democracy
Dawson, W. H. Bismarck and State Socialism
Ely, R. T. French and German Socialism, pp. 156-244
Saunders, W. S. Trade Unionism in Germany

(2) France

Blanc, Louis, L‘Organization du Travail
Jaures, J. Studies in Socialism

(3) Belgium

Bertrand, Louis. Histoire de la Democratie et du Socialisme en Belgique depuis 1830
Douglas, D. W. G. De Greef. The Social Theory of a Syndicalist

(4) England

*Beer, Max. History of British Socialists
Seligman, E. R. A. Owen and the Christian Socialists
Webb, Sidney. Socialism in England
Shaw, Bernard. Early History of the Fabian Society
*Pease, E. R. History of the Fabian Society
Noel, Conrad. The Labor Party
Raven, M. E. The Christian Socialists
Gleason. What the Worker Wants
Blanshard. The British Labor Movement
Chartism in England
Rosenblatt, E. F. The Economic Aspects of Chartism. (Columbia Univ. Studies)
Slosson, P. W. The Decline of Chartism (Columbia University Studies)
West, J. Chartism
Hovell, M. The Chartist Movement
Cammage, R. The Chartist Movement
Life of Willim Lovett
Hofhouse, Stephen. Life of Joseph Sturge
Trevelyan, G. M. Life of Bright
Morley, J. Life or Cobdan

(5) Australasia

*Clark, V.S. The Labor Movement in Australasia.
Le Rossignol and Stewart. State Socialism in New Zealand
Hutchinson, R. H. The State Socialism of Australasia

(6) The United States

Hillquit, Morris. History of Socialism in America
Hughan, Jessie, W. American Socialism of the Present Day
Socialist Congressional Campaign Book, 1914, 1916, 1920; 1928; 1932
Trachtenberg, Alex. Editor. The American Labor Year Book, 1916, 1918, 1919, 1922, etc.
Macy, John. Socialism in America
Benedict, Bertram. The Larger Socialism
Fine. Farmer Labor Parties in American History
Douglas. The Coming of a New Party
Hicks. The Populist Movement.
Thomas. America’s Way Out
Thomas. As I See It

 

6. The Liberal Socialist Ideal

**Russell, B. Proposed Roads to Freedom
*Wells, H. G. New Worlds for Old (A delightful and engrossing book)
*Dickinson, G. Lowes. Justice and Liberty.
*Shaw, Webb, Wallas and others. Fabian Essays (Well written and cogently stated)
*Tawney, R. H. The Acquisitive Society
Walling, W. E. Socialism as It Is
Wells. Mankind in the Making
Wells. This Misery of Booth
Spargo and Arner. Essentials of Socialism
Spargo, John. Socialism (A popular statement by an able supporter)
Spargo, John. Applied Socialism (A constructive attempt to apply the socialist principle to life)
Wells, H. G. and others. Socialism and the great state
Walling, Stokes, Hughan, Laidler. The Socialism of Today
Snowden, P. Socialism and Syndicalism
Hughan, M. The Facts of Socialism
Hillquit, M. Socialism in Theory and Practice
Hillquit, M. Socialism Summed-up
Kautsky, K. The Social Revolution
Schaeffle, A. The Quintessence of Socialism
*Webb, S. and B. A Constitution for the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain
Massart and Vandervelde. Parasitism, Organic and Social
*Hunter, Robert. Violence and the Labor Movement
Shaw, Bernard. Socialism and Superior Brains
Wilde, Oscar. The Soul of Man under Socialism
Rauschenbush, W. Christianity and the Social Crisis
Soudder, Vida D. Socialism and Character
Walling, W. E. The Larger Aspects of Socialism
Sellars, R. W. The Next Step in Democracy
*Benedict, Bertram, N. S. The Larger Socialism
Hobson, J. A. Incentives in the New Social Order.
British Labor Party—Labor and the New Social Order
Henderson, Arthur.— The Aims of Labor
Morris, William. Hopes and Fears for Art
Webb, J. and B. The Collapse of Capitalist Civilization
Russell, Bertrand and Dora. The Prospects of Industrial Civilization
Sturt, Henry. Socialism and Character

 

Socialism and War

Walling, W. E. The Socialists and the War (Excellent documentary collection)
Boudin, Louis. Socialism and War
Files of La Guerre Sociale. Edited by Gustav Herve
Kellogg and Gleason. British Labor and the War
Hunter, Robert. Violence and the Labor Movement

 

8. Collectivism

 

*Davies, E. The Collectivist State in the Making
Shaw, Bernard. The Common Sense of Municipal Trading
Clark, W. E. Municipal Ownership in the United States
*Fabian. Report on State and Municipal Enterprise
Holcombe, A. N. Public Ownership of Telephones on the Continent of Europe
Hammeon, J . C. The British Post-Office
Mavor, James. Public Telephones
Gray, H. L. War Time Control of Industry
*Walling and Laidler. State Socialism, Pro and Con
Ise, John. Our National Forest Policy
Guyot, Yves. Where and Why Public Ownership Has Failed
McKaye, James. Yankee Socialism
Cheozza-Money, L. G. The Triumph of Nationalization
Strobel, Heinrich. Socialization in Theory and Practice
Hodges, Frank. The Nationalization of the Mines
De Montgomery, B. G. British and Continental Labour Policy, pp. 476-529
Survey, issue of March l, 1924 on Giant Power
Strobel, Heinrich. The German Revolution
Thompson. Public Ownerships

 

9. Criticisms of Socialism

*Skelton, O. D. Socialism – A Critical Analysis (excellent)
*Schaeffle, A. The Impossibility of Social Democracy (very good)
Ely, R. T. Socialism and Social Reform
Mallock, W. H. A Critical Examination of Socialism
*Mallock, W. H. Aristocracy and Evolution
*Le Rossignol. What Is Socialism?
Ryan-Hillquit. Socialism, Promise or Menace? (See arguments of Father Ryan against Socialism.)
Guyot, Yves. Socialist Fallacies
Guyot, Yves. The Tyranny of Socialism
Leroy-Beaulieu, P. Collectivism
Belloc, H. The Servile State
Hayek (editor) Collective Economics.
Mises. Socialism.

 

10. References on Anarchistic Theory

1. Individualistic

Godwin, Political Justice
Herbert Spencer. Man Versus the State
Donnisthrope. Liberty
Proudhon. Solution of the Social Problem
Tolstoi. What Shall We Do Then?
Tolstoi. The Kingdom of God Is Within You
Tolstoi. My Religion
Tolstoi. Essays
Tucker. Instead of a Book by a Men Too Busy to Write One

2. Communistic

Kropotkin. Fields, Factories, and Workshops
Kropotkin. The Conquest of Bread
Kropotkin. Mutual Aid
Kropotkin. Memoirs of a Revolutionist
Kropotkin. Anarchist Essays

3. Criticism

Shaw. The Impossibilities of Anarchism

 

11. Syndicalism

Levine. The Labor Movement in France
Pataud et Pouget. Comment Nous Ferons la Revolution?
Pouget. Sabotage
Jouhaux. Le Syndicaliam et Le C. G. T.
Brissenden. The I. W. W.

Criticisms

McDonald. Syndicalism
Spargo. Socialism, Syndicalism and Industrial Unionism

 

12. Guild Socialism

Cole. Self-Government in Industry
Cole. Guild Socialism Re-Stated
Hobson. National Guilds
Carpenter. Guild Socialism Re-Stated

 

13. Consumers Cooperation

Gide. The Consumers Cooperative Societies
Beatrice Potter. The Cooperative Movement in Great Britain
S. & B. Webb. The Consumers Cooperative Movement
Catherine Webb. Industrial Cooperation
Maxwell. History of Cooperation in Scotland
Fay. Cooperation at Home and Abroad
Wolff. Cooperation and the Future of Industry
Warbasse. Cooperative Democracy
Sonnichsen. Consumers Cooperation
Warne. Consumers Cooperation in Illinois
Bergengren. People’s Banks
Russell (“A.E.”). The National Being
Childs. Sweden — The Middle Way
Howe. Denmark — The Cooperative Way

 

14. The Single Tax

George. Progress and Poverty
Young. The Single Tax Movement in the United States
Post. The Taxation of Land Values
Post. What is the Single Tax?
Brown. The Taxation of Unearned Incomes

 

15. Modern Communism

A. Description of Theory

Lenin. The State and Revolution
Lenin. Can the Bolsheviks Maintain Power?
Bukarin and Preobrazhensky. The A. B. C. of Communism
Trotsky. In Defense of Terrorism
Postgate. The Bolshevik Theory
Russell. Bolshevik Theory and Practice
Fox. Lenin
Lenin. Collected Works
Stalin. Collected Works

B. Description of Developments in Russia

Trotsky. The Russian Revolution, 2 vols
Farbman. The Five Year Plan
Hindus. Humanity Uprooted
Hindus. Red Bread
Chamberlin. Soviet Russia–The Iron Age [sic, Russia’s Iron Age, 1934]
Karlgren. Bolshevist Russia (hostile)
Antonelli. Bolshevik Russia (Historical and critical)
Chase and Others. Soviet Russia in the Second Decade
Chamberlain. The Russian Revolution, 1917-1921
Hoover. The Economic Organization of Soviet Russia
***Webb, S. & B. Soviet Communism. 2 vols. The best work thus far. Should be read by all students.
Rosenberg. History of Bolshevism
Trotsky. The Revolution Betrayed

C. Critical

Kautsky. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat
Kautsky. Terrorism and Communism

 

16. Fascism

Machiavelli. The Prince
Mussolini. My Life
Hitler. Mein Kampf
Schneider. Making the Fascist State
Dutt. Fascism and Social Revolution
Salvimini. Fascism (hostile)
Strachey. The Coming Struggle for Power
Schuman. The Nazi Dictatorship
Bolton, King. Fascism
Pitigliani. The Italian Cooperative State [1933]
Finer. Mussolini’s Italy
Rosenstock-Franck. L’Économie Corporative en Theorie et Pratique [L’économie corporative fasciste en doctrine et en fait, 1934]
Seldes. Sawdust Caesar
Hoover. Germany Enters the Third Reich
Dennis, Lawrence. The Coming American Fascism
Salvemini. Under the Axe of Fascism
Rosso. The Road to Exile.

17. The Theory of Capitalism

Smith. The Wealth of Nations.
Carver. Essays in Social Justice.
Herbert Hoover. Defense of Liberty,
Pigou. The Economics of Welfare.
Cassel. The Theory of Social Economy.

 

18. Recent Books on Fascism, Communism, Democracy (1938)

A. Fascism

*Borgese, Goliath, The March of Fascism.
*Roberts, The House that Hitler Built.
Schmidt, The Plough and the Sword.

 

B. Communism

*Lyons, Assignment in Utopia.
Beal, Proletarian Journey.
Smith, I was a Soviet Worker.
Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed.

(All of the above books on communism are hostile criticisms from ex-communists about the dictatorial aspects of the Russian government)

C. [Democracy]

Heiman, *Fascism, Communism and Democracy [sic, Communism, Fascism or Democracy?]
Pigou, *Socialism versus Capitalism.

 

D. On Some Problems of Pricing, etc., in a Socialist Economy.

*Mises, Socialism.
*Hayek, Mises, Barone, etc., Problems of Collectivist Planning.
*Lange, “The Economic Theory of Socialism,” Review of Economic Studies, October 1936, February 1937.
Lerner, “Economic Theory and Socialist Economy,” Review of Economic Studies, October 1934.

Source: The University of Chicago Library. Norman M. Kaplan Papers. Box 1, Folder 7.