Tag: Galbraith

Categories
Economists Harvard War and Defense Economics

Harvard. Reactions to Galbraith’s call for students to boycott professors doing classified government research, 1967

 

Looking through my files of material from the Gottfried Haberler papers at the Hoover Institution Archives, I came across an unpublished, heavily sarcastic “letter to the editor” of the Harvard Crimson by the economic historian Alexander Gerschenkron in reaction to John Kenneth Galbraith’s statement at an anti-war event at Radcliffe in which he suggested that students could reasonably consider boycotting the classes of professors engaged in classified research to protest that war. One of Galbraith’s targets was clearly his colleague Arthur Smithies. (“I assume that Professor Smithies would suppress all protest. Many will doubt the wisdom of this course as also, I trust, the wickedness of the secret work on which he is engaged.”) While the rules of English grammar are such that Galbraith did explicitly state “many will doubt…the wickedness of [Smithies’] secret work…”, it is a pretty cheeky way to simultaneously mention that there are indeed some who will see Smithies’ secret work in a wicked light.

The post ends with a later Harvard Crimson article that reports on Smithies’ career, with considerable emphasis on his work for the U.S. government (including the C.I.A.) on South Vietnam’s economy. We also see below that Thomas Schelling was so little amused by Galbraith’s boycott proposal as to have written a letter for actual publication in the Harvard Crimson.

_________________________

“Galbraith Asks Campus Blacklist of Recruiters”

The Boston Globe. 14 November 1967 pp. 1,9.

            Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith urged Monday that college students oppose the Vietnam War by publicly blacklisting war-linked campus recruiting agencies and by boycotting professors engaged in classified government research.

Speaking at Radcliffe College, Galbraith explained his blacklist as a “proclamation” on which signatories would state their intention to refuse to work for agencies, such as Dow Chemical Co. or the C.I.A.

A boycott of professors engaged in classified research, he said, would be a “particularly effective way of expressing your opposition.”

The former U.S. ambassador to India, publicly backed “moderate” student demonstrations before a packed Harvard Radcliffe group in Hilles Library.

He cautioned the students against protests that are “violent or in egregiously bad taste.”

These, he said, would “provide a welcomed handle for the opposition.”

Galbraith said he had discussed his blacklist and boycott proposals with colleagues and many found them favorable. He called both courses “legitimate means of dissent within the university framework of conduct rules.”

He originated the black-list concept at talks with business and government leaders who indicated that recruiters are “greatly concerned with campus recruiting demonstrations,” Galbraith said.

Turing to anti-war referenda, Galbraith advised they would have more chances of success if they were worded “for political reality rather [than] for candor.”

The San Francisco anti-war referenda would have had a good chance for approval had it been stated in “milder” terms, he said. (This referendum, which asked: ‘should the U.S. immediately withdraw from Vietnam?’ drew a 38 percent affirmative response.)

“It would be an enormous mistake to assume your protest efforts have been futile,” he told students. Only three years ago, he said the State and Defense Departments” would have assumed wide spread acceptance of escalation.

“But now, in the wake of widespread university opposition to the war, there has been a snowballing effect of mounting opposition.”

His talk was sponsored by the Committee for Effective Action, a student group “opposed to the war but frustrated by the means of opposing it,” explained its spokesman. This was the first of an expected four or five meetings with the faculty.

_________________________

Letter from John Kenneth Galbraith

The Harvard Crimson, November 16, 1967

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

My distinguished colleague may be out of touch with recent discussion, but the issue is probably worth explaining. Students here and elsewhere have been told how they may not react to university involvement in military activities of which they disapprove. With other Faculty members I assume that this carries an obligation to say how they may react. I suggested (initially in Michigan and later here) that they organize to avoid employment in corporations of whose products they disapprove and classes of professors whose secret contracts they deplore. (I also suggested that this last was inapplicable under Harvard policy and that there be combined effort to find other forms of legitimate and effective protest.) I assume that Professor Smithies would suppress all protest. Many will doubt the wisdom of this course as also, I trust, the wickedness of the secret work on which he is engaged.

John Kenneth Galbraith
Paul M. Warburg Professor of Economics

_________________________

Unsent, but circulated, reaction to Galbraith’s proposal
by Alexander Gerschenkron

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

M-7 Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

Alexander Gerschenkron
Walter S. Barker Professor of Economics

November 16, 1967

The Editor
The Crimson
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

Sir,

It is with greatest possible interest that I have read of Professor Galbraith’s suggestion that students should boycott lectures of those members of the Faculty who are known to engage in classified research. This is a most original and stimulating idea, which is not surprising as nothing less novel and exciting could be expected from Professor Galbraith’s fertile mind.

The only thing that disturbs me are problems of implementation. Professor Galbraith abstained from discussing them, probably feeling that what mattered was to cast abroad a fine idea, while the rest could be safely left to more pedestrian minds. May I try to fill out the gap? Obviously, the first thing that is needed is to provide some machinery in order to discover just who is engaged in classified research. I suggest therefore, that the Student-Faculty Committee should immediately establish a special Sub-Committee charged with carrying out the requisite investigations. It should be called “Student-Faculty Sub-Committee on Un-Left Activities.” This Sub-Committee should interrogate members of the faculty. A difficulty to be faced will no doubt stem from the lack of subpoena powers on the part of the Sub-Committee. But the problem should not be insoluble. The Administration should be put under pressure to agree that those members of the Faculty who 1) refuse to appear before the Un-Left Sub-Committee or, 2) if appearing, refuse to name those colleagues whose connection with classified research is known to them, or 3) refuse to answer questions concerning their own classified research, should be informed by the Administration that such refusals constitute contempt of the Un-Left Sub-Committee, and, by the same token, must be regarded as acts of gross misconduct. In all fairness, the offenders should be given a fortnight to reconsider, but should they stubbornly persist in their hostile attitude, their connection with the University should be severed without further delay.

On the other hand, should the Administration hesitate to accede to the Sub-Committee’s fair and reasonable demands, which as Professor Galbraith likes to say are surely justified by the extraordinary situation in which the country finds itself, occupation of University Hall by the students should be the first natural step, if necessary, to be followed by other more stringent measures.

Thus Professor Galbraith’s idea appears to be altogether practicable. In conclusion, I cannot help praising his wise restraint. He could have suggested, for instance, that also lectures of those Faculty members who either themselves express Un-Left opinions or associate with colleagues who have expressed Un-Left opinions should be boycotted by the students. That he failed to make such suggestions agrees well with the sapient counsels of moderation which informed his speech.

Very truly yours,
[signed]
Alexander Gerschenkron

AG:dod

Note: For reasons well within this writer’s control, the foregoing epistle has failed to reach the editorial office of The Crimson.

Source: The Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Gottfried Haberler, Box 12, Folder “GH—Alexander Gerschenkron”.

_________________________

Letter from John Kenneth Galbraith

The Harvard Crimson, November 16, 1967

To the Editors of The CRIMSON:

I am persuaded that at some risk of repetition I should be sure that there is no misunderstanding of my recent remarks on legitimate and non-violent forms of student protest as these concern University involvements with military activities. Two or three weeks ago in Detroit I was asked to comment on prospective efforts to obstruct physically the Willow Run laboratories operated on contract by the University of Michigan and engaged, I am told, on development of highly secret materiel for use in Vietnam. I urged not alone the futility but the adverse public effects of such action; I said that a better remedy lay against the Faculty members who ran this enterprise. Students might organize to avoid their classes, i.e., peacefully to boycott them. Last Monday evening at the meeting in the Hilles Library arranged by [Radcliffe] President Bunting to discuss legitimate forms of protest I repeated (along with others) this suggestion and added that this particular one would not be without effect on those who sponsored such work in a university but that it did not have application at Harvard where, wisely, the Administration frowned on secret contracts. I confess that I did not think of the possible application of my suggestion to confidential or secret consulting work or research by individual Harvard professors. A member of the Faculty has since invited the attention of those who are, with sufficient reason, sensitive to the association between the University Community and this war. Additionally, my reference to boycott, which of course means peaceful abstention, was evidently taken to mean some kind of physical action.

I would like to urge in the most earnest possible fashion that there be no effort by anyone, students in particular, to identify and oppose in any manner the individual participation by Faculty members in confidential or secret tasks of the government. There is a radical difference between this varied and individual work and the classified contracts for weapons development which I had in mind. This individual work covers a wide range of matters and much, or most, has no bearing on military activity. Most of it is the work of those Faculty members with the strongest instinct for public service. An effort to discriminate between approved and disapproved work would import into the academic community an improper concern for the extra-curricular pacifists who are so engaged as to those who are otherwise disposed. It could also be a most disagreeable source of tension and suspicion.

As members of the Harvard community will be aware, I am not indifferent to the Vietnam war. I regard it as an appalling tragedy; to no other matter of my adult life have I devoted more effort than to opposing the war. But I would be profoundly and also greatly embarrassed were anyone to take my remarks at Radcliffe as an invitation to any form of opposition to the participants of individual Faculty members, on a public or confidential basis, in government activities. Needless to say, none of this impairs in any way my promise at the Radcliffe meeting to work with concerned Faculty members and students to devise other effective, legitimate and non-violent forms of protest.

John Kenneth Galbraith
Paul M. Warburg Professor of Economics

_________________________

Letter from Thomas Schelling in response to Galbraith’s boycott proposal

The Harvard Crimson, December 5, 1967

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

While I’ve seen no indication that Professor Galbraith’s proposed boycott of professors who do classified research for the government is going to stimulate a new movement, it does raise important questions about the personal activities of faculty members and the ways they may be involved with the government, and about the appropriate selection of target for protest. May I explain why I think his proposal is probably not workable and, if not workable, objectionable?

Let me first point out that Professor Galbraith did not propose that students boycott those professors whose research is objectionable, nor did he clarify what research would be objectionable. His reference was merely to “classified” research. I’m sure that by almost anyone’s standards of wickedness (Galbraith’s term) some classified research would be found unobjectionable. People concerned about the dissemination of nuclear technology, about the limitation of weapons, even about ways of ending the war in Vietnam, often require classified information to do their work or, at least, have to be exposed to classified information in doing their work and cannot do it unless they are willing to safeguard what the government calls “security.” Even if the character of everybody’s classified research could be ascertained, drawing the line between the objectionable and the unobjectionable, or between what any reasonable man would consider objectionable and what some reasonable men might consider to be in the public interest, would require subjective judgments. (Most classified research, incidentally, is probably unrelated to Vietnam.)

Second, much of the unclassified research that goes on would be objectionable to people who oppose any kind of war-related research; and to exclude such unclassified research would be arbitrary discrimination.

Third, “research” itself is difficult to define. Many faculty members are occasionally consultants or members of advisory boards in various agencies, or participants in government-sponsored conferences, sometimes classified, sometimes unclassified. Whether their influence is benign or malignant would be hard to judge; so would the degree of support or implied approval in attendance at a meeting at which one criticizes a government program or decision.

And if unclassified contributions had to pass the same strict test as classified work, to qualify for boycott or immunity from it, one would have to ask whether an activity like the Peace Corps is to be treated as a propaganda arm of the Johnson administration or as a benign and constructive activity. Again a judgment depends on a complex evaluation of the different purposes that a government program may serve.

Finally, are Faculty members who are unaffiliated with the government in any fashion, classified or unclassified, but who openly support the administration’s policy toward Vietnam, to qualify for boycott? It seems strange to exclude them; but again the line would be hard to draw for those who neither wholly support the conduct or the war nor are wholly committed to one drastic alternative. (It is unclear to me on which side of the line Professor Galbraith would be placed.)

I could go on multiplying the difficulties of finding a reasonable line to draw between the non-university-administered activities of professors that are objectionable and those that are not, whatever one’s standards of wickedness; and, further, I doubt whether there is enough consensus on standards to make it possible to draw an agreed line, even if some people think they know where to draw it. If I’m right about this, any line has to be arbitrary, as Professor Galbraith’s line was arbitrary. (If Professor Galbraith interprets his original proposal as applying only to university-administered research, the line is clearer but only because more arbitrary.)

If, though, the line is arbitrary–if its purpose just to mark out an identifiable target without regard to the nature of the research itself or of the non-research activity–then, aside from the likelihood that an embarrassingly large number of angels will be caught in the netful of devils, there is the question of what is being objected to and what the purpose of the boycott is. The purpose can no longer be described as bringing pressure to bear to get objectionable activities terminated. Rather, it would look–to me, at any rate–as though a boycott were being used to induce a particular group of professors to join a boycott against the government, or to embarrass them for declining to join a boycott.

Whatever my feelings about Professor Galbraith’s protest movement, I resent his proposal that students organize to coerce me into joining it. And I hope nobody stays away from Professor Galbraith’s classes in a vain organized attempt to embarrass him into changing his politics.

T.C. Schelling
Professor of Economics

_________________________

An Academic [Arthur Smithies] in the War
By Seth M. Kupferberg

The Harvard Crimson, May 23, 1975

Edward F. Chamberlin, superintendent of Kirkland House, tells a story about a Kirkland celebration that took place some years back, when Arthur Smithies was House master. Smithies was pouring drinks for the members of the victorious House crew team, starting with the bow man and working towards the stern of the shell, and as he reached the stroke, someone brought word that he had just become a grandfather.

“He kept right on—he just said, ‘Coxswain!'” Chamberlin recalls, chuckling. ‘”Coxswain, take your wine…’ We almost died.”

Smithies–Ropes Professor of Political Economy and a long-time adviser in the Saigon bureau of the Agency for International Development—gave up his mastership—”certainly Harvard’s best job,” he says—last spring. (“You can stay on past 66 as a professor but you have to retire as a master,” he grouses. “It should be the other way around—the brain deteriorates before the body does.”) But the story of the Agassiz Cup celebration still seems characteristic of him—both in content and in style, for a certain kind of sharp, logical humor as well as, perhaps, a certain cheerful indifference to happenings that would excite or upset or change the attitudes of many people. It’s a style, arguably, that found expression in Smithies’s work in Vietnam as well as his praise of the Agassiz Cup winners—and there, it was likely to have larger effects and meanings, since it served a side in an internecine war instead of an intramural regatta.

At the simplest, most straightforward level, the Agassiz Cup story is characteristic because it’s about crew—the sport that in 1929 helped bring Smithies, a 22-year-old Australian law student, the great-grandson of the first Methodist minister in western Tasmania, a Rhodes Scholarship. Finding England “too structured for my taste,” Smithies went on to discover “the fleshpots of the United States” with a Commonwealth Fellowship and a Model A Ford, earn a quick Harvard doctorate in economics, return to Australia briefly to work in its treasury department, then settle in the United States for good.

Smithies accepted tenure at Harvard in 1949—partly “so I could take up rowing again”—and continued to work at budgetary and fiscal economics. He also demonstrated an idiosyncratic kind of firmness—”I’m a believer in strict academic requirements, but for something important, like seat-races, I would make an exception,” he once told a Kirkland House oarsman. In its more political manifestations, many students came to find Smithies’s firmness objectionable. “People used to go around screaming ‘CIA Agent!’ and things at me,” he recalls. For when anti-ROTC students occupied University Hall in April 1969 and opened the files of then dean of the Faculty Franklin L. Ford, one of the letters they released to The Old Mole, the underground Cambridge newspaper that folded in 1970, was from Smithies. Dated December 7, 1967, it read: “The Central Intelligence Agency has instructed its consultants to inform their official superiors of this connection with the Agency. I hereby inform you of my connection of ten years duration. I wish I could, add that there is something subtly interesting or sinister about it.”

The tinge of self-mockery—the impatience of a person who takes certain things for granted, maybe—was typical: the same slight aloofness you sense when Smithies says he spends his free time “rowing boats and toiling in my garden,” as though the joys of domesticity in Belmont, like England, are a little too structured for his taste. But that didn’t stop the CIA letter from kicking up a minor storm.

“The CIA is divided sharply into two parts—covert and overt,” Smithies—who says he was most recently consulted by the agency, regarding a report on the future of the Vietnamese economy, last year—explains now. “For about ten years I’d go down there and review their papers on national economic matters: I’ve never been the cloak-and-dagger type. But naturally they made a big fuss about it,” he concludes, with something close to approval. “That’s good tactics.”

It was partly an exclusive attention to improving tactics—rather than more fundamental questions about the Vietnam war—that the University Hall occupiers and other Harvard radicals objected to in Smithies, even before they discovered his CIA letter, Smithies traces his service as an Agency for International Development consultant, advising the Republic of Vietnam on its fiscal policy and rates of international exchange, to previous foreign-affairs interests that included involvement in administering the Marshall Plan. He says he was regarded as a liberal both as a young teacher at the University of Michigan, where he defended the Michigan Daily‘s right to take leftist editorial stands, and in his early years in the Harvard Economics Department, where Keynesians like him were still an embattled minority.

And he still offers qualified praise for radical economists like Stephen A. Marglin ’59 or other members of the Union of Radical Political Economists—for aiming at a historical perspective on economic systems. “I think if they’d let me I’d be more of an ally than I am,” he says. “I don’t like a narrow concentration on Marx—I think it should also include Weber and people like that. I also and not a socialist, and URPE people generally are socialists—I firmly believe in the mixed economy.” For his part, Marglin says he agrees with Smithies’s stress on “the historical nature of economic theory and the fact that neo-classical theory is not the pinnacle of economic thought.” But he claims that Smithies shares orthodox economists’ bias toward marginal improvements that don’t call basic assumptions into question—”that perspective divides him pretty fundamentally from most URPE people,” he says.

Even setting aside Smithies’s belief in a mixed economy, Marglin’s criticism isn’t too surprising—budgetary economics by definition focuses on evaluating means, not ends, which it takes more or less for granted. Smithies’s book, The Budgetary Process in the United States, begins by calling a description of the ways the government sets its priorities “quite enough for one volume and one author,” and it offers only one assumption about how the budgetary process should end up—that “government decision-making can be improved by the clear formulation of alternatives.” Like his work on the budget, Smithies’s work on Vietnamese fiscal policy took its basic political framework more or less for granted.

And like the Agassiz Cup celebration, it was carried on with a certain quiet bravado, even in defiance of what many people might think of as reflex reactions to human events. Apart from his consulting work for AID—which kept him in.

During the height of campus anti-war activity, Smithies recalls, “People used to go around screaming ‘CIA Agent!’ and things at me.” Saigon most summers—Smithies wrote several reports, comparable to other American economists’ and political scientists’ attempts to improve the Saigon government’s chances and provide scientific descriptions of its progress.

Like these other writers, Smithies’s descriptions often reflected Saigon’s assumptions and interests, and so worked to limit debate in the United States and thus to keep the Saigon government strong. Not all American analysts acknowledged this political effect of their writing, but to many of their critics. It was its most important aspect. For the politics underlying questions of Vietnamese economic development included more even than questions about who should manage development and profit from it. The human, political context AID economists could all but ignore also included the struggle over these questions that was killing people and making them homeless, the struggle in which the government AID belonged to was playing an increasingly dominant part.

In a 1971 report commissioned by the Institute for Defense Analyses, called “Economic Development in Vietnam: The Need for External Resources,” and based on a “planning assumption” of “military stalemate and withering away of the war, a process that can last for a decade or more.” Smithies called for $500 million a year in American aid to the Saigon government “during the next decade,” and $700 million more in financing, preferably from an international consortium of countries, “for the indefinite future.” And while noting some of the bad effects of the war on South Vietnam’s economy—such as an unfavorable balance of trade, governmental corruption, the destruction of bridges and the defoliation of forests—Smithies also took note of countervailing factors, such as “the increase in the expectations of the Vietnamese people,” which he suggested would remain after “the horrors of war” had faded.

“The war has provided Vietnam with paved highways from end to end, with more airfields than it can possibly use, with spectacular harbors, with an elaborate communications system, with power plants, and with potable water in Saigon,” Smithies wrote.” …While it is impossible to make an accurate inventory of the changes in the infrastructure during the war, the impression is inescapable that the plusses greatly outweigh the minuses.” It was the kind of report that led Frances Fitzgerald ’62 to call AID economics “perhaps the ultimate expression of American hubris.”

Today, Smithies—who says he grew to like Saigon very much, despite a “very rarefied atmosphere” that necessitated weekly trips to the provinces for a reminder that there was a war going on—is naturally less sanguine. “Whatever the merits of the cause. I’m deeply disturbed to see the U.S. forced into a position of unconditional surrender under any circumstances,” he says. “And it’s not clear to me that there is still a clear direction to foreign policy.”

“I wouldn’t have gone there unless I thought the objective of a free and independent South Vietnam was a worthwhile one,” he continues, “and it’s fairly obvious that we didn’t pursue that role at all effectively.” Nevertheless, Smithies stresses American advisers’ accomplishments in such areas as improving rice strains—”whatever side you’re on politically, this was a useful thing,” he says—and the importance of combating “the impression that everyone connected with Vietnam was a scoundrel.”

“I think the economic staff there was really doing a good job,” he says. “In the economic and financial areas there were some very good Vietnamese and some very devoted and sincere Vietnamese—extremely able and also extremely patriotic. I can’t say the same for some of the corps commanders—but in the welter of recriminations there’s a tendency to forget what was good.”

* * *

It took just a few days after the Provisional Revolutionary Government’s victory last month for Smithies’s acquaintances to stop asking him, as at least one had the first day, about “the end of those summers in Saigon.” In the burgeoning New England spring, Saigon seemed very far away. It seemed more appropriate to remember smaller-scale settings for imperturbability in the face of exciting or famous or upsetting people or events—the Agassiz Cup celebration, say, or the Kirkland House dinner two years ago at which Smithies gave President Bok a long, pointed introduction, replete with references to “the days when the University was interested in education—before the present administration took office.” (“These occasions can get very stolid if you don’t liven ’em up a bit,” Smithies explains now. “I think one ought to be mildly provocative—what do you think?”)

At most, it seemed in keeping with the intoxicating spring weather to remember Smithies’s 1969 visit to occupied University Hall—the only one by a master, possibly helping to inspire his belief that by playing a “civilizing role,” “the House system vindicated itself in 1969 as I haven’t seen it do before or since.” Smithies says the visit was mostly a matter of bravado, “rather foolish. I suppose,” but he still seems proud of it—he’s supposed to have informed an occupier who called him an administration spy that he had “rather more right to be here than you do.” The occupiers voted to expel Smithies, but they allowed him to speak first. “It was rather reassuring, in a way,” he said, but the occupiers evidently weren’t sympathetic—”all I remember just what he said, but the occupiers evidently weren’t sympathetic—”all I remember is that it was philosophically weird,” one of them said recently.

Meanwhile, Smithies continued to teach macroeconomic theory, scull on the Charles, lunch in the Kirkland dining hall, even be mildly provocative, if only because senior English majors in the House were taking general exams, on such moderately unlikely subjects as the poetry of T.S. Eliot ’10. “My wife and I used to be very fond of Eliot—I think we still are,” Smithies explained later, but at lunch, he didn’t seem so sure.

“But is it poetry–the broad-backed hippopotamus?” he asked his companions, a little quizzically. Then he proceeded to rattle off three or four stanzas: The broad-backed hippopotamus Rests on his belly in the mud; Although he seems so firm to us He is merely flesh and blood…

“Is that poetry–or is it just a jingle?” he asked again. No one offered an immediate answer: things were back to normal.

Steven B. Geovanis

Image Sources:  Left to right. Smithies and Galbraith from Harvard Class Album 1958; Gerschenkron from Harvard Class Album 1957.

Categories
Economics Programs Fields Harvard

Harvard. Report of Economics Department Visiting Committee. Brimmer, 1974

 

The first African American to have served as a governor of the Federal Reserve System  (1966-1974) was the Harvard economics Ph.D. (1957), Andrew F. Brimmer (1926-2012). Brimmer was a loyal alumnus who served his doctoral alma mater on the Harvard Board of  Overseers and as a member/chair of the visiting committee for the economics department. 

This post provides the 37 page text of the 1974 Visiting Committee Report on conditions in the Harvard economics department. The topics of radical economics, hiring, tenure and promotion, and the deep dissatisfaction of about half of the economics graduate students with Harvard’s Ph.D. curriculum are all covered in this fairly remarkable document.

_________________________

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO VISIT THE
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

[Andrew F. Brimmer, Chairman (April 15, 1974)]

I. Introduction

General Impression: The Committee found the Department of Economics under a great deal of stress, and it left with considerable concern for its future effectiveness. The Committee observed some disagreements within the senior faculty, but the major division appears to be between the latter as a group and perhaps half the graduate students. The factors giving rise to this division are numerous and complex, but one element stands out above all others: a substantial proportion of the graduate students are convinced that the senior faculty has little interest in teaching them and is not concerned with their welfare. A strong sense of alienation pervades the Department, and the frustration is evident on the part of a significant number of nontenured faculty members as well as among graduate students. On the other hand, the undergraduate concentrators seem to be much more contented than they were a few years ago.

The Committee was deeply troubled about this state of affairs—because on previous visits it had found a far different situation. For example, in its Report for the academic years 1969-71, it concluded:

“…The Department of Economics is in excellent condition. In addition to first-class leadership and fine internal condition, it enjoys the best of reputations. Its graduate school received the top rating in the recent canvas made by the American Council on Education. As we were able to see for ourselves during the visitations, the standard of teaching is very high and the work produced impressive….” 1/

1/ “Report of the Committee to Visit the Department of Economics for the Academic Years, 1969-71,” November 22, 1971, Number Two, p. 7

Against that background, the condition of the Department at the time of the last visit was particularly disturbing. A significant proportion of the members had served on the Committee during previous visits, and they were able to compare the present atmosphere to that which prevailed on previous occasions. For them, the sharpness of the deterioration in attitudes and relationships within the Department was particularly distressing.

Having reported these pessimistic impressions at the very outset, it must also be stressed that the Department of Economics at Harvard remains at the very forefront of the economics profession, For instance, at the time of the Committee’s visit, a senior member of the faculty [Wassily Leontief] was absent—because he was in Europe to accept the 1973 Nobel Prize in Economics, thus joining two other colleagues in the Department [Simon Kuznets (1971), Kenneth Arrow (1972)] who have received this signal honor. In a number of fields (especially in Economic Theory and Econometrics), the Department is at or close to the apex of the profession. Its members are also conducting first-class work in most of the applied fields. Moreover, as discussed more fully below, the Department has appointed a number of committees to re-examine its program. The expected recommendations—if adopted—will undoubtedly correct some of the deficiencies noted in this report. Thus, while economics at Harvard is going through a number of strains, it is by no means on the edge of dissolution.

The Visitation: The Committee met in Cambridge on the evening of December 10 and all day December 11, 1973. Fifteen of the 20 members of the Committee were present for all or a substantial part of the visit. An agenda identifying the main topics to be covered—along with supporting material—had been distributed in advance.

The issue of “Radical Economics” at Harvard was a matter of considerable interest to a number of Committee members, and several had requested that it be given a high priority on the agenda. Reflecting this interest, a number of contemporary items of information were circulated. In addition, an excerpt, “Much Ado About Economics,” from James B. Conant’s My Several Lives, was sent to Committee members. In this chapter, Dr. Conant discussed the controversy evoked by the report of the Committee which visited the Department of Economics in 1950. In its public report, the Committee (through its chairman) criticized the Department for a lack of “balance with respect to the viewpoints of its members.” In essence, The Committee at that time found that the Department had a number of “Socialists,” “Keynesians,” and “advocates of Government control of the economy”; but it found no one on the faculty with opposing views. It concluded that the situation should be corrected. The criticism against the Department which attracted the present Committee’s interest was the charge that political bias on the part of senior members of the faculty influenced the decision not to give tenure to one or more younger members identified as “radical economists.” So, while the specific facts were different, the basic issues were quite similar.

Several other specific issues had been identified in advance, and one or more members of the Visiting Committee had been asked to take responsibility to see that they were not overlooked. Among these were: (1) the quality of undergraduate teaching; (2) the quality of instruction in the first-year graduate courses, and (3) the Department’s affirmative action program.

During its visit, the Committee met separately with representatives of the tenured and non-tenured-faculty. It also met separately with undergraduates. The Committee was invited to a specially-called meeting of the Graduate Economics Club, and a number of faculty members also attended. Several of the Committee members also attended some of the classes which were then in session. On the basis of these contacts, the Committee formed a number of impressions and reached a number of conclusions. These are discussed in the following sections. The Committee also made several suggestions to the Department, and some of these are indicated in the text. Finally, the Committee weighed several recommendations, but agreement could not be reached on some of them. The outcome of that discussion is reported in the final section of this report. At the Chairman’s request, several of the Committee members prepared written accounts of their impressions, and others communicated orally with him following the visit. The Chairman drew extensively on these accounts — as well as on notes taken during the visit — in the preparation of this report.

 

II. Structure of the Department

The Department of Economics at Harvard is a fairly large organization. As shown in Table 1, there were 132 persons holding appointments in the Department during the 1973-74 academic year. Fifty-two of these had primary appointments in the Department, and seven held joint appointments with other units of the University. Three were visitors from other institutions. There were also 70 teaching fellows all of whom were graduate students. There were also 11 persons from other faculties offering instruction in the Department. Four of these had their primary appointments in the Kennedy School and two in the Business School.

Table 1. Faculty of the Department of Economics
Academic Year, 1973-74
Economics Faculty Other Faculty Offering Instruction
Professional Chairs 10 Kennedy School
Professors 10 Professors 2
Associate Professors 6 Associate Professors 1
Assistant Professors 14 Lecturer 1
Lecturers 12 Sub-Total 4
Sub-Total 52
Joint Faculty Business School
Professors 5 Professor 1
Assistant Professors 2 Assistant Professor 1
Sub-Total 7 Sub-Total 2
Visiting Faculty Other Schools
Professor 2 Professors 3
Lecturers 1 Associate Professors 2
Sub-Total 3 Sub-Total 5
Total 62 Total 11
Teaching Fellows 70
Grand Total 132

The size of the Department has been fairly stable in recent years — following a noticeable expansion during the first half of the 1960’s. For example, in the Fall of 1959-60, there were 55 members; by the Fall of 1966-67, there were 118. So the 132 in the Department during 1973-74 represented a gain of 12 per cent over the last seven years. It should be noted, however, that all of the members reported do not devote full time to the Department. The average teaching fellow spends about one-third of this time in the classroom while the remainder is devoted to research (primarily in the preparation of dissertations). Most of the Assistant Professors teach roughly half time and are involved in some variety of research for the remainder. Those members holding joint appointments are also engaged in on-going research for a significant part of their work load. Finally, during any given period, a number of the members will be on leave to pursue independent projects. For the 1973-74 academic year, eight faculty members were scheduled to be on leave for the full year. Three others were to be absent in the Fall term and four others during the Spring. A number of faculty members also had reduced teaching loads because they had bought off a fraction of their time via research grants. The figures in Table 2 show the number of faculty members on a full-time equivalent basis for each rank.

As indicated in Table 3, roughly half of the Economics Department’s faculty (excluding teaching fellows) have tenure. However, quite contrary to the impression frequently gotten by casual observers—the tenured members of the Department carry a sizable share of the teaching load at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Moreover, as shown in Table 4, the proportion of undergraduate courses taught by the tenured faculty has risen significantly over the last ten years. In contrast, the proportion of graduate courses taught by the senior members has declined somewhat. During the 1972-73 academic year (not shown in Table 4), tenured faculty taught 20 of the 36 undergraduate courses offered. There were 18 tenured members in residence during the year, and 16 of them taught at least a one-semester course offered primarily for undergraduates. Moreover, all of them were available to advise on theses and to supervise independent work. Nevertheless, teaching fellows still carry a significant share of the total teaching load in the Department.

Table 2. Number of Economics Faculty Members on a Full-Time Equivalent Basis,
By Rank
Academic
Year		 Full
Professors		 Assoc. & Ass’t. Professors Lecturers Teaching
Fellows
1973-74 15.75 11.05 4.25 2.6
Est. for 1974-75 14.25 12.00 2.00 19.1

 

Table 3. Tenure Status of the Economics Faculty
Academic Years 1970-71 and 1971-72
Academic
Year		 Total
Faculty		 Tenured Professors Non-Tenured Professors
Number Per Cent Number Per Cent
1970-71 71 29 41 42 59
1971-72 53 25 47 28 53

 

Table 4. Number of Economics Courses Taught, By Status of Faculty,
Selected Academic Years
Term and Status
of Faculty		 Number of Undergraduate Courses
(Exc. Junior & Senior Tutorials)		 Number of Graduate
Courses
1953-54 1962-63 1971-72 1953-54 1962-63 1971-72
Fall Term
Tenured 6 8 14 23 25 25
Non-Tenured 8 6 11 5 5 12
Total 14 14 25 28 30 37
Tenured as per cent of total 43 57 56 82 83 68
Spring Term
Tenured 7 6 15 24 29 27
Non-Tenured 10 11 11 5 5 11
Total 17 17 26 29 34 38
Tenured as per cent of total 41 35 58 83 85 71

 

III. Trends in Enrollment

Undergraduates: The Department has continued to attract a substantial proportion of all undergraduates to its courses. For example, it is estimated that nearly half of all undergraduates were attracted at least to Economics 10—the introduction to economics. Fall term enrollment in this course in recent years is shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Fall Term Enrollment in Economics 10
Year Number Year Number
1965 774 1970 553
1966 828 1971 570
1967 734 1972 706
1968 732 1973 987
1969 535

These figures indicate that enrollment in the introductory course has surpassed the previous peak set in the Fall of 1966. In fact, while enrollment declined by over one-third between 1966 and 1969, the recovery in enrollment since the low point was reached amounted to more than four-fifths through the Fall of 1973.

The Department continues to attract about 7 per cent of all undergraduates as concentrators. Trends over recent years are shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Undergraduate Enrollment
Academic
Year		 Number of Economics Concentrators
(3 years)		 Per Cent of All Concentrators Harvard/
Radcliffe
Ratio		 Course Enroll. Below 300 Level
(Student Sem.)		 Economics as Per Cent of Arts & Sciences
1968-69 346 7.4 4.4 3,510 6.4
1969-70 292 6.4 5.5 3,437 6.4
1970-71 288 6.2 4.2 3,588 6.8
1971-72 301 6.4 4.5 3,542 7.0
1972-73 315 6.7 3.8 N.A. N.A.

These results have been achieved in the face of expanding competition from new concentration options offered elsewhere in Harvard and Radcliffe Colleges. The Department’s share of concentrators has been rising somewhat in recent years. However, it still remains well below what it was in the past-for example, 9.8 per cent in 1953 and 8.6 per cent in 1966. Moreover, economics continues to appeal substantially less to Radcliffe students than it does to those in Harvard College. Thus, the figures reported above suggest that men are about four times as likely to concentrate in economics as are women. This situation has existed for many years, and the presence of several women on the economics faculty seems not to have enhanced the Department’s appeal to women undergraduates. In the years ahead, the Department plans to place special emphasis on broadening enrollment of Harvard and Radcliffe undergraduates.

The figures presented above also show that the Department’s courses above the introductory (but below the graduate) level have been competing reasonably well in comparison with other undergraduate offerings.

Graduate Students: The figures in Table 7 show trends in graduate student enrollment and doctorates granted in recent years.

Table 7. Graduate Enrollment and Doctorates Awarded
Academic Year Graduate Students Doctorates Awarded
1968-69 159 28
1969-70 183 28
1970-71 171 33
1971-72 151 37
1972-73 161 28
1973-74 158 —

These data suggest that roughly one-sixth to one-fifth of the graduate students enrolled complete the requirements and receive the doctorate each year. As a rule, the typical Ph.D. candidate spends about two years taking courses and in other ways preparing for the generals examinations—normally taken toward the end of the second year. The next phase of the work involves the preparation of a dissertation and a special examination. The median time covered by this phase was in the neighborhood of 32 months for the group completing the Ph.D. degree in 1964-65, compared with 57 months for those doing so in 1954-55. Since the mid-1960’s, the median time probably has been shorted further.

As shown in Table 8, the range of specialization of those completing the Ph.D. in economics at Harvard continues to be quite wide. Among the various fields, however, Economic Development continues to be the most popular field. It accounted for about one-fifth of degrees granted during the four years shown. Money and Banking and Econometrics (the next most popular fields) each accounted for about one-tenth of the degrees awarded. Several of the traditional fields (such as Economic Theory, International Trade, Labor Economics, and Public Finance) each accounted for about 5 per cent of the total number of degrees. The emergence of several newer fields of interest—such as Urban Economics, Environmental Economics, and Socio-Economic Structure—should also be noted.

Table 8. Fields of Specialization of Ph.D. Recipients, Selected Years
Special Field 1965-66 1967-68 1971-72 1972-73
TOTAL 29 35 37 28
1. Agriculture 1 1
2. Chinese Studies 1 1
3. Comparative Economic Systems 1
4 Economic Development 4 12 6 6
5. Economic Growth 2
6. Economic History 1 2 3 1
7. Economic Theory 2 1 2 3
8. Econometrics 4 5 3
9. Environmental Economics 1
10. Health Economics 1 1
11. Industrial Organization 1 1 3
12. Input-Output Economics 2
13. International Trade 3 2 2 1
14. Labor Economics 2 2 3
15. Managerial Economics 1
16. Mathematical Economics 2 1
17. Money and Banking 1 3 4 4
18. Public Finance 2 2 2 1
19. Public Utilities 1
20. Regional Economics 1 2
21. Socio-Economic Structure 1
22. Soviet Economics 1 1
23. Statistics 1
24. Transportation 2 1 1
25. Urban Economics 4 2
26. Water Resources 1

 

IV. Departmental Atmosphere

As I have indicated above, the Committee encountered a greatly disturbed environment. One member of the Committee, who had participated in several previous visits, took special note of the strengths as well as the weaknesses within the Department:

“…As for the divisions in the department, the major one by far is between the senior faculty and about 50% of the graduate students. This is the problem that particularly distressed me, and the one which really threatens the future effectiveness of the department. There are, to be sure, disagreements within the senior faculty on issues dramatized by the decision (not to grant tenure to Professor Samuel Bowles). But I do not believe that — absent the unrest of the graduate students — they are beyond normal academic expectations or outside the capacity of the department for accommodation and compromise. Within the senior faculty there is still the civility and mutual respect needed for a functioning, self-governing department. I say this partly because I have recently visited another economics department where this condition does not obtain.

“The undergraduates seemed reasonably content with the program. …A minority of them are concerned about the loss of radical economists, but there was not as strong an undergraduate voice on this issue as might have been expected. As elsewhere, undergraduate radicalism is much weaker than it was five years ago.

“The complaints of junior faculty seemed to me much the same in kind and intensity as on previous visits. They have to do with the impersonality of the place, the lack of community, the inaccessibility of senior faculty, the division of the department into research empires which communicate very little with each other. In addition, junior faculty often express sympathy with the complaints of graduate students about the curriculum and the quality of instruction. At the same time, junior faculty do recognize the very great advantages of the Harvard environment for their own research and intellectual development. And they also participate with devotion and enthusiasm in the teaching programs of the department, and in the work of the various committees for curricular reform.

“The critical problem is the alienation of the graduate students. The most distressing thing is not that there are radicals among them, but that the general shortcomings of graduate instruction have alienated so many students of all persuasions. The radicals have evidently been able to capitalize on this discontent to make recruits among successive waves of students. Otherwise it is hard to understand how a movement which has waned rapidly in economics on other campuses and in other departments at Harvard continues to be so strong. It may also be true that some of the appeal of Bowles et. al. was that they cultivated a solicitude for students in contrast to the indifference perceived in “straight” faculty.

“In my own department radical dissent regarding the methodology of economics, the organization of our program, and the substance of economics has been expressed with emphasis but almost never with hostility and distrust toward the faculty as individuals or as an institution. So I found the tone of hostility and distrust at the Harvard (Graduate Economic Club) meeting very distressing. And of course I was quite impressed that about half of the graduate students were there, and that among them only one person said he was having a really good educational experience. I realize that the 50% present were not representative, but that’s a lot of students in itself and evidently the satisfied students didn’t have strong enough feelings to show up.

“The criticisms of first year courses are not new. We heard a couple of years ago that the theory course was a heavy dose of technical mathematics with no attempt at elucidation of basic economic content. Since then the course has shifted teachers again (frequent shifting is one of its problems), but remains a problem. It is much too large (maybe 80) for effective teaching. For the richest university, that is disgraceful.

“The general reputation of the senior faculty is that they are inaccessible, unapproachable, that they know and see only the few students who have gained access to their empires. No one serves for graduate students the functions performed by junior faculty for undergraduates, as teachers, advisers, tutors, friends. This really must be changed, even at some expense in research output and in outside activities of faculty. As things stand, I would not advise a bright … senior to go to the Harvard department unless he was of such a specialized interest and talent that he clearly could become a student protégé of one of the giants of the Harvard department.

“Perhaps the reduction in size of the graduate student body and the appointment of more non-tenure associate professors who will be active in graduate instruction will improve the situation. But that will not be enough. The senior faculty seems to me overly complacent about the situation, perhaps because they have been so close to it so long that they have forgotten what a decent and civilized community of faculty and graduate students is like.

“Unfortunately it will take time to recreate one at Harvard even if the faculty tries to do so. I don’t think it takes a drastic reformation of the curriculum so much as greater dedication to teaching, the use of smaller classes, assistants in first year courses, etc.”

Still another member of the Visiting Committee addressed himself to the atmosphere in the Department:

“…At the very outset, I think (one must not get) the impression of a deeper split within the senior faculty than actually exists. The division of opinion over Bowles involved only a small minority (not-by the way—a bloc that would hold together on many issues) and represented the sort of difference of opinion that any large faculty must expect to have. Had it not been for the size and intensity of the reaction from graduate students, nothing much would have followed from the Bowles decision. The real split in the department is between most of the senior faculty and a substantial fraction of the graduate student body. That, in turn, is a compound of radical dissidence and much broader student discontent with the teaching and conduct of the graduate program. The most striking aspect of the situation, in some ways, is how little the senior faculty seems to care. To give a clear picture of the department, I think (one must note) the contrast between the turbulence down below and the disaffection of some assistant professors on the one hand, and the fact that at the top things are really quite serene, large amounts of excellent research are getting done, and the faculty is justifiably pleased with its place and performance in the profession. That dichotomy is very important. The Overseers should realize that actions taken to fix some of the bad things may have unexpected effects on the good things…”

In a letter written following the visit, another member of the Committee also captured the essence of the prevailing conditions:

“… The distressing morale situation in the Economics Department shook me profoundly. I know enough to recognize the normal level of gripes in the special pleadings to which one is always open in such a situation, but the reactions of the various academic people on the Committee and that Law School professor at the (Graduate Economics Club) meeting confirm to me that things are really bad.

“…The argument about the radical professors probably pinpoints the entire problem, which is one of alienation between the tenured faculty (most of them, anyway) and all the rest of the department – faculty and students. There is a feeling that nobody cares…. Add to that the clear and unhappy failure to cope with the challenges it must meet (and perhaps was itself the cause of these problems), and the impatience and frustration of the younger people with the conventional … ‘received doctrine’ is only natural.

“…I have never heard the word ‘disappointment’ used so often. One shocking comment at the lunch with the non-tenured faculty was that, ‘It’s almost impossible to get a senior faculty person to read our research papers, but that’s easy in comparison with getting them to look at a reading list of a course we are preparing.’ The conscious and persistent rejection of discussion or Socratic teaching techniques in the classroom is hardly the proper way to help students to master a complex and essentially analytical rather than descriptive subject.

“The contrast with my days as an undergraduate is striking. We knew, took classes with, and spent time with all the great stars of our time—Hansen, Williams, Schumpeter, Mason, Leontief, Chamberlin, Haberler, Machlup, etc. All but the largest classes were full of active discussion and argument. The younger faculty was in ferment about Keynesianism and was just jamming it down the throats of the older faculty—who listened, argued, and clarified. I have never stopped going back to my class notes or the annotations in our books. The whole thing has never lost its relevance, fascination, or utility over the … years. This is what Harvard should do and must do to justify its reputation and importance, but that is precisely what it is not doing now.”

One member (who has visited the Department on several other occasions) focused on another impression shared by a number of others on the Committee. Following the visit, he wrote:

“…For the first time (in several years of) visitations (they were annual prior to the recent innovation)…I feel that the department is in great need of leadership. This conclusion is the result of a number of factors. Among them:

“1. While the department is unquestionably the finest in the country, the aura of leadership stems primarily from research activities. Teaching is another and a considerably spottier story. While the samples we observed were highly selective, they were not good.

“2. The furor over the radical economists does not seems to me to be related nearly as much to the facts as to the way in which the situation has been handled. That Harvard is alone among all universities in being in this position would tend to support this conclusion.

“3. The Harvard Economic Research Institute was a device for channeling research funds to the department. It has been allowed to run down completely. As much as faculty members may like the idea of additional funds being available, there seems no plan for replacing this source. Without such a plan and organized approach, it seems unlikely to me they will be replaced.

“4. I gather Ed Mason’s international activity is about to go out of business. I do not know the full story.

“5. The feeling persists among students (and this is not new) that the Economics Department lacks a ‘personality’ and interest in the student as an individual. As a result, they feel ‘at sea’.

“6. The impression I had from the students, at least, is that the number of socially relevant policy courses is limited (probably wrong) and that it is only the radical economists who are interested in teaching them (probably also wrong) and that these are the kinds of subjects on which students want to spend their time (with which I completely sympathize). If the students are right, this is a bad state of affairs. The fact that this is their perception of reality also seems to me a poor state of affairs.

“I am sure that each of these has its rationale and history. Yet, however much each requires the kind of careful handling one normally associates with management of professional staffs, none of these situations is necessary. Taken together, they worry me. My impression is that if we had time to study the issues truly important to the department’s future, we might well find they lacked the kind of forceful handling they should have….”

The assessment of the Department by a new member of the Committee was as follows:

“…My impression of the concern expressed by both the undergraduate and graduate students was threefold: (1) radical economics; (2) ‘relevant’ courses; and (3) a demonstrated concern for and interest in teaching and students. It seemed that the ‘radical’ economists were lecturing on topics of great interest to the students and were good, concerned teachers. Thus, I would like to emphasize that the Department not only broaden its course offerings but make evident, in a visible, systematic and continuing fashion that a priority function is teaching undergraduates and graduates…”

Again, it must be emphasized that the Committee’s exposure was necessarily short, and it may not have gotten a fully rounded picture of the prevailing situation. On the other hand, the fact that Committee members who have seen the Department over several years got the same impression must be given a great deal of weight.

 

V. Undergraduate Instruction Program

The Committee encountered few criticisms with respect to the undergraduate program offered by the Department of Economics. This was in noticeable contrast to the situation just a few years ago. At that time, students complained about the quality of tutorial programs and the lack of an opportunity to pursue joint majors with other substantive fields. During the 1972-73 academic year, the Department greatly expanded the amount of instruction provided on an individual or small group basis. As part of the initial effort, 20 sophomores received individual tutoring with highly favorable results. As a consequence, individual tutorial will become a permanent option — while group instruction will also be available for those students who prefer it. All concentrators have the option to participate in junior tutorial, and the option is being elected by an increasing number of such students. A senior thesis workshop has been in operation for more than a year. This program (led by a senior faculty member) provides an opportunity for seniors pursuing honors to explain and defend their research proposals well in advance of the March date on which the theses are due.

For the last few years, the Undergraduate Instruction Committee (UIC) has circulated questionnaires in all undergraduate courses in Economics to permit students to evaluate each course. The questions have focused on matters such as (1) the lecturer’s ability to hold interest; (2) overall evaluation of lectures; (3) overall evaluation of reading material; (4) helpfulness of sections; (5) preparation of section leaders; (6) fairness in grading; (7) attainment of initial expectations, and (8) overall impression of course. Each of these elements is rated on a scale of 9 for excellent, 7 for good, 5 for average, etc. The mean evaluation of undergraduate courses (weighted by enrollment) taught in the Fall term of 1971-72 was 6.65. (The standard deviation was 1.63) The highest score was achieved by junior tutorial groups, and several intermediate lecture courses followed fairly closely behind. A rough summary of the students’ evaluation of courses taught in the academic year 1972-73 (unweighted by enrollment) suggests that the overall assessment was about the same as in the previous year.

During the Committee’s visit, however, representatives of the Undergraduate Instruction Committee made two recommendations affecting the undergraduate program. The first related to the procedures of the Faculty Subcommittee on the Undergraduate Curriculum. The UIC expressed apprehension over the possibility that the Faculty Subcommittee might recommend major changes in the objectives and curriculum of the Economics Department without providing an ample opportunity for economics concentrators to discuss the proposals. The UIC strongly urged against such a course. After meeting with UIC, members of the Visiting Committee reported this concern to the chairman of the Faculty Subcommittee and were assured that no definitive action would be taken without proper consultation with undergraduate concentrators.

The second recommendation concerned the place of “radical” economics at Harvard. The UIC stated that:

“…it is clear to the committee that the Department of Economics should provide opportunities for undergraduate study in all major areas of economic theory. ‘Radical’ (Marxist) economic theory, as taught by Professors Bowles, Gintis, MacEwan, and Marglin, is a major alternative to neoclassical economic theory. The possibility exists that none of these faculty members will be teaching at Harvard during the academic year 1974-75. In light of this fact, this committee urges that the Department of Economics make certain that “radical” professors of economics be present on the Harvard Department of Economics faculty for 1974-75.”

In assessing the status of the undergraduate program, a member of the Committee observed:

“…The undergraduate program seems to be in better shape, perhaps because some of the assistant professors and teaching fellows are, against all odds, devoted to teaching. It seems to me that there is a genuine issue to be faced in the (recommendation)…. I have only little sympathy for the notion that “radical” or Marxian economic theory deserves a major place in the curriculum. But I do think that a department that goes in one or two years from a complement of four actively teaching radicals to none is in grave danger of violating a legitimate expectation of continuity held by students. If any number of undergraduates were attracted into the field by the hope of doing some specifically “radical” courses and research, then it is perhaps unfair to them to withdraw that opportunity so suddenly. If that is the content of the UIC recommendation, I think there is merit in it. There may be a similar point to be made on behalf of graduate students.

The Visiting Committee assured the representatives of UIC that their recommendations would be included in its report.

 

VI. Graduate Instruction Program

The Visiting Committee heard the most vocal expressions of discontent from graduate students. The strident tone of these comments was new—even to persons who had been on the Committee for several years. In explaining the apparent sharpness of the changed environment, one must give weight to the observations made by the chairman of the Department of Economics: since the Committee did not meet during the 1972-73 academic year, it perhaps had not kept abreast of emerging graduate student attitudes. Moreover, when the Committee visited the Department during the last few years, the “radical” students had boycotted the Committee’s meeting with graduate students. This time they chose to participate in the discussion through the Graduate Economic Club (G.E.C.).

In fact, the special meeting called by that organization (and to which the Committee and faculty members were invited) was the best session of the entire visit—at least in the opinion of several members of the Committee. The co-chairman of the G.E.C. had obviously worked hard to organize the meeting, and a substantial proportion of the graduate students enrolled participated. Three key issues were listed on the agenda: (1) the first-year program (including the Economic History requirement, theory courses, mathematics instruction, class size, and teaching quality); (2) curriculum content and the “firing” of radical professors, and (3) the structure and control of the Department. The presentations were crisp, and the discussion — while full — was highly focused.

The meeting took place against the background of considerable student unhappiness over the graduate program. One expression of that attitude is embodied in a long letter prepared by the Graduate Economics Club and addressed to entering graduate students. The opening section of that letter sets the general tone:

“The Graduate Economics Club is an organization open to all economics graduate students, whose purpose is to represent, and provide a forum for, the views of students in the department. We are writing to welcome you to the Economics Department. We only wish we could report that it was a more pleasant experience. In general, most of us have found that the first year at Harvard was the worst year of our lives. The teaching is often terrible, the professors distant and uninterested in new students. Many of us found that we were forced to work extremely hard at courses that were poor by any standard. The department makes little attempt to ease new students’ adjustment to Cambridge, so many entering graduates find the initial months are alienating and lonely. Student-faculty relations are often poor, in part as a result of academic and political disputes which have riven the department in the last three or four years.

“Harvard can be a very exciting place to work. Cambridge is a lively, stimulating city: the intellectual and cultural resources available here are extremely broad ranging. Once they come to know the department and the city, most students find Harvard an enjoyable place to study. It is largely the first few terms here that prove so difficult. In an effort to make the first year somewhat better for you than it was for us, a fair number of students have discussed how we might have treated our first year here differently. This letter is an attempt to condense what we now that might help you. Not all of us agree with all of what is included, but most of us agree with most of it….”

The letter then took up three main subjects: (1) the formal academic requirements and the older students’ collective judgment as to the best way to handle them; (2) housing and living arrangements, and (3) an account of the “political” conflicts evident in the Department of Economics in the last few years. The first and third of these subjects were also dominant themes of the G.E.C.’s meeting in which the Visiting Committee participated.

The formal requirements for the Ph.D. established by the Department of Economics specify that candidates must pass examinations in five fields: Economic Theory, Economic History; Quantitative Methods, and two “special” fields chosen by the student. By long-standing practice, many students “write-off” the Economic History and Quantitative Methods requirements by taking specified courses. An additional requirement is enrollment in one working seminar in which a paper must be prepared.

These requirements—and the way in which they have been administered—have engendered numerous complaints by graduate students. In response, the Graduate Instruction Committee was instructed by the faculty of the Department of Economics to review a number of aspects of the doctoral program and to recommend improvements. Six curriculum review committees (which included student members as well as both tenured and non-tenured faculty) were established for this purpose. These were: (1) Committee on the Structure of the Doctoral Program and Examinations; (2) Committee on the First-year Program; (3) Committee on Economic Theory and its History; (4) Committee on Economic History; (5) Committee on Special Fields, and (6) Committee on the Relations Between the Economy and Society. The Graduate Instruction Committee prepared several memoranda to give guidance to the various review committees and to identify the main issues and questions on which it was hoped the latter would focus. At the same time, however, it was made clear that the review committees should not feel constrained by such memoranda but should feel free to define the scope of their own deliberations and recommendations. The key issues on which the committees were urged to focus are summarized in Appendix I to this report.

It was thought unnecessary and unduly complicated to require formal coordination of the work of the various review committees. However, consultation among them was encouraged. This was especially true of the committees dealing with the structure of the doctoral program and relations between economics and society. Most of the committees were asked to report during the Fall term. The tasks were well underway at the time the Visiting Committee was at Harvard, and the Department expects to consider the various recommendations before the end of the 1973-74 academic year. It was generally expected that significant changes will be recommended in several of the areas under review.

 

VII. Controversy over Radical Economics

As indicated above, the debate over Harvard’s receptivity to the presence of “radical” professors on the faculty and the inclusion of “radical economics” in the curriculum held a great deal of interest for members of the Visiting Committee. Background material on the subject had been shared with committee members in advance, and a considerable amount of time during the visit was spent on the issues involved.

To put the matter in perspective, it might be well to summarize the emergence of the debate in the Economics Department in recent years. Apparently in the mid-1960’s, a number of younger faculty members and graduate students concluded that conventional training in economics (in which Harvard was in the forefront) did not address most of the social problems of the day which they thought important. Acting on this conviction, they began to work within the Department for a reform of the curriculum. Some of the senior faculty members were sympathetic with these goals. Partly as a result of these efforts, students were added to the Graduate Instruction Committee (G.I.C.)—first two students and then three on a committee of 13 members. Evidently these changes did little to resolve the student’s discontent. It is reported that recommendations by the G.I.C. favorable to students were not endorsed by the faculty as a whole.

In the generally unsettled atmosphere at Harvard during 1969-70, graduate student protest over the economics curriculum also rose considerably. To meet the criticism, the form of the general examination requirements was relaxed somewhat. Yet, many students still found the content of the curriculum unsatisfactory. Again, it seems that some faculty members (not all of them without tenure) shared this feeling. By the Spring of 1971, this continuing disappointment led to the Graduate Economics Club (GEC) to pass “…a resolution calling for full democratization of the economics department. As the first steps towards implementation the GEC demanded equal representation on the Graduate Instruction Committee and the non-tenured faculty committee….” The faculty (after what was apparently a vigorous debate) turned down these propositions in late March, 1971.

In the wake of this outcome, discussions were held among small groups of students and faculty which focused on the general examination requirements and on the graduate program generally. One of the committees formed at that time addressed itself to the role of “socio-economic structure” and Marxist theory in the curriculum. These two subjects were later approved by the faculty (in the Spring of 1971) as special fields in the Ph.D. program. However, no major changes were made in the content of the generals examinations, and no commitment was made to invite any Marxist economists to join the permanent faculty. Also in the Spring of 1971, the student representatives left the Graduate Instruction Committee—protesting what they considered token representation and lack of influence. Finally, in the Fall of 1971, the Graduate Economics Club adopted a resolution specifying that “… a Marxist theorist shall be hired to teach a curriculum in Marxist theory, to begin no later than the Fall of 1972….”

The faculty made no immediate response to this resolution. However, the issue came into sharp focus during the early months of 1972. At that time, a debate got underway over the question of the tenure of Associate Professor Samuel Bowles—a question which the Department had to answer by the end of the calendar year. The term appointment of Assistant Professor Arthur MacEwan was also moving to the stage at which a decision with respect to his future status would have to be made by the same deadline. These two men were viewed by the students as “…the last two remaining non-tenured radical faculty members….” A campaign to win tenure for them was launched by both undergraduate and graduate students. As part of this effort, a petition urging that they be retained and that more radical economists be brought to Harvard was circulated in the Spring of 1972. More than 700 persons signed the petition. In the Fall of that year, a substantial proportion of Professor Bowles former students (reportedly 75 per cent of them—virtually all of those who could be reached) orally or in writing supported the effort to obtain tenure for him. But, after a long (and apparently sometimes divisive) debate, the majority of the Department voted against a tenure appointment for Professor Bowles. A few weeks later, Professor MacEwan’s term appointment was not renewed, and he was not promoted to Associate Professor. Previously two other “radial” economists (Herbert Gintis and Thomas Weisskopf) had failed to receive promotions.

Immediately, these decisions were attacked as “politically” motivated by many of the students and some of the faculty. These charges of bias were denied vigorously by members of the senior faculty. However, the reverberations of those actions reached well beyond the boundaries of Harvard University. For example, at the annual meeting of the American Economic Association (AEA) in Toronto in late December, 1972, a resolution was proposed condemning the action of the Harvard economics faculty. The chairman and other representatives of Harvard spoke against the resolution which was not adopted. However, a modified version was approved. It held that:

  1. The American Economic Association urges that hiring decisions in economics departments be free of political bias. The Association strongly condemns political discrimination in hiring decisions against radical economists or any others.
  2. The American Economic Association urges all departments to set up university procedures whereby allegations of discrimination on the basis of political differences can be systematically investigated.
  3. The American Economic Association strongly opposes discrimination in government grant allocation on the basis of political views.

As indicated above, strong voices were heard on both sides of the debate over the Bowles appointment. The formal view of the faculty majority was given by Professor James Duesenberry, Department Chairman, in his report covering the 1972-73 academic year:

“…Our pleasure…was marred by criticism, from students and others, of the department’s failure to recommend Associate Professor Samuel Bowles for a tenure appointment. The non-tenure associate professorship is a new rank at Harvard and Professor Bowles was the first person appointed to it and therefore the first to reach the time at which a decision as to a tenure recommendation had to be made. There was perhaps some misapprehension as to the likelihood of tenure appointments for associate professors. There are at present six associate professors and it is a source of regret that only a fraction of this extraordinarily able group of economists can be offered tenure appointments. In Professor Bowles’ case it was alleged that the Executive Committee’s decision was biased because of Professor Bowles’ ‘radical’ views. Since bias like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, that is a difficult charge to answer. I can only say that in my twenty years on the Executive Committee the primary consideration has always been the search for persons who could be expected to maintain and enhance the outstanding professional position of the department. Failure to recommend a particular associate professor for a tenure appointment is not an indication of bias unless it can be alleged that the person in question has scholarly abilities and accomplishments which are obviously superior to those of any other persons—at Harvard or elsewhere—who might be appointed.

“Alternatively it might be argued that ‘radical economics’ should receive more attention. The department already has one ‘radical’ full professor (appointed before his conversion to be sure, but here none the less). The amount of weight to be given to any subfield or approach in our discipline is always a matter of opinion and dispute, but it does not seem obvious that the accomplishments of the relatively new radical approach are so overwhelming as to outweigh the many other claims on our limited number of appointments….”

Several other senior faculty members who thought Bowles should have been given tenure—although their reasons differed—have also spoken on the issue. Professor Stephen A. Marglin (a member who was voted tenure before he began to identify with the “radical” economists) urged his colleagues to give Bowles a tenure appointment—and also to bring more radicals to Harvard. By so doing, he though radical economics would have a chance to develop. Professors Kenneth J. Arrow, John Kenneth Galbraith, and Wassily Leontief were also willing to give radical economics an opening: and they, too supported tenure for Bowles. Professor Arrow has been quoted as saying that Bowles’ appointment would broaden the Department, and he felt that his work was “good enough” judged by standard that “hardly had anything to do with radicalism.”

Partly as a response to this debate, Herbert Gintis (who was lecturing in the School of Education after he failed to win reappointment three years earlier) was invited back to the Department of Economics as an Assistant Professor, with the understanding that he would be recommended for promotion effective with the 1974-75 academic year. Beginning in September, 1974, Gintis and Bowles (along with two other “radical” economists — Stephen A. Resnick and Richard Wolff) will go as a team to the Economics Department of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.1/With their departure, Stephen Marglin will be the only “radical” economist with tenure — in a Harvard community numbering more than 60 economists. Moreover, he is scheduled to be on leave for the 1974-75 academic year.

1/ Subsequent to the Committee’s visit, it was learned that Gintis may remain at Harvard. As this report was being written, the matter was still uncertain.

 

VIII. Continuing Controversy Over the Scope of Economics at Harvard

Aside from the debate over the role of radical economists at Harvard, a number of faculty members (both tenured and non-tenured) are concerned about the scope and content of the curriculum—and think it should be broadened considerably. The curriculum review committees discussed above were appointed for this purpose. Several tenure appointments will become available to the Department in the next few years, but opinions differ as to how they should be filled. The Department chairman, in his report covering the 1972-73 academic year, identified the fields of labor, industrial organization, economic development, and economic history as ones in which additional strength is needed.

More fundamentally, however, at least a few senior faculty members apparently believe that the differences in view with respect to the content of the economics program are so wide that a basic reorganization of the Department may be in order. So far, Professor Galbraith is the only one to express his views in writing. However, Professors Arrow, Albert Hirschman, Leontief, and Marglin are reported to have thought — during the Spring of 1973 — that the possibility of forming a new department or a separate track within the existing Department was worth exploration2/By late fall, Professor Galbraith (who chairs the Committee on the First-Year Graduate Program) had in circulation a proposal to establish an Experimental Program and Committee within the existing Department of Economics. If adopted, this program would provide students an alternative path to the Ph.D. paralleling the more traditional route. Under the umbrella of the new faculty Committee which would oversee the alternative route, appointments would be made and associated research would be conducted. Subject matter of interest to faculty and students working in the Committee’s area might include problems of the arts, discrimination, income maintenance, and poverty. Perhaps one-quarter of the graduate students might elect to pursue this new track. The proposal also visualizes that the committee would have the right to recommend appointments — tenure and non-tenure — about in proportion to its share of the teaching load (both undergraduate and graduate). While the Executive Committee of the Department would vote on such recommendations, there would be a broad presumption that the Committee’s recommendations would be accepted.

2/ A member of the Visiting Committee thought the report should note that this group of senior faculty “…is the group that supported Bowles, and that it is in fact a group that has very little else in common. Galbraith’s and Hirschman’s view of economics has very little overlap with Arrow’s and Leontief’s, and Marglin is his own kind of (man). This appears to more an alliance based on political attitude and temporary happenstance than a genuine current of thought.”

At the time the Visiting Committee was in Cambridge, this proposal had generated considerable reaction. It had apparently won strong support among some of the senior faculty as well as among the non-tenured group and graduate students. But it apparently had also encountered strong opposition — especially on the part of some of the tenured members. Since a version of the proposal will probably be submitted to the Graduate Instruction Committee this spring, the Department may have to vote on it before the end of the 1973-74 academic year.

 

IX. Affirmative Action Program

The Visiting Committee made a special effort to appraise the effort being made by the Department of Economics (in keeping with University policy) to recruit women and members of minority groups. The subject was discussed primarily with the Department Chairman, but other senior members of the faculty also contributed. The non-tenure recruitment procedures used during 1972-73 were described by the Department Chairman as follows:

“The Department of Economics normally plans to hire 4 or 5 assistant professors each year. In the 1972/73 recruiting season, the non-tenure appointment committee obtained names and short vitas of prospective new Ph.D.’s from over twenty leading departments of economics. Additional names were supplied to us on an informal basis by a number of smaller graduate departments. Members of the committees and other members of the department then contacted department chairmen, placement officers, and others to develop a shorter list of the outstanding prospects from this year’s Ph.D. crop. In making these inquiries chairmen and placement officers were pressed as to the availability of women and minority candidates. At the time of the 1972 Christmas meetings of the American Economics Association the “short list” included 40 names of which 6 were women. There were no minority candidates who seemed suitable for our department. At the AEA meetings members of our department interviewed all candidates on the short list who could be contacted, as well as others who requested interviews.

“On the basis of interviews and further correspondence with other universities, a number of candidates were included in these invitations. In the end five offers of assistant professorships were made and accepted through these procedures, of whom one was a woman. It may be worth noting that it was necessary for us to make a considerable effort to find a post for her husband at another university in the city in order to obtain the services of the one woman we have recommended for an assistant professor appointment.

“In addition to the appointments made through these procedures, we have recommended that two persons now holding lectureships in the university be appointed assistant professors. One of these is our head tutor who had been teaching in Social Studies but will now undertake an important teaching assignment in our department. In his case we feel that he should assume professorial status. Because of the importance of continuity in his post as head tutor, we have not considered any other candidates.

“A second appointment has been recommended for a lecturer in the School of Education who has previously taught in our department but who will now switch the bulk of his teaching from the School of Education to the Department of Economics.

“We have also recommended two associate professor appointments. One of these is to be promoted from assistant professor upon completion of his term. We had no women assistant professors reaching the review point this year. The other recommendation is for an appointment to associate professor in the field of labor economics as a stop-gap replacement for Professor Dunlop. An extensive search by a special committee did not reveal any women or minority candidates who could be seriously considered for this position.”

On balance, several members of the Visiting Committee thought that the Department’s procedures (while clearly aimed in the right direction) did not show the kind of vigorous effort required to achieve the Harvard goal. At least one academic member of the Committee thought that the Department’s efforts fell appreciably short of those made by several other institutions — which had also been much more successful in competing for an admittedly scarce supply of women and minority group economists.

Another member of the Committee, who had been asked to give special attention to the matter, observed as follows:

“…The first evening… we discussed … Affirmative Action Plan. But I had a strong feeling that it was a farce. The message seemed to be: Look how hard we’ve tried. We’ve done everything we could, but there simply aren’t any qualified women or blacks. As (another member) said to me informally, they really seem to believe women are inferior. This member of the Visiting Committee would urge a much stronger effort to recruit women at the assistant professor level so as to increase the number in the pipeline for higher level positions later….”

 

X. Concluding Observations

At the conclusion of its visit and after considerable discussion — the Visiting Committee decided not to draw up a list of specific recommendations. Instead, it chose to describe as fully as possible the situation it encountered in the Economics Department. It was assumed that the Harvard faculty itself is best suited to cope with its own problems.

On the other hand, several general observations should be made. In the first place, it was obvious to virtually every member of the Committee that the curriculum being offered by the Department of Economics is greatly in need of reformation.3/ The subject matter ought to be broadened to provide greater scope for students and faculty to work on problems — and search for solutions to them — that are not easily encompassed within the corpus of traditional economics as taught at Harvard. It was realized, of course, that the Department of Economics at Harvard is far less narrow than almost any other department in the forefront of the profession. Yet, a number of the men who have provided this broad thrust over the years have recently retired and others are scheduled to do so in the near future. Consequently, the Visiting Committee thinks it is vital that the upcoming opportunities to make tenure appointments be used to assure that Harvard’s historic concern for economic welfare (broadly defined) be kept alive in the years ahead.

3/ A member of the Committee noted that “…the Harvard curriculum is not atypical for university departments aspiring to high status in the profession’s pecking order. So it is a problem of the criteria by which the profession judges, not specifically of the Harvard Department. Nevertheless, there may be good reason for Harvard to assume some leadership in searching for a broader curriculum. Of course, there may be no good answer….”

The Visiting Committee refrained from expressing a judgment on the appropriateness of the decision not to give tenure appointments to specific members of the faculty identified as radical economists. The reason was simple: in the final analysis, the faculty itself has to decide who will be given status and the right to enjoy its privileges and carry on its responsibilities. On the other hand, the Committee feels strongly that “political” bias or other forms of discrimination should have no weight in judging candidates for tenure. Again, however, these judgments have to be made by the faculty.

But one member of the Visiting Committee also felt strongly that some kind of machinery should be created that would enable some outside body (perhaps even outside the University) to review faculty decisions in which those affected adversely feel they are the victims of discrimination — “political” or otherwise. Two or three other members of the Committee expressed some sympathy with this general view — although not necessarily with the specific elements outlined. On balance, however, the Committee decided not to endorse the proposition or transmit it as a recommendation. 4/ Nevertheless, everyone was sensitive to the difficult issues involved. Several members thought that the general position on political bias embodied in the resolution adopted by the American Economic Association (reported above) is one the Harvard Economics Department might well adopt as its own.

4/ The tone of the opposition to the proposal was captured by one member: “…I have my doubts about any proposal for outside review….Appointments may in fact sometimes be made on a discriminatory basis, and I would be interested in suggestions for protective machinery. I fear, however, that the solution mentioned here may be so open to abuse as to be worse than the problem. I wish I had a better alternative to suggest….”

The Committee was deeply impressed with the criticism of the graduate curriculum which it heard. For that reason, it was pleased to note the work now underway in the various review committees to reassess the program. It appears that a number of important recommendations will be made to the faculty — which if adopted could significantly enhance the appeal and usefulness of the program to graduate students. At the same time, it is also obvious that the senior faculty members in the Department must devote far more time directly to the education of the students who look to them for inspiration and guidance.

Finally, the Committee is convinced that a much greater — and far more systematic — effort should be made to seek out promising women and members of minority groups as potential faculty members. The Committee is under no illusions that this is an easy task. But, unless the Department’s procedures are revamped and more resources devoted to the assignment—it appears doubtful that the Department of Economics will make a significant contribution toward helping Harvard University achieve the goals established in its affirmative action program.

Andrew F. Brimmer
Chairman

April 15, 1974

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

APPENDIX I
SUMMARY OF ASSIGNMENTS OF CURRICULUM REVIEW COMMITTEES
[Incomplete]

As indicated above, the Department of Economics has established six curriculum review committees to work on the improvement of a number of aspects of the doctoral program. The principal guidance given to these task forces by the Graduate Instruction Committee is summarized below.

Committee on Structure of the Doctoral Program and Examinations: This committee “will be responsible for reconsidering the procedure whereby a candidate becomes a doctor of philosophy and is expected to contemplate if not to recommend very fundamental changes in the organization of the program.” Its mandate includes:

  1. Reconsideration of the length and chronology of the doctoral program.
    1. Currently the Economic Department expects candidates to take general examinations at the end of their second year and special examinations one and a half to two years later. What is the actual chronology in recent years? Is this norm sound, or should the Department develop a program of different length and segments?
    2. Should candidates be involved in teaching and research sooner than at present, say during the second year, although this may require some extension of the time devoted to preparing for the general orals?
  2. Consideration of possible course requirements. At present there are none (formally), but it may be advisable to require candidates to take a specified minimum number of courses for letter grades.
  3. Reconsideration of the offering of advanced courses and seminars. There are now a large number of advanced courses and seminars, many with small enrollments. Who takes these courses: second-year students, post-generals students, students from outside the Department? Would it suit the needs of the faculty and students better if some or all of them were replaced by less formal and more flexible tutorials, group or individual?
  4. Is the Department meeting the needs of post-generals students with respect to advanced instruction, stimulation, and guidance? How should that phase of the program be strengthened?
  5. Reconsideration of the role and concept of the thesis. Current legislation is intended to encourage theses that are more like a long paper or short monograph than like a comprehensive treatise, but this seems to be largely a dead letter. Which concept is sound, and how can it be implemented?
  6. Reconsideration of the final examination. For the last few years, the grading and conduct of the special examination have been separated from the acceptance and grading of the thesis. Has this change made the special examination a more useful educational experience than previously? Would other changes improve it further?
  7. Finally, is the graduate program properly attuned to the job market or the requirements for a career in economics? What kinds of jobs do Harvard graduates find, and have they been equipped properly for such jobs? Are any procedures needed for adjusting the program to meet the changing demands on economists?

This list of topics, though long and demanding, was not meant to be exhaustive. The committee was encouraged to feel free to raise questions of its own and to make recommendations about any aspects of the program.

 

Committee on the First-Year Program: Some matters and questions that this committee was asked to consider are:

  1. The efficacy and adequacy of the current procedures for advising first-year students.
  2. Whether the courses and programs now available to entering students provide enough flexibility in view of their widely varying levels of preparation and fields of interest. Is the first year concentrated excessively on the three required fields?

 

  1. [sic, “3.” apparently skipped over or omitted] Whether there is need for more information about the level and contents of graduate courses than is provided by the catalog listing and, if so, how to provide it. Are the current pamphlets about the general nature of the program and the degree requirements adequate? Indeed, should the organization and contents of the catalog listing being revised substantially?
  2. Is there need for additional physical facilities, in particular, for a common room?

 

Committee on Economic Theory and Its History: Some of the issues called to the committee’s attention are:

  1. Level of the requirement. At present the instructors and examiners in economic theory and its history do not have any guidance except vague traditions for determining the level of attainment to expect. It is somewhere between the acquaintance with fundamental concepts expounded in the intermediate undergraduate economic theory course and the highly technical proficiency (also vaguely conceived) expected of a candidate who offers advanced economic theory as a special field.
    A clear, and if possible, operational definition would be highly desirable. This task consists, really, of two parts: first, a policy decision on the appropriate level of advancement, and second, the discovery of a way to express that decision in clear and operational terms, perhaps a syllabus.
  2. The scope of the field. Just what topics are to be included in the field of economic theory and its history is nowhere laid down. It is not at all clear how much acquaintance the faculty expects candidates to have with the present of economic doctrine, either first-hand or second-hand. There is considerable disagreement about how much [… end of copy]

 

NOTE:  PAGES STARTING WITH A-5 ARE MISSING.

Missing are “(4) Committee on Economic History; (5) Committee on Special Fields, and (6) Committee on the Relations Between the Economy and Society.”

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Papers. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 527. Folder “Harvard Department of Economics Report of the Visiting Committee, 1975”.

Categories
Economist Market Economists Gender Harvard

Harvard. Galbraith suggests Barbara Bergmann for Women’s Studies Professorship, 1983

 

The departments of anthropology, english and psychology at Harvard appear to have been relatively quick to respond to the 1983 opportunity of hiring a professor in women’s studies. The Harvard Dean then wrote a memo to encourage other departments to come up with candidates as well. John Kenneth Galbraith put forward the name of Barbara Bergmann for the serious consideration of the department. Perhaps someone knows whether his suggestion was able to obtain any search traction?

___________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

A. Michael Spence
Chairman

Littauer Center 200
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
(617) 495-2144

October 31, 1983

 

TO: Members of the Faculty, Economics Department

FROM: A. Michael Spence [Signed initials: AMS]

The attached is self-explanatory. Does anyone have ideas? Please let me know.

___________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Faculty of Arts and Sciences

Office of the Dean

5 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
(617) 495-1566

October 4, 1983

TO: Chairmen of the Departments of Classics, Comparative Literature, Economics, Government, History, Philosophy, and Sociology

FROM: Henry Rosovsky

RE: Tenured Position in Women’s Studies

Last spring, the Committee on Women’s Studies informally notified several departments of the opportunity to nominate a distinguished scholar in the area of women’s studies. The appointment would be made entirely within a department with the understanding that the individual would devote at least half of his or her teaching time to Women’s Studies and play an active role in the future development of teaching and scholarly activities in that area.

Several departments (Anthropology, English, and Psychology) have already reported active searches; some have advanced to the short list stage. If your department is interested in pursuing this opportunity, please let my office know as soon as possible. If you wish to nominate a candidate, you should write to me describing the candidate (and the search procedure), and indicating what advantages will accrue to the department and to the Women’s Studies program if the position is assigned to your department. I expect that an assignment will be made by the end of the calendar year unless there is some compelling reason to delay.

dmg

___________________

John Kenneth Galbraith
Harvard University
Cambridge

207 Littauer Center
November 10, 1983

Professor A. Michael Spence
Littauer 200

Dear Michael:

Would you think of Barbara Bergmann, now at University of Maryland? She is one of our Ph.D.s, a brilliant economist, articulate in written and oral expression and both deeply and intelligently concerned with women’s issues. When President of the AEA I established as you know the Committee on the State of Women I the profession. Barbara took an alert and effective part in its work. I have no thought as to her availability; I do urge that she be considered. It would be very good, indeed, to have her back.

Yours faithfully,
[signed]
John Kenneth Galbraith

JG/all

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. John Kenneth Galbraith Personal Papers. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 526. Folder: “Harvard Department of Economics: General, 1975-1988”

Image Sources:  Barbara Bergmann in a Center for the History of Political Economy at Duke University spotlight web post. John Kenneth Galbraith (22 Feb. 1982) at “Top Management Forum” in Hilton Hotel in Amsterdam. Wikimedia Commons, from the Dutch National Archives.

 

 

 

Categories
Gender M.I.T. Modigliani Race Suggested Reading Syllabus Undergraduate

M.I.T. Undergraduate Finance Reading List. Kuh, 1962

 

Edwin Kuh (1925-86) was hired by the Sloan School at M.I.T. in 1954, completing his Harvard Ph.D. in 1955. He was promoted to full professor of economics and finance in 1962 and was a joint appointment of the Sloan School and the department of economics. Mostly known as a pioneer in the application of econometric methods to forecasting, his New York Times obituary notes that in 1971 he worked together with Lester Thurow and John Kenneth Galbraith to devise proposals to promote affirmative action.

The undergraduate course reading list for finance transcribed for this post was fished out of Franco Modigliani’s papers at the Economists’ Papers Archive at Duke University.

_______________________

15.46 FINANCE
E. Kuh
Fall Semester, 1962

I. CAPITAL MARKETS (2 weeks)

W.L. Smith, “Monetary Policy and Debt Management”, Chapter 9, Staff Report on Employment, Growth and Price Levels, Joint Economic Committee, 1959, pp. 315-407.

R. L. Rierson, The Investment Outlook, Bankers Trust Co., 1962.

II. CAPITAL BUDGETING (8 weeks)

A. Decision Criteria—New Asset Demand

P. Massé, Optimal Investment Decisions, Ch. 1.

V. L. Smith, Investment and Production, Ch. 1, Ch. 3, pp. 62-72, Ch. 9.

E. Solomon, editor, The Management of Corporate Capital, Essays II—3, 5, 6, 7, 8.

D. Bowdenhorn, “Problems in the Theory of Capital Budgeting”, Journal of Finance, December 1959, pp. 473-92.

B. Decision Criteria—Replacement Demand

V. L. Smith, Investment and Production, Ch. 5.

P. Massé, Optimal Investment Decisions, Ch. 2.

C. Cost of Capital—Risk and Uncertainty

H. Markowitz, Portfolio Selection, 1959, pp. 1-34, 180-201, 287-97.

J. Hirschleifer, “Risk, the Discount Rate and investment Decisions”, Proceedings of the American Economic Association, May, 1961, pp. 112-120.

F. Modigliani and M. H. Miller, The Cost of Capital, Corporation Finance and the Theory of Investment, American Economic Review, June, 1958, pp. 473-492.

L. Fisher, “Determinants of Risk Premiums on Corporation Bonds”, Journal of Political Economy, June, 1959, pp. 217-37.

E. Kuh, “Capital Theory and Capital Budgeting”, Metroeconomics, (August-December, 1960), pp. 64-80.

D. Cost of Capital—Rationing

V. L. Smith, Investment and Production, Ch. 7.

E. Kuh, Capital Stock Growth, excerpts from Ch. 2 (mimeo).

E. Solomon, ed., The Management of Corporate Capital, Essay II-4.

III. DIVIDEND POLICY (2 weeks)

J. Lintner, “Distribution of Incomes of Corporations Among Dividends, Retaining Earnings, and Taxes,” American Economic Review, Supplement, May, 1956.

S. Dobrovolsky, Corporate Income Retention, 1915-1943.

IV. CURRENT POSITION (1 week)

D. Greenlaw, “Liquidity Variations Among Selected Manufacturing Companies,” M.I.T. Masters Thesis, 1957.

C. H. Silberman, “The Big Corporation Lenders,” in Readings in Finance from Fortune, Holt, 1958.

V. DEPRECIATION (2 weeks)

R. Eisner, “Depreciation Allowances, Replacement Requirements and Growth,” American Economic Review, December, 1952.

E. C. Brown, “The New Depreciation Policy Under the Income Tax: An Economic Appraisal,” National Tax Journal, March, 1955.

Article on Depreciation Practices in Europe, National City Bank Newsletter, September, 1960.

E. C. Brown, “Tax Incentives for Investment”, Proceedings, American Economic Review, May, 1962, pp. 335-45.

William H. White, “Illusions in the Marginal Investment Subsidy”, National Tax Journal, March 1962.

E. C. Brown, “Comments on Tax Credits as Investment Incentives”, National Tax Journal, June 1962, pp. 198-204.

 

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Economists’ Papers Archive. Franco Modigliani Papers, Box T1, Folder: “Capital Markets, 15.432. Spring 1963”.

Image Source: MIT Museum website. People: Kuh, Edwin.

Categories
Economics Programs Economists Harvard Radical

Harvard. Leontief and Galbraith report on conflict within department, 1972

In December 1972 the conflict about opening the Harvard economics faculty to include “broader and necessarily ‘softer’ questions of social structure, social functions and social reform” exploded beyond the confines of the economics department. This post provides two letters/memos sent to Harvard’s President Derek C. Bok written by Wassily Leontief and John Kenneth Galbraith, respectively, that supported curriculum reform involving the continued appointments of young radical economists. It would appear from Leontief’s account that a relatively silent majority of the younger mathematical economists in the department was able to block the recommendation of their more senior colleagues to expand course offerings to meet the demand of students for courses outside the confines of “orthodox technical economics”…a revolution that devoured its own parents.

_____________________

Background tip:

Talk presented by Tom Weisskopf “The Origins and Evolution of Radical Political Economics” (September 25, 2012).

_____________________

Photocopy Leontief to Harvard President Derek C. Bok

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Wassily Leontief
Professor of Economics

309 Littauer
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
(617) 495-2118

December 21, 1972

Mr. Derek Bok
President
Harvard University
Massachusetts Hall 1

Dear Derek:

I am writing in response to your request for my views on the conflict that for some time has been straining the relationships within the Executive Committee of our Department on the one hand and Executive Committee and the graduate student body on the other. It developed along rather familiar lines and finally broke into the open.

The controversy, as I see it, centers on the question whether the Department of Economics should widen the range of its intellectual concerns and of its teaching responsibilities beyond the narrowly delineated field of orthodox technical economics by inclusion of broader and necessarily “softer” questions of social structure, social functions and social reform: questions raised for example in the old Marxist and the new radical economics.

While a minority in the Executive Committee favors a move in this direction, arguing that it would reflect the natural growth and extension of our discipline, the majority opposes it on the grounds that this would amount to politicalization of the field and lowering of intellectual standards. Somewhat paradoxically, the minority favoring a change comprises mostly senior members of the Department while the core of the majority group consists of the younger mathematical economists. Needless to say, the students are on the side of the minority. While the minority did most of the talking, the majority was content with voting.

Last spring a mixed faculty-student committee appointed by the Chairman proposed a modest curriculum reform that would reflect the interest in the new subjects. After a stiff fight, the report was first accepted, then watered down, and finally scuttled.

The division within the Department was clearly reflected in a series of votes on new appointments. Three years ago, the junior staff contained four radical economists: Herb Gintis, Tom Weisskopf, Art MacEwan and Sam Bowles. All were let go. Gintis is now lecturer in the Department of Education, Tom Weisskopf was avidly acquired by the Department of Economics of the University of Michigan, Sam Bowles failed a week ago to receive a permanent appointment, and Art MacEwan was denied this week a second three-year appointment. The slate is clear except for Steve Marglin, who was elevated to full professorship before his interests had shifted into the field of institutional analysis and criticism.

Adverse votes are invariably based on lack of intellectual distinction and creditable contributions to knowledge by the candidate; this notwithstanding the fact that several permanent slots were filled in the past by scholars of admittedly indifferent stature on the ground that a vacancy had to be filled in some narrowly defined specialized field.

Reluctantly the minority on the Executive Committee came to the conclusion that its advice and counsel will be disregarded in the future as it was in the past; that crucial decisions will be made on the basis of an often silent, but invariably effective majority vote. The rising tension finally led to acrimonious exchanges at the last meeting of the Executive Committee.

The obvious frustration of the graduate students finds its expression in sharp verbiage used by the radical minority and sullen indifference and cynicism among the rest. I hardly need to add that the students are quite aware of the division within the Executive Committee.

This is where we stand now. At best one could observe that as a whole the senior teaching staff of the Economics Department is much less effective than one could have expected it to be considering the distinction of its individual members. At worst, the continuation of the conflict might result in resignations and damage all around.

After you called me up, Jim Duesenberry asked several members of the Department to serve on a committee that would review the intellectual problems involved and try to find some way out. The proposed composition of the committee (Arrow, Bergson, Dorfman, Galbraith and me) assures that its report will give full weight to the minority point of view.

I myself feel that nothing short of a clear-cut reversal in the present trend can prevent further deterioration of the situation. Needless to say, I will do all I can to bring about a constructive and peaceable solution of the difficult problems we are facing. Some counsel and some help from you and John [probably economist John T. Dunlop who was serving as Dean] most likely will be needed. Let me add that some of my colleagues who up to now held an opposing point of view have offered their full cooperation.

I have dictated this letter but had no time to proofread it since Estelle and I are leaving for London two hours from now. In case of need, please do not hesitate to call me. My secretary, Mary Conley, will know all the time where I can be reached.

With best wishes from Estelle and me to Sissele and you.

Sincerely,
[signed]
Wassily Leontief

WL:mc

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

Carbon copy Galbraith to Harvard President Derek C. Bok

December 22, 1972

President Derek C. Bok
Massachusetts Hall

Dear Derek:

This I hope will diminish the concern you may have had following my telephone call of the other evening. My personal anger, as usual, has been difficult to sustain although I surely intend to stay with this problem until things are put right. I’ve met with the young radicals and I think they are persuaded that Toronto is not a good forum and that neither Arrow nor I is the man they most want to embarrass. John has operated with usual skill and panache. He accepts the idea of a commission to consider and act before things get worse, and I am drafting up the terms of reference for discussion with Jim Duesenberry. I’ve gone over the rough outlines with Wassily. With considerable approval, I’ve raised the question of conflict of interest with external corporate enterprises. I enclose a document on that subject.

In any case, a Merry Christmas.

Yours faithfully,

John Kenneth Galbraith

JKG:kv

Enclosure

 

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Personal Papers. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 526. Folder “Harvard Dept. of Economics, Discussion of appointments, outside interests and reorganization, 1972-1973 (1 of 2)”.

Image Source: Wassily Leontief from Harvard Class Album 1957.

Categories
Economics Programs Harvard

Harvard. Galbraith’s Proposal to Split the Economics Department, 1973

 

During the early 1970s the Harvard economics department went through an identity crisis in which the orthodox mainstream was challenged by a not-so-silent minority of proto-heterodox economists and a dissatisfied graduate student body. The following three artifacts from the discussion of that time come from John Kenneth Galbraith’s papers. I would not exclude the possibility that some/much of the December 26, 1972 memo from the dean of the faculty of arts and sciences was inspired, if not directly penned, by Galbraith.

Galbraith was incapable of writing even an intrauniversity memo without flashes of wit as both the draft and final versions of his memo clearly demonstrate. And yet, there remains an overwhelming pathetic, quixotic note to his proposal of dividing the economics department in order to save its diverse, social elements.

____________________________

When the Dean Asks
How to Fix the Harvard Economics Department

December 26, 1972

From: THE DEAN OF THE FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

To: THE CHAIRMAN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Re: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR A STUDY OF AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Recent developments and discussions suggest problems of some concern in the Department of Economics. In the belief that such problems, if attacked in timely fashion and a spirit of goodwill, will be more readily resolved than if allowed to persist and be aggravated, I am proposing action which I trust will meet with the approval of all concerned. I shall first identify those matters on which, I believe, there will be general agreement and then suggest terms of reference for the appropriate action.

  1. The Department of Economics has become very large. In the current catalogue I count 25 tenured members, 56 non-tenured members, 5 visiting professors and 13 economists in associated departments principally the Kennedy School, in addition to the large force of teaching assistants. It is not surprising that so large a body should have problems in maintaining a sense of common purpose and identity.
  2. There has of late been a deep difference of view on appointments in the Department. This has led to the suggestions that the Department, its size notwithstanding, is not emphasizing an adequate representation of diverse, socially unpopular or methodologically different positions, and that standards for promotion operate to exclude or minimize the representation of such views.
  3. There will be agreement that a majority may be less urgently seized of the need for representation of a minority view than the minority.
  4. In recent years there has been dissatisfaction among students, principally graduate students, with instruction in the Department. Again I state the fact without passing on the merits of the position. I do note that, historically, students have found satisfaction and pride in their association with the Department.
  5. The question has been raised whether some appointments are being appraised in accordance with contribution or non-contribution to or effect on corporate profit-making which, however useful and legitimate, is external to the scientific work and teaching of the Department.

In light of the foregoing I propose to ask the three past presidents of the American Economic Association together with the two American Nobel Prize winners who are engaged in active teaching (one of whom is also current President of the American Economic Association), together with the Chairman of the Department of Economics to examine the Department as a matter of urgency and to report. The following are the terms of reference for this examination:

  1. The group shall be denoted the Special Study Committee, and hereafter as the Committee.
  2. In its deliberations the Committee will consult to the fullest extent with students of the Department as well as with tenured and non-tenured members of the Department, and will discuss its provisional findings with students and faculty.
  3. The Committee will consider and report on whether the present personnel of the Department reflects an appropriately broad spectrum of method and view and, as necessary, on corrective steps. Corrective steps may specifically include recommendations for change in past action.
  4. The committee will consider whether the present teaching of economics is sufficiently broad, and specifically whether there should be a second and alternative track to a doctorate in economics embracing both course work and examinations and in which the primary emphasis would be on history of economic thought, institutional economics and socialist thought, or subject matter disciplines not required by the present framework.
  5. The Committee shall consider possible division or subdivision or other reorganization of the Department to provide greater knowledge of candidates for appointment or promotion, greater corporate responsibility for instruction and other possible gains from smaller size. In this connection special attention should be given to the relationship with the Kennedy School of Government.
  6. The effect of external corporate or other activities of Departmental members as these may bear on appointments, teaching or research, shall be examined with recommendations.
  7. The report of the Committee shall be made public and, in the absence of specific and fully-supported objection, it is my hope that its conclusions will be found acceptable to the Department. There is no intention to alter the constitutional arrangements by which tenured members, as now or in a suitably reorganized or subdivided Department, if that is the decision, are responsible for appointments and instruction.

____________________________

Galbraith Draft Statement (undated)
[handwritten additions in bold italics]

Draft #2

MEMORANDUM

MEMO:

The President
The Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences
Members of the Department of Economics

From: John Kenneth Galbraith

 

In these last weeks tensions long present in the Department of Economics at Harvard have come to the surface. The consequences are attracting interest and discussion well beyond the confines of the Department and the University. It is doubtful if anyone, and certainly any active participants, can state the issues with complete impartiality but some of the basic circumstances admit of agreement. They are.

(1) The Department has become very large—the current catalogue lists twenty-five regularly tenured professors, thirty-five nontenured professors, thirteen members in an adjunct relationship from other parts of the University and five visiting professors. In addition there are a large number of teaching assistants. The Department has become a parliamentary and not a corporate body. Long before the recent explosion I expressed my concern not only to my colleagues but also to the top management over our increasingly ungainly and ineffective mass and its dangers. I encountered little or no disagreement.

(2) The Department has for some years been deeply divided in its views. There has been an ineffective and mostly unchanging minority, and an effective and largely unchanging majority.

(3) While the basis of the division is diverse, including the polemical folk-tendencies of academic life, our learned delight in self assertion, our sensitivity to the intellectual shortcomings of others, differences in reaction to change, political attitudes, it is also a difference in the view of economics. I doubt that any statement of this difference can avoid prejudice. I shall content myself with being dull. It partly involves the acceptance or rejection of the established economic institutions; partly acceptance or rejection of accustomed preconceptions of economic thought, partly the trade-off between precision in established modalities and lesser precision in more innovative, critical or experimental work; partly it has to do with the degree of commitment to measurement and mathematics.

(4) While the underlying fact is a difference in the view of the subject (including the importance of representing the minority views) the argument over appointments invokes competence. Each side with no slight sense of moral righteousness defines competence in its own image. What is unscientific or soft to one side is irrelevant or unreal or unuseful to the other. Certainty in these positions is enhanced by the effect of professional esteem on ego. The members of the majority rightly reflect on the high regard in which precision and excellence of their work is held in their particular spheres of econometric, mathematical or applied work. The members of the minority rejoice similarly on their standing in the profession generally. Given these attitudes, the likelihood that one side will yield gracefully to the other is (if possible) even further reduced. Thus the absolute certainty of continued conflict.

(5) The difference comes to a head over appointments. This reflects a clear view of the reality. It is recognized by all that it is people who determine what is taught and investigated—and wholly so in such an unstructured environment as Harvard. The majority, not unnaturally, has prevailed. In this context a minority should not be expected to acquiesce. To do so is to accept eventual extinction. No one who is serious about his views or methods should countenance that.

(6) The students, once pridefully associated with the Department, are discontented. Their affiliation is largely, although by no means completely, with the minority. As a consequence some members of the majority hold or harbor the thought that the minority is acting less out of conviction than a desire to seek popularity or appease student opinion. Members of the minority react with a strong (and in my own case previously undisclosed) concern for the quality of our institution.

(7) There is a question as to the bearing of subjective judgments formed in connection with the business activities of members—or in consequence of those activities—on promotion of those whose disposition or work leads to criticism of cherished and remunerative economic institutions.

Aggravated problems sometimes allow of simple choices. This is so in the present case. One course is to continue as now, and enjoy the acrimony and continue to invite, by our public bickering, disesteem for the subject, the Department, the University, our students and ourselves. The other is to move to the obvious and forthright resolution, on which will be to the benefit of all concerned.

The solution is to divide the present vast Department into two parts. One part, a Department or Division of General Economics*, would reflect the specialized interests and scientific purpose of the majority, including those whose identification with the minority has been based not on identity of professional interest but concern for academic diversity. A second part would be the Department of Social Economics. This initially much smaller Department would consist of those tenured and untenured members whose active identification with the social issues of planning, economic structure, criticism, or socialism or institutionalism leads them to make the transfer. The new Department, born out of a need to ensure diversity, would itself be under the normal academic obligation to perpetuate diversity. It would develop an undergraduate and graduate curriculum and degree requirements compromising nothing in depth and rigor, in accordance with the interests of its members and of students. Subject to established ad hoc procedures—and its resources—it would make its own promotions and appointments.

*No difficulty should be made over a name. The parent Department could be called the Department of Economics.

The initial resources of the new Department would consist of the present financial commitment to those making the change. There would, some minor administrative costs apart, be no added burden on the University budget. I would make the transfer and make the revenues from the Paul M. Warburg Professorship, including the supporting research revenues (on neither of which I have drawn in net amount in recent years) available for a new professorial appointment. I believe, not without knowledge, that money for one or two added professorships as well as for research could be raised from sources not presently open either to the University or the Department. Scholarship funds would be divided in accordance with student demand. I am willing to commit a good share of personal time in the next year to money raising, a task in which, unlike my economics, my competence has been sufficiently established.

May I note in summary the advantages of the foregoing proposal.

(1) The basic cause of distress and conflict in the present Department of Economics would be removed. Each of the new Departments or Divisions will be in a position to develop the subject in full accordance with its own lights. Neither will be in the academically repellant position (however agreeable in practice) of imposing its standards or preferences on the other.

(2) The problem of excessive scale and consequent diminution in sense of communal responsibility for teaching, research and appointments is solved in the case of the new small Department or Division. It is alleviated for the larger parent Department.

(3) The Department of Social Economics if it is to attract, retain and place its graduate students, will have to demonstrate itself in competition with its older and more prestigious parent. This competition will be exceedinglyhealthy for both. This is an appealing point. While businessmen favor competition more often in principle than in practice, this is not an error into which any good economist will allow himself to fall.

(4) Undergraduate instruction in the new Department will benefit no alone from the members’ commitment to their subject matter but also from the greater sense of community as between teaching assistants, tenured and non-tenured faculty in a much smaller department and the present Department will be better. In the present Department not even all tenured and untenured members are known to each other. Teaching assistants are known only to a fraction of the faculty members and even less is known about their performance. And again in undergraduate teaching the vigorous competition of the new Department will be good for the older one.

(5) Problems associated with the corporate business activities of professors will be at least partly resolved. No question of concern for attitudes of business clients, however subjective, will be thought to influence those who are passing on appointments in the new Department. Subject no doubt, to appropriate safeguards the activities of present members of the Department with their potential for useful employment, income and information could perhapsremain.

(6) The two Departments through a coordinating committee might [illegible word] combine for the time being on the elementary course.

(7) The creation of the new Department with an admixture of old and new members intent on developing both old and new lines of inquiry will affirm, as nothing else, Harvard’s avidly proclaimed commitment to free inquiry by people of the highest calibre and to whatever result.

(8) Nothing is forever. If, after say ten years, there is demand for reunification, why not.

With so much to be gained—and also so much trouble to be avoided—I hope that we can proceed to consider this solution with a minimum of delay. Needless to say—perhaps on the basis of past departmental performance it is very necessary that I say—I am ready at any notice to lend a hand.

____________________________

Memo On Splitting the Harvard Economics Department
[Apparent Final Draft]

June 18, 1973

From:  JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH

To:

PRESIDENT DEREK C. BOK
DEAN-DESIGNATE HENRY ROSOVSKY
PROFESSOR JAMES S. DUESENBERRY
MEMBERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Re: THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

The Department of Economics is, I would judge, entering into a period of considerable calm and tranquility. The older dissidents and heretics in the Department will, with one or two exceptions, soon be retiring. And, in any case, they are now a harmless minority. Within a year or so the younger generation of dissidents will be safely gone. Thus the expectation of a period of scholarly calm.

My purpose in this memorandum is to suggest that the prospect is not as happy as these developments imply. And it is to suggest some steps which, without unduly disturbing the equanimity of the situation, the Department and the Administration would be wise to consider. May I note that these are matters on which I have no personal, as distinct from general, professional concern. I am one of those who will be contributing, however modestly, to a more seemly, tranquil and comfortable life by a comparatively early departure.

The problems remaining after the prospective changes are two. There is first the fact that, while faculty affairs have been generally arranged to the satisfaction of all, the students remain deeply dissatisfied. Let no one doubt this or seek, by the usual academic rationalizations, to explain it away. I was much exposed to this in the special seminar last autumn; I determined then to inform myself in a minor way during the spring, which I have done. The students, over a wide political spectrum, deeply dislike their work and the Department. This is especially true of the first-year students who, in a puzzling exercise in public relations reflecting an odd attitude toward education, are now blithely told at the outset to expect the worst year of their lives. Those who have been here two or three years also look back with discontent on their educational experience. My first year of graduate work was one of the most vital and interesting of my life. So, I believe it was with most of my generation.

The complaint of the students is straitforward. They are squeezed, especially in their first year but increasingly as a test in later work, into a narrow model-building, problem-solving, quasi-mathematical routine that they find boring and unrelated to the world in which they live. The emasculated careerist may accept the routine and do well. The student who thought that economics was a window on the problems of the world is abjectly disappointed.

These student reactions are heavily discounted by most although not all of the senior faculty. The rationalization is that such student attitudes are inevitable—that the modern student is inherently lazy, feckless, radical and dissatisfied. It is even suggested, not without scholarly vigor, that those who express concern about students are courting a student popularity in a sadly unscholarly tradition. As I say, this rationalization seems to me unwise and something that very soon will have a more practical consequence. A bad reputation in these matters is not easily kept a secret. It could happen that eventually the Department will have very few graduate students of indigenous origin of any consequence, a few committed careerists, mathematicians and model-builders apart. Numbers and quality of applicants will decline. In consequence, the ratio of faculty to active, teachable graduate students, which is now approaching one to one, will pass that point and will widen as a ratio of students to teachers. This is not hyperbole. A course was recently described to me by a graduate student in which he was the only participant along with three faculty members. We have a fair number of seminars with only a handful of students, sometimes but one. Faculty life will continue in comfort. Workshops will serve, as already now, to disguise the shortage of students. But still there will be nervousness.

There is another and more subjective danger. The harmony which one now foresees is based on a general commitment to neoclassical economics or its applied refinements. Accomplishment in model-building and refinement is, I think nearly all will agree, an increasingly stern requirement. We would not again hire a labor economist who, like Professor Dunlop or Professor Slichter, made his career out of a practical association with the unions and the problems of labor mediation. Professor Leontief, were he now showing the experimental tendencies that marked his early career, would be in trouble. Even his work, when firmly established, was not strongly supported. We would not have an economist who was too much preoccupied with the practical details of tax reform—unless he protected his flank by suitable theoretical or econometric exercise. My own past tendencies would certainly not be acceptable for promotion—although on the merits of this, with characteristic tact, I disqualify myself. What is not in doubt is that we are now very strong in the journals but much less strong in the obscenely practical matters on which many people, including many students, expect economists to be useful. This could be damaging to the reputation of the Department. The latter has always depended in appreciable measure not on the great scientists but on its vulgar practitioners.

Now let me say a word on reform. Mention of reform leads to thoughts of reform of the Department—so it is with faculty and also students. The present course of instruction is wrong. Let us find the right one. The problem is that no one line of graduate economic instruction can now serve all interests, reflect all points of view. Nor does it deal with the highly important fact that instruction is far less important than the inclination of the people who guide it. The Department is now a vast parliamentary body. So long as there is only one educational track, as a matter of course it will reflect the preferences of the majority. All of us, in the oldest of academic traditions, appraise excellence using ourselves as the yardstick. Reform requires that we begin to provide real choices as to teachers and as to work. Three possibilities occur to me:

  1. We should have in the Department of Economics two tracks to two Ph.D.’s. One of these would be in economics, another in (say) social economics. Professors in the Department would be grouped into two broad Executive Committees around these tracks. And each of these two Executive Committees would have responsibility not only for developing graduate work in its track and for examination therein but also for recruitment and promotion. This would broaden the choice for students; would mean that we would have two more nearly corporate bodies rather than one parliamentary body to guide instruction and appointments; would foster the kind of competition which all economists intrinsically and devoutly applaud; and would reduce by half the present parliamentary tendency to exclude the minority view. The first track would continue the present program with all of its neoclassical and model-building rigor. The second track would be experimental, humane and with a much stronger orientation to the emerging issues of our time. It would not, and this must be emphasized, involve any less effort.
  2. The second possibility would be to establish within the Department an institute—an Institute for Economic Innovation. This would enlist the members of the senior faculty so inclined, would develop a program purely of graduate instruction and would lead also to a degree which would reflect its own course of instruction. The purpose of constituting this as an institute would be twofold: to get the energy and attention of one man who would see the institute as the projection of his own efforts, and to use the institute as a device for raising new funds for both chairs and research. It is my near certainty, based on some experience as a medicant, that this enterprise, properly presented, would be very attractive to donors. I am not sure, however, that given the present size of the Department, it would not be wiser simply to allot some Graustein appointments to the Institute for the next few years.
  3. The third and final possibility would be to have two Departments of Economics—one Department of Economics and one Department of Social Economics. There are advantages to this—again the healthy competition in which all economists theoretically rejoice, elimination of the present diseconomies of scale, the much more clearly defined differentiation of purpose. It would not be as difficult a solution as seems at first glance. Those who approve of the Department as it is would remain with the Department of Economics. The rest would make the new Department. It would form its character from those who join it in the feeling that a more strongly innovative, humane and applied—in the modern sense—approach to economics is in order. The problem is, of course, that it involves the largest disruption in established institutional arrangements. That is not something to be undertaken lightly. Sometimes, though, that is good.

I am persuaded that in one or another of the above arrangements lies the only hope for a satisfactory future. For a while the tranquility that is in prospect will be greatly enjoyed. Given the sterile tendencies of the accepted economics and the attitudes of the students, it will be, if not the tranquility of the tomb, certainly that of a kind of somnambulant decay.

J.K.G.

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Personal Papers. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 526. Folder “Memorandum on Reorganization of the Department of Economics”.

Image Source: Harvard Class Album 1958.

Categories
Costs of education Economics Programs Harvard

Harvard. Printed Graduate Economics Brochure. (First draft was by J. K. Galbraith), 1967

 

 

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror provides transcriptions of material concerning both course content (as revealed in syllabi, reading lists, exam questions, lecture notes, etc.) as well as concerning the procedures followed in different undergraduate and graduate programs of economics.

What helps to distinguish the following graduate program brochure for Harvard that was still hot off the press in September 1967 is that the authorship of its first draft can be unambiguously attributed to John Kenneth Galbraith. Sentences like “Economics, especially in the fields of research, teaching, and the public service, is a profession of good but not munificent reward” and “There are few differences between human beings more profound than the capacity to conserve or spend money” are certainly consistent with recorded Galbraithian style.

I’ll note here that John Kenneth Galbraith was simply incapable of writing the most mundane of his administrative correspondence without turning a brilliant phrase or two. I have wondered how long he might have eluded arrest had he ever tried his hand at writing a ransom note.

It is striking that even at this relatively late date, so little effort was made to render the brochure gender-neutral. Clearly it was still a (Mad-) Man’s World.

An interesting comparison is Robert Solow’s brochure for the M.I.T. economics program in 1961.

____________________

Harvard University
Department of Economics

M-8 Littauer Center Center
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

Office of the Chairman

September 19, 1967

Professor J. Kenneth Galbraith
207 Littauer

Dear Ken:

Sometime ago you were kind enough to do a first draft of a brochure describing our graduate program to prospective students. After a long delay, I solicited additional suggestions for this and prepared a revised manuscript. A copy of the printed version is enclosed for your perusal.

Thank you again for your help.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Richard E. Caves
Chairman

REC:eb

____________________

Graduate Study in Economics at Harvard

PUBLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT

Introduction

This booklet is meant to tell the student who is considering graduate work in economics some of the things he will wish to know about work in this field at Harvard University. And it also tells something of the University and larger urban community in which he will find himself.

Harvard University, which was founded in 1636, is the oldest institution of higher education in the United States. It comprises Harvard and Radcliffe colleges, which give undergraduate degrees and the graduate schools. Graduate work in economics is offered under the auspices of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. Undergraduate enrollment at Harvard and Radcliffe is about 6 thousand; in all graduate schools and departments about 9 thousand. Although by no means large by present-day standards, Harvard is part of what is, without doubt, the largest and most concentrated educational center in the United States. It shares residence in Cambridge and along the Charles River with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and a long-standing arrangement between the two institutions allows the graduate students of each to register for courses in the other. Boston University, Boston College, Tufts University, Northeastern University, Brandeis University and Wellesley College are all within a few miles. And there are many smaller or more specialized institutions nearby. This large academic community, together with the strong cultural, artistic and literary tradition of the Boston area, brings a steady flow of visiting scholars, artists and public figures to this community from all parts of the world. The student at Harvard is identified not only with a university but with a major intellectual and cultural center. His problem, he will soon discover, is not to seize all of his opportunities —  lectures, seminars, discussion groups, debates, conferences, concerts, plays, museums, and exhibitions — but to discriminate among them.

 

Economics at Harvard

Graduate work in economics at Harvard is just under a hundred years old. The first successful Ph.D. candidate, Dr. Stuart Wood of Philadelphia, later a prominent civic leader and businessmen in that city, took his degree in 1875 with a thesis on the work of the pioneer and prolific American economist, Henry C. Carey. The second doctorate was awarded a few years later to Frank William Taussig, who became a dominant figure in the field and a famous Harvard teacher for the next half century. Until the beginning of the present century, faculty, students, and courses were comparatively few in number — only five men held the rank of professor before 1900, and one of these was in sociology which was then considered a branch of economics. But in the early nineteen hundreds there was a rapid expansion in faculty, students, and course offerings which, with few interruptions, has continued to this time. The Harvard Department of Economics now has 24 full professors, listed at the end of this pamphlet. The junior staff consists of about 30 instructors and assistant professors, young scholars doing teaching and research.

Throughout the years, several traits have persisted in the Department’s collective personality. It does not run to any particular ideology or methodological disposition; its members display a wide range of attitudes toward economic policy and the advancement of economic science. By long tradition, the Department sees itself not as an organization committed to a particular method, point of view or problem, but as a gathering of individuals scholars each committed to pursue the truth in accordance with his own lights. Members teach and do research as individuals and not as members of the school. The same latitude is allowed to students.

Harvard’s is a “full-line” department, concerned both with the development of economic theory and quantitative research methods, and with their use in all of the major fields of applied economics. The Department has been active in opening up teaching and research in new fields of applied economics: early in the 1950’s it began building a strong program in economic development; now work is fast expanding in such areas as urban economics and the economics of human resources.

The close association of many members of the Harvard Department of Economics with public policy has been sufficiently featured in recent history so that it requires no further comment. It is not, however, especially new. Professors Taussig and Edwin Gay held high positions in World War I in the Wilson Administration. Just before, during, and after World War II such members as Edward S. Mason, Alvin H. Hansen, John H. Williams, and Sumner Slichter likewise occupied various positions of high responsibility. In recent times, the close association between the Department of Economics and the John F. Kennedy School of Government has reinforced this interest in public service and, as a consequence, a number of Harvard Ph.D.’s continue to go into public life.

Finally, the Department prides itself on being a major research center. For many years it has published two leading professional journals, the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economics and Statistics. Various members have maintained large-scale research projects, such as Professor Wassily Leontief’s Harvard Economic Research Project (input-output analysis), Professor John R. Meyer’s projects in transportation and urban economics, and Professor Hollis B. Chenery’s work on development planning.

Most Harvard professors engage actively in both undergraduate and graduate teaching. (Under ordinary circumstances each professor gives two courses, a course and a seminar or their equivalent each semester.) As in all universities worthy of the name, there is a primary concern among Harvard scholars for advancing the state of knowledge in their discipline. In recent years there has been a popular myth that research is somehow in conflict with good teaching. In actual fact, good teaching at the highest level is rarely done by men who are not also engaged in advancing knowledge. But the high ratio of faculty to students is designed to ensure that all students will receive the personal attention of accomplished scholars.

 

General Nature of the Graduate Program in Economics

Each year between 40 and 50 graduate students are admitted for advanced work (normally toward the Ph.D.) in economics. Usually about two-thirds of them are United States citizens; the balance come from countries scattered over much of the globe. About 180 graduate students are in residence each year, and between 30 and 35 complete their Ph.D.’s. What program do they undertake? Where do they go upon its completion?

Most students apply to begin graduate study immediately after completing their undergraduate degrees, in are judged for admission on the basis of the general promise shown by their undergraduate records. More store is set by a distinguished record in general than by the extent of undergraduate specialization in economics. Nonetheless, an undergraduate major or extensive coursework in economics is definitely helpful. So are undergraduate courses in mathematics, at least through calculus, since mathematics nowadays is a standard working tool for many economists. Undergraduate work in statistics is useful but less necessary.

Students are ordinarily admitted only for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. For those without previous graduate studies, this program requires two years of coursework (and residence at the University), followed by another year or two (usually two) of work on a doctoral dissertation.

The practice at Harvard is to think of graduate studies in economics as falling into three parts. First, there must be mastery of the general body of economic theory and history which are part of the common qualification of all economists. Second, there should be competence in standard statistical research tools which are useful or necessary in handling economic problems. Finally, there are the various specialized or applied fields of economics in which, aided by his economics theory and his tools of analysis, the student extends and deepens his knowledge in accordance with his particular interests. A typical graduate program at Harvard reflects this general delineation of the subject as a field of study.

Although there is no required course program, the student ordinarily spends his first year insuring his competence in economic theory, economic history, and quantitative methods. Should he carry four courses, which for most students is a normal load, he will also have the opportunity to begin work in an area which reflects his specialized interest. During his second year, in addition to further study in economic theory and quantitative methods, he goes more deeply into his field or fields of specialization. Then, and while writing his dissertation, he takes part in working seminars that bring him into close touch with the research of the faculty and other students. On all of these matters he has the guidance of a faculty member who serves as his adviser. There is no foreign language requirement for the Ph.D. degree, except as an alternative (not particularly recommended) to showing competence in mathematics. At the end of their second year students ordinarily take their “generals” which consists of a written examination in economic theory and an oral examination which includes economic history, statistics and quantitative methods, and two specialized fields. Thereafter, under the guidance of the faculty member, the student writes his thesis, which must demonstrate capacity for original research.

Upon completion of his degree, a wide choice of career opportunities awaits the student. Just as it is the prime function of the University to continue and enlarge man’s store of knowledge, so it will always be the function of its best students to teach their discipline and to enlarge and modernize it by research. In the past a large portion of Harvard Ph.D.’s in economics have gone on to be college and university teachers and to continue investigation in the field. So, unquestionably, will it be in the future. Without ever making it a formal goal, the Department has long considered the training of the next generation of scholars and teachers to be its primary function. At the present time, these serve an especially insistent demand.

Outside of college and university teaching, the range of career opportunities is now wider than ever before. Harvard’s traditional involvement in public policy leads to a ready demand for its graduates in the U.S. and other governments. There is an insistent and increasing demand for trained economists from the business community, including, but by no means confined to, those were skilled in statistical methods and in modern techniques of data processing in the application of economic and statistical analysis to managerial problems.

 

Programs with Other Schools and Departments

The Ph.D. in Business Economics, administered jointly with the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration, enables a student to divide his fields equally between the Department and the Business School. The Ph.D. degree in Political Economy and Government permits a student to take a substantial share of his work in fields of government and law. Separate leaflets are available specifying the requirements for these degrees.

Graduate work in economics at Harvard is enriched by the opportunities for association with scholars and students in a variety of centers and programs including the area of programs in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the Far East, the Middle East, the Harvard Development Advisory Service, the Center for International Affairs, the International Tax Program, the Joint Center for Urban Studies, the Program in Technology and Society, the Population Center, the Programs in Decision and Control, and others.

 

Physical Facilities

Universities, scholars have often warned, do not consist of bricks and mortar, although, is less frequently observed, they do not usually exist without them. Pending completion in the early 1970s’s of the John F. Kennedy complex, which will house several departments, institutes, and research centers, the Department of Economics is housed principally in the Littauer Center of Public Administration, which also contains the Department of Government, the John F. Kennedy School of Government, and a library serving these departments. This library contains all the books and journals assigned in graduate courses, as well as general reading, reference and research materials in the fields of economics, government, and public affairs. Littauer Center also provides the seminar rooms where many of the graduate courses meet and a coffee bar for student use.

Nearby are excellent computer facilities, and the Department makes arrangements to provide training in computer use to its graduate students and computer time for research on dissertations and major term papers. Computation facilities will be expanded considerably in the next few years as remote console stations come into use.

Littauer Center is located just outside of Harvard Yard, which contains many other facilities of interest to graduate students. The Yard is dominated by Widener Library, the main unit of the Harvard University Library, the total holdings of which run to eight million volumes. The Baker Library at the Harvard Business School, across the Charles River from the Yard, contains extensive materials of interest to economics students, including special collections in transportation and the history of economic thought. Other important libraries are the Lamont Library, in the Yard, which is used extensively for undergraduates for course reading; and the Langdell Library of the Harvard Law School, close to Littauer Center.

Harvard undergraduate upperclassmen live in residential units called Houses, each House having a staff, dining hall, a small library, and recreational facilities. A number of more advanced graduate students who have acquired teaching responsibilities are appointed to the house staffs as tutors. Unmarried tutors frequently live in the house of which they are a member.

 

Graduate student finances

Economics, especially in the fields of research, teaching, and the public service, is a profession of good but not munificent reward. And many graduate students have passed the stage in life when they can continue to call heavily on their families for financial assistance. Finally, the Cambridge community is not inexpensive and Harvard, a private foundation, still draws a large share of its revenues from tuition. For all of these reasons it is recognized that many students will require financial help. The Department of Economics believes that, in recent years, no student of energy and ability has had to withdraw for purely financial reasons.

A large number of students come to the University with National Science Foundation, Danforth, and other fellowships from outside sources. The Department naturally expects all students offered such awards to except and use them.

Harvard fellowships, including “Graduate Prize Fellowships,” are the main reliance for support of graduate studies. They are designed to allow the highly qualified students to work uninterruptedly up to his degree with knowledge that his basic financial needs are assured. Up to seventeen of the “Graduate Prize Fellowships” are awarded each year, and assuming satisfactory progress, are held by the student for four years. During the first year these Fellowships pay $4,000 of which $2,000 is for tuition and $2,000 for stipend. In the second year the stipend rises to the $2,200. In the third and fourth years, while working on the dissertation, the student holds a teaching Fellowship: he gives two fifths of his time to teaching and receives a stipend of $2,400 together with tuition. Graduate students in the latter years of their training play an important and valued role in Harvard’s undergraduate instruction, and nearly 60 of them hold Teaching Fellowships each year. This enables them, in turn, to show substantial experience in seeking teaching positions after completion of their degrees.

In the award of Teaching Fellowships, as in all other aspects of its work, the Department of Economics accords equal opportunity, depending only on qualification, to women students. It does not encourage the student to assume a teaching burden that interferes with steady and substantial progress toward the completion of his coursework and dissertation; Teaching Fellowships are therefore not available to first-year students, and not usually in the second year.

There are few differences between human beings more profound than the capacity to conserve or spend money. These differences are enlarged by wives, children, travel, and other requirements. Hence, it is nearly impossible to answer the question: how much does a student in Cambridge need? In general, it is the experience of unmarried graduate students that the funds provided by a Graduate Prize Fellowship adequately cover minimum needs. Loan funds are, of course, available in case of emergency. For married students some auxiliary income, such as a wife’s earnings, is unquestionably important. (Like most universities Harvard is willing to finance students but reluctant to support a student household.) Accordingly the problem of employment opportunity, with which that of housing is closely associated, is important. To these we now turn.

 

Housing and Employment

For the unmarried student, housing presents few problems. There are dormitories for both men and women — old ones with large rooms and thick walls and new ones with less space and better design. Current rates for dormitory rooms and for meals — these are not excessive — are given in a special supplement to the General Catalogue which may be obtained, along with an application blank, from the Registrar, Harvard University.

In earlier times graduate students at Harvard, as at other universities, lifter rather bleak boarding house existence and saw a little of each other as a community. Harkness Commons and the Radcliffe Graduate Center, both built since World War II, provide a congenial social atmosphere for all students who are so disposed. Both have good cafeterias. The student who wants solitude for his own work can still find it at Harvard, but it is a matter of choice and not of necessity or conformity.

The problems of the married student, especially the student with a young family, are more complex. Cambridge is a comparatively old city surrounded by the numerous other cities and towns which comprise the Greater Boston area. Housing in the area as a whole can best be described as ample, expensive, and generally unsatisfactory. One exception is provided by Harvard itself, which has over nine hundred apartments available for married students in buildings which it owns. These are closely convenient to the university and residence thus have ready access to the functions and activities of the University community. They obviate the need for a car. But, like privately owned dwellings in Cambridge, this convenience has a cost — but not an out-of-line one. Dwellings at a greater distance from the University generally provide more space at a lower price period

The University Housing Office, 1737 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts, provides listings and guidance to housing. It also receives applications for university-owned housing. Married student should get in touch with this office as soon as they are admitted and use its services on arrival in Cambridge. The Housing Office strongly urges married students who have not previously obtained Harvard or other housing to come early — if possible in August — to look for accommodations. “Usually the only way of obtaining an apartment,” it advises in its bulletin, “is by persistent personal search.”

The University community, in its varied activities, is a substantial employer, and the Boston area offers the manifold job opportunities of the large metropolitan area. The wife who has teaching, secretarial, stenographic, nursing, statistical, library, or other skills can be fairly certain of finding employment. And even the wife who is limited in her opportunities by pregnancy or young children can usually arrange some additional income by caring for the children of working parents. The chances of finding and the convenience of holding a job increase with proximity to the University and may help offset some of the higher costs of such close-in living. As in all imperfect markets time must be allowed to find employment, so, as with those must find housing, an early arrival in Cambridge is urged. A special office at Harvard, that of The Adviser for Harvard Wives, counsels on job opportunities as well as on doctors, dentists, shopping information and other practical questions facing the newly-arrived at family.

Students who are in need of assistance on any matter, academic, financial or personal, should not hesitate to appeal to the Dean of the Graduate School, the Chairman of the Department or to a senior professor for help and counsel.

 

Graduate Student Life

Although the Harvard community is large and urban, it seeks not to be distant and impersonal. It is certainly not dull.

Economics graduate students come into contact with each other through their courses, informal meetings in library and coffee room, in social affairs organized by the Department and the Graduate Economics Club (which undertakes to represent student interests before the Department, invites outside speakers, and otherwise looks after graduate-student well-being).

Although the rigors of graduate course work leave most people with only limited time for recreation, the cultural advantages of Harvard in the Cambridge and Boston areas generally are unmatched. The Old New England character of Harvard Square and its immediate environs is increasingly spiced by a lively “Village” atmosphere. Cambridge and Boston cater to cultural taste running from low-brow to high-brow. At the latter end of the spectrum come much local theater (both pre-Broadway and off-Broadway), the strikingly original Boston Opera Group, the Boston Symphony Orchestra (especially its bargain series of open rehearsals, populated mostly by students), and many individual concerts, art exhibitions, and the like. The years spent earning a Ph.D. at Harvard will be filled with new experiences, contacts, and horizons, as well as solid and satisfying work.

 

Sources of Additional Information

Courses are listed in Courses of Instruction for Harvard and Radcliffe common commonly called the Course Catalogue; it is issued in September for each academic year. Formal requirements for the Ph.D. in economics are outlined in the leaflet “Higher Degrees under the Department of Economics,” Supplement to the General Announcement. A similar leaflet describes “The Ph.D. in Business Economics.” One issued by the Committee on Higher Degrees in Political Economy and Government outlines “Requirements for the Degrees in Political Economy and Government.” A few graduate students find it useful to attend the Harvard Summer School, in which a very limited range of graduate economics courses is offered each year; a Preliminary Announcement listing all courses is available shortly after the beginning of the calendar year.

 

Professors and Associate Professors
Department of Economics, 1967

Abram Bergson
Richard E. Caves
Hollis B. Chenery
Robert Dorfman
James S. Duesenberry
John T. Dunlop
Otto Eckstein
J. Kenneth Galbraith
Alexander Gerschenkron
Gottfried Haberler
Albert O. Hirschman
Hendrik S. Houthakker
Simon Kuznets
Harvey Leibenstein
Wassily Leontief
John Lintner
Edward S. Mason
John R. Meyer
Richard A. Musgrave
Dwight H. Perkins
Howard Raiffa
Henry Rosovsky
Thomas C. Schelling
Arthur Smithies

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Personal Papers.  Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 526, Folder “Harvard Department of Economics: Graduate Student Brochure (JKG wrote 1st draft), September 1967”.

Image Source: Littauer Center (July 1970). Harvard University Archives.

Categories
Harvard Seminar Speakers Sociology Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Social Influences on Economic Actions, outline and readings. Musgrave and Spechler, 1973

 

The outline below for an ambitious Harvard course organized jointly by Richard Musgrave and Martin C. Spechler in 1973 comes from John Kenneth Galbraith’s papers. Galbraith was invited to give a lecture on institutional economics and a couple of pages of keywords in the folder would appear to confirm that Galbraith indeed lectured on the topic.

Biographical information for Richard Musgrave was provided a few blog postings ago. Martin Spechler too was a Harvard alumnus (indeed all three of his academic degrees come from that institution) and so I’ll first insert the chronology of his academic jobs so one can meet another economic Ph.D. alumnus. Spechler’s main research field was comparative economic systems complemented by a strong interest in the history of economics (see the link to his 2007 c.v. below). 

______________________

Martin C. Spechler (b. January 25, 1943, New York City)

A.B. in Social Studies (1964), A.M. in Economics (1967), Ph.D. in Economics (1971). Harvard

1965-1971. Harvard. Teaching fellow in economics and social studies.
1971-1973. Harvard. Lecturer on economics and on social studies.
1971-1974. Harvard. Head tutor in economics.
1973-1975. Harvard. Assistant professor of economics.
1974-1980. Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Department of Economics, lecturer.
1980-1982. Tel Aviv University. Department of Economics and School of General History. Senior lecturer (acting).
1982-1983. University of Washington, Seattle. School  of International Studies. Visiting associate professor.
1983-1984. University Iowa, Iowa City. Visiting associate professor.
1984-1986. Indiana University, Bloomington. Visiting associate professor of economics and research associate, West European Studies.
1986-1990. Indiana University, Indianapolis. Associate professor of economics
1990-. Indiana University, Purdue University, Indianapolis. Professor of economics.

Source:  Martin C. Spechler c.v. (December 2007).

______________________

ECONOMICS 2080
Tentative Lecture Schedule
[1973]

1. September 27 Spechler on Marxism
2. October 4 Unger on Weber
3. October 9 (Tues.) Galbraith on institutionalism
4. October 18 Duesenberry on consumer behavior
5. October 25 (?) on entrepreneurs
6. November 1 M. Roberts on government bureaucracy
7. November 8 J. Bower on corporate organization
8. November 15 Doeringer on workers and unions
9. November 20 (Tuesday) Bowles (?) on Marxian theory of the state
10. November 29 D. Bell (?) on elite theory
11. December 6 J. Q. Wilson on pluralism
12. December 13 Hirschman on trade policy
13. December 20 Musgrave on objectivity in economics and social science

 

Harvard University
Economics 2080

Social Influences on Economic Action
Fall Term, Thursday 4-6

Martin C. Spechler
Holyoke 833, Office; 10-12 (daily)

Richard Musgrave
Littauer 326

            Designed to be taken in one semester to be followed by a seminar, this course examines the social context of economic activity. It covers theoretic and applied writings in several significant traditions: Marxist, Weberian, institutionalist, and liberal. The list includes a more thorough reading of Marx and Weber than is usually available elsewhere and articles reporting contemporary research of a scale suitable for dissertations. Since certain topics of interest, such as stratification, are treated elsewhere in the Economics or allied departments, the range of topics is intentionally incomplete. But each topic includes competing paradigms and case studies making use of them. Each topic takes off from the limits of conventional economics to show that different assumptions and procedures show promise of answering important questions about economic life.

It is envisioned that the course will be taught during the first year in a conference format, with guest lecturers but with one or two Department members responsible for the entire course and always present in class. The course will culminate in the writing of a long (30-40 pages) case study, employing some or all of the theoretical perspectives which have been presented. There will also be a shorter paper early on to fix the theoretical perspectives in mind.

The course is intended for graduate students with some preparation in economics. To facilitate discussion, one might have to limit enrollment, though a diverse group would be highly desirable.

Works marked (*) are assumed as background; those marked (**) are supplementary.

A. The Content and Limits of Modern Economics: A Point of Departure

*Lord Robbins, An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science (2nd ed. 1935).

Emile Gruenberg, “The Meaning of Scope and External Boundaries of Economics.”

Kenneth E. Boulding, “The Verifiability of Economic Images.” Both in Sherman Roy Krupp, The Structure of Economic Science. (Prentice Hall, 1966), pp. 129-165.

Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, Analytical Economics (Harvard University Press, 1966), Part I (especially pp. 92-129).

B. Three Social Perspectives on Economic Action

What are the hallmarks of “modern” — now misleadingly termed “Western” — society? What changes in productive relations, in ethos, and in political arrangements favored its development? This section examines in depth three major interdisciplinary systems which undertake to define, explain, and analyze the working of modern society, particularly the limits placed on the market by social forces.

Week 1 (September 27) Marxism

Karl Marx, “Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy”

________, “Estranged Labor”

________, “Private Property and Communism”

________, “The Power of Money in Bourgeois Society”

________, “The German Ideology”, Part I

________, “Wage Labor and Capital”

________, “Capital”, Vol. 1 (selections) all in The Marx-Engels Reader (ed. By Robert C. Tucker), Norton Publ., pp. 306 [30-36 intended?], 56-83, 110-164, 167-317, 577-588.

Friedrich Engels, “Letters on Historical Materialism” in Tucker, ed., pp. 640-651 and 661-664.  OR

Ernest Mandel, Marxist Economic Theory, Vol. I, chapters 5, 11; Vol. II, 12-14.

Week 2 (October 4) Weber

Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, entire.

________, The Religion of China, IV, V, and VIII.

________, *General Economic History, Part IV

“Power, Capitalism and Rural Society in Germany,” and “National Character and the Junkers,” all in Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, pp. 159-195, 363-395.

Week 3 (October 11) Institutionalism

Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class, in Max Lerner, The Portable Veblen (Viking pb) chapters IV, VI.

________, “On the Merits of Borrowing,” from Imperial Germany and the Industrial Revolution, pp. 349-363 in M. Lerner, The Portable Veblen, op. cit.

________, The Theory of Business Enterprise, chapters III, IV, VII.

John Kenneth Galbraith, Economics and the Public Purpose (Houghton-Mifflin, 1973), chapters V, IX-XIV, and XIX.

Possible paper topics (illustrative only) for section B. Due October 18:

Paper: What do Marxist, Weberian, and Historical-institutional theories have to say about kinds of modern economies which have developed in the world?

**England, 1642-1851

David Landes, The Unbound Prometheus, introduction and chapter 1.

Barrington, Moore, Jr., Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, chapters I and VI.

E.J. Hobsbawm, Industry and Empire, chapters 1-7.

**Japan and China Compared

M. J. Levy, “Contrasting Factors in the Modernization of China and Japan,” in Simon Kuznets, Economic Growth: Brazil, India, Japan (Duke, 1955), pp. 496-536.

Henry Rosovsky, “Japan’s Transition to Modern Economic Growth, 1868-1885,” in Henry Rosovsky (ed.) Industrialization in Two Systems: Essays in Honor of Alexander Gerschenkron (Wiley, 1966). Bobbs-Merrill Reprint No. Econom-264.

Thomas C. Smith, “Japan’s Aristocratic Revolution,” Yale Review V (50), 1960-61, pp. 370-83, reprinted in R. Bendix and S.M. Lipset, Class, Status and Power (2nd ed.), pp. 135-40. The samurai class as modernizers.

Barrington Moore, Jr., Social Origins, op. cit., IV, V, VIII, IX. Particular attention to feudal land patterns as an obstacle to economic and political modernization.

or R.H. Tawney, Land and Labour in China (Octagon, 1964)

or Johannes Hirschmeier, The Origins of Entrepreneurship in Meiji Japan (Harvard, 1964).

**Indonesia, 1945-

Clifford Geertz, Peddlers and Princes (Chicago, 1963). An excellent example of economic anthropology in the Weberian tradition.
[Other suggestions and bibliography available from the instructors.]

C. How do Consumers, Workers, and Entrepreneurs form their Preferences for Market Activities?

This section examines the empirical evidence to date on the relative role of material incentives and job characteristics on productivity, on the effects of advertising on consumer attitudes, and on the relationship between historical experience and decisions about the future.

Week 4 (October 18) Consumer Behavior

*Robert Ferber, “Research on Household Behavior,” American Economic Review, Vol. 52 (1962), pp. 19-63. Reprinted in A.S.C. Ehrenburg and F.G. Pyatt, Consumer Behavior (Penguin, 1971).

*Karl Marx, “Alienated Labor,” and “Needs, Production, and the Division of Labor,” from Early Writings, ed. J. B. Bottomore, pp. 120-134.

*James S. Duesenberry, Income, Saving, and the Theory of Consumer Behavior, chapters I-IV.

J.K. Galbraith, The Affluent Society, (Revised edition), chapter 11.

Lester Telser, “Advertising and Cigarettes,” Journal of Political Economy (October, 1962), pp. 471-99).

Tony McGuiness and Keith Cowling, “Advertising and the Aggregate Demand for Cigarettes: An Empirical Analysis of a U.K. Market,” paper no. 31, Centre for Industrial Economic and Business Research, University of Warwick, England. On reserve in Littauer.

Lester D. Taylor and Daniel Weiserbs, “Advertising and the Aggregate Production Function,” American Economic Review, (September 1972), pp. 642-55.

George Katona, Burkhard Strumpel and Ernest Zahn, Aspirations and Affluence (McGraw-Hill, 1971), chapters 6-12. The effects and causes of consumer attitudes in the United States and Western Europe.

Week 5 (October 25) Entrepreneurs

Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, (Harper Torchbook, 1962), chapter XI-XIV.

Thomas C. Cochran, “Cultural Factors in Economic Growth,” and David Landes, “French Business and the Business Man: a Social and Cultural Analysis,” in Hugh G.J. Aitken, Explorations in Enterprise (Harvard University Press, 1965), pp, 122-38, 184-209.

Alexander Gerschenkron, “Social Attitudes, Entrepreneurship, and Economic Development,” in Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective (Harvard, 1962), pp. 52-71. [note: workers’ attitudes will be discussed in week 8.]

D. How Do Large Organizations Behave?

The opportunities created by market power and the size of the hierarchy in modern economic bureaucracies probably allowed behavior far from the competitive norm. What are the elements of structure, control, and attitudes which influence corporate behavior? The readings include the Weberian, and the “bureaucratic politics” points of view; and the case comparisons include the U.S. Navy, French enterprise, the Society of Jesus, the Soviet industrial planning system, and the most important American public enterprise.

Week 6 (November 1) Government Bureaucracy

Max Weber, “Bureaucracy,” in Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills, From Max Weber, pp. 196-244.

Charles Lindblom, “The Politics of Muddling Through,” Bobbs-Merrill Reprint, Public Administration Review XIX (Spring, 1959), pp.79-88: why strict means-end rationality is impossible in government bureaucracies.

A. Wildavsky, The Politics of the Budgetary Process, (Little, Brown, 1964) chapter 2.

Stanley Surrey, “Congress and the Tax Lobbyist: How Tax Provisions Get Enacted,” Harvard Law Review (1957), pp. 1145-70.

Sandford F. Borins, “The Political Economy of ‘The Fed,’” Public Policy (Spring, 1972), pp. 175-98.

Sanford Weiner, “Resource Allocation in Basic Research and Organizational Design,” Public Policy (Spring, 1972), pp. 227-55.

Benjamin Ward, The Socialist Economy: A Study of Organizational Alternatives, chapters 5 and 6.

The latter considers whether socialization, such as occurs in the Jesuits and the Navy, would overcome some of the control anomalies which have frustrated Soviet planning.

**Joseph Berliner, Factory and Manager in the U.S.S.R. (Harvard, 1957); a classic on informal organizations versus system goals.

Week 7 (November 8) Corporate Organization

A Harvard Business School case will be distributed for discussion.

*R.H. Coase, “The Nature of the Firm,” Economica, (1937) reprinted in G. J. Stigler and Kenneth Boulding,Readings in Price Theory (AEA, 1952), pp. 331-351.

Armen A. Alchian and Harold Demsetz, “Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization,” American Economic Review (December, 1972), pp. 777-95.

Philip Selznick, Leadership in Administration (Row Peterson, 1957), chapter 4.

David Granick, Managerial Comparisons of Four Developed Countries (MIT, 1972), chapters 1-5, 9-13.

**Alfred Chandler, Jr. Strategy and Structure, chapters 1-3, 5-7, conclusion.

**Philip Selznick, TVA and the Grass Roots (Harper pb, 1966).

**Michelle Crozier, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (Phoenix pb, 1964).

**Alfred Chandler. Pierre Dupont and the Modern Corporation.

Joseph L. Bower, “The Amoral Organization,” in R. Marris and E. G. Mesthene, Technology, the Corporation, and the State (forthcoming) or Harvard Business School 4-372-285.

Week 8 (November 15) Workers and Unions

Victor Vroom,”Industrial Social Psychology,” in Gardner B. Lindzey and Elliott Aronson, eds., The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. V. (2nd ed.), 1969, pp. 196-248.

Work in America, report of a Special Task Force to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (MIT Press, 1973), chapters 1, 2, 4, 5.
Mancur Olsen, Logic of Collective Goods (paperback, rev. ed., 1971), chapter III, pp. 66-97.

Suggested:

**John Goldthorpe et al., The Affluent Worker in the Class Structure, Cambridge University Press, 1969, pb).

**Andre Gorz, A Strategy for Labor (Beacon pb., 1968), chapter 4.
Leonard Goodwin, Do the Poor Want to Work? (Brookings, 1972).

E. Does Economic Power Give Rise to Political Power?

            Marxist, elite and pluralist theorists all answer differently as to under what circumstances market power and material privilege are translated into political power and what sorts of groups (classes, corporations, trade associations, ideological coalitions, parties) contend for ascendancy. The readings examine such mechanisms as control of mass media, the common training and outlook of American and European elites, pressure group influence on Congressional elections, and the weakening of countervailing interests.

*Otto Eckstein, Public Finance (2nd ed.), chapters 1-2.

Week 9 (November 20, Tuesday) Marxian Theory of the State

Ralph Miliband, The State in Capitalist Society (Basic Books), entire.

Week 10 (November 29) Elite Theory

C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite, chapters 1-13.

G. William Domhoff, Who Rules America? (Spectrum pb. 1967), 1-5, 7.

Week 11 (December 6) Pluralism

Arnold M. Rose, The Power Structure, (Oxford pb, 1967), pp. 1-10, 15-24, 26-39, 70-78, 89-127, 131-133.

**J.K. Galbraith, The New Industrial State, chapters I-IX, XXV, and XXXV: A strong statement of the technological impetus towards convergence.

**Walter Adams, “The Military-Industrial Complex and the New Industrial State,” American Economic Review (May, 1968), pp. 652-665.

Stanley Lieberson, “An Empirical Study of Military-Industrial Linkages,” American Journal of Sociology, (1971), pp. 562-82.

George J. Stigler, “The Theory of Economic Regulation,” Bell Journal of Economic and Manag. Sci., (Spring, 1971), pp. 3-17.

Joseph C. Palamountain, Jr., The Politics of Distribution (Harvard University Press, 1955), II, IV, VII, VIII.

J.Q. Wilson, “Politics of Business Regulation” (revised ed.), mimeographed.

Week 12 (December 13) Trade Policy

Raymond A. Bauer, Ithiel de Sola Pool, and Lewis Anthony Dexter, American Business and Public Policy, The Politics of Foreign Trade (Aldine, 2nded., 1972), Parts II, IV-VI.

F. Validation of Theories about Economic Action

Week 13 (December 20) Objectivity in Economics and Social Science

*Milton Friedman, “The Methodology of Positive Economics.”

Max Weber, “The Meaning of ‘Ethical Neutrality’ in Sociology and Economics,” and “’Objectivity’ in Social Science and Social Policy,” in Max Weber, The Methodology of the Social Sciences (Free Press, 1949), pp. 1-112.

Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge Cambridge University Press pb. (Essays by T.S. Kuhn, S.E. Toulmin, K.R. Popper, and I. Lakatos), pp. 1-24, 39-59, 91-196.

Term papers due by January 17.

Source:  John Kenneth Galbraith Personal Papers. Series 5 Harvard University File, 1949-1990, Box 521, Folder “[courses]: Economics 280: Musgrave Lecture. 9 October 1973”.

Image Source: Martin C. Spechler from the Department of Economics webpage, Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis archived at the Wayback Machine (February 18, 2003).

 

 

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Socialism Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Readings and Exams for Methods of Social Reform. Carver, 1902-03

Thomas Nixon Carver

 

“The trouble with radicals is that they only read radical literature, and the trouble with conservatives is that they don’t read anything.”

Thomas Nixon Carver quoted by John Kenneth Galbraith (A Life in Our Times)

This conservative Harvard economic theorist regularly taught the course on schemes of economic reform at Harvard early in the 20th century. He was certainly more forgiving than sympathetic to his radical subjects. 

Variations of this course syllabus have been transcribed earlier here at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror:

___________________

Course Description

[Economics] 14. Methods of Social Reform, including Socialism, Communism, the Single Tax, etc. Tu.,Th, at 1.30. Professor Carver.

The purpose of this course is to make a careful study of those plans of social amelioration which involves either a reorganization of society, or a considerable extension of the functions of the state. The course begins with an historical study of early communistic theories and experiments. This is followed by a critical examination of the series of the leading socialistic writers, with a view to getting a clear understanding of the reasoning which lies back of socialistic movements, and of the economic conditions which tend to make this reasoning acceptable. A similar study will be made of Anarchism and Nihilism, of the Single Tax Movement, of State Socialism and the public ownership of monopolistic enterprises, and of Christian Socialism, so called.

Morley’s Ideal Commonwealths, Ely’s French and German Socialism, Marx’s Capital, Marx and Engels’s The Communist Manifesto, and George’s Progress and Poverty will be read, besides other special references.

The course will be conducted by means of lectures, reports, and classroom discussions.

Source: Harvard University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Division of History and Political Science comprising the Departments of History and Government and Economics 1902-03. The University Publications, New Series, No. 55 (June 14, 1902), p. 42

___________________

Course Enrollment
(Harvard, 1902-03)

[Economics] 14. Professor Carver.— Methods of Reform. Socialism, Communism, the Single Tax, etc.

Total 15: 2 Graduates, 8 Seniors, 2 Juniors, 1 Sophomore, 2 Others.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1902-03, p. 67.

___________________

Course Enrollment (Radcliffe, 1902-03)

[Economics] 14. Professor Carver.— Methods of Social Reform.

Total 6: 4 Undergraduates, 2 Others.

Source: Radcliffe College. Report of the President of Radcliffe College, 1902-03, p. 43.

___________________

Economics 14
[handwritten note: 1902-03]

Topics and References
Starred references are prescribed

COMMUNISM

A
Utopias
1. Plato’s Republic
2. *Sir Thomas More.   Utopia.
3. *Francis Bacon.   New Atlantis.
4. *Tommaso Campanella.   The City of the Sun. (Numbers 2, 3, and 4 may be found in convenient form in Morley’s Ideal Commonwealths.)
5. Etienne Cabet.   Voyage en Icarie.
6. Wm. Morris.   News from Nowhere.
7. Edward Bellamy.   Looking Backward.

 

B
Communistic Experiments
1. *Charles Nordhoff.   The Communistic Societies of the United States.
2. Karl Kautsky.   Communism in Central Europe in the Time of the Reformation.
3. W. A. Hinds.   American Communities.
4. J.H. Noyes.   History of American Socialisms.
5. J. T. Codman.   Brook Farm Memoirs.
6. Albert Shaw.   Icaria.
7. G.B. Landis.   The Separatists of Zoar.
8. E.O. Randall.   History of the Zoar Society.

 

SOCIALISM

A
Historical
1. *R. T. Ely. French and German Socialism.
2. Bertrand Russell. German Social Democracy.
3. John Rae. Contemporary Socialism.
4. Thomas Kirkup. A History of Socialism.
5. W. D. P. Bliss. A Handbook of Socialism.
6. Wm. Graham. Socialism, New and Old.
7. [Jessica Blanche] Peixotto. The French Revolution and Modern French Socialism.

 

B
Expository and Critical
1. *Albert Schaeffle. The Quintessence of Socialism.
2. Albert Schaeffle. The Impossibility of Social Democracy.
3. *Karl Marx. Capital.
4. *Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels. The Manifesto of the Communist Party.
5. Frederick Engels. Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
6. E. C. K. Gonner. The Socialist Philosophy of Rodbertus.
7. E. C. K. Gonner. The Socialist State.
8. Bernard Shaw and others. The Fabian Essays in Socialism.
9. The Fabian Tracts.
10. R. T. Ely. Socialism: An Examination of its Nature, Strength, and Weakness.
11. Edward Bernstein. Ferdinand Lassalle.
12. Henry M. Hyndman. The Economics of Socialism.
13. Sydney and Beatrice Webb. Problems of Modern Industry.
14. Gustave Simonson. A Plain Examination of Socialism.
15. Sombart. Socialism and the Social Movement in the Nineteenth Century.
16. Vandervelde. Collectivism [and Industrial Evolution].

 

ANARCHISM

1. *Leo Tolstoi. The Slavery of Our Times.
2. Wm. Godwin. Political Justice.
3. Kropotkin. The Scientific Basis of Anarchy. Nineteenth Century, 21: 238.
4. Kropotkin. The Coming Anarchy. Nineteenth Century, 22:149.
5. Elisée Reclus. Anarchy. Contemporary Review, 45: 627. [May 1884]

 

RELIGIOUS AND ALTRUISTIC SOCIALISM

1. Lamennais. Les Paroles d’un Croyant.
2. Charles Kingsley. Alton Locke.
3. *Kaufman. Lamennais and Kingsley. Contemporary Review, April, 1882.
4. Washington Gladden. Tools and the Man.
5. Josiah Strong. Our Country.
6. Josiah Strong. The New Era.
7. William Morris, Poet, Artist, Socialist. Edited by Francis Watts Lee. A collection of the socialistic writings of William Morris.
8. Ruskin. The Communism of John Ruskin. Edited by W. D. P. Bliss. Selected chapters from Unto this Last, The Crown of Wild Olive, and Fors Clavigera.
9. Carlyle. The Socialism and Unsocialism of Thomas Carlyle. Edited by W. D. P. Bliss. Selected chapters from Carlyle’s various works. [Volume 1; Volume 2]

 

AGRARIAN SOCIALISM

1. *Henry George. Progress and Poverty.
2. Henry George. Our Land and Land Policy.
3. Alfred Russell Wallace. Land Nationalization.

 

STATE SOCIALISM

An indefinite term, usually made to include all movements for the extension of government control and ownership, especially over means of communication and transportation, also street lighting, etc.

1. R. T. Ely. Problems of To-day. Chs. 17-23.
2. J. A. Hobson. The Social Problem.

 

WORKS DISCUSSING THE SPHERE OF THE STATE IN SOCIAL REFORM

1. Henry C. Adams. The Relation of the State to Industrial Action.
2. *D. G. Ritchie. Principles of State Interference.
3. D. G. Ritchie. Darwinism and Politics.
4. *Herbert Spencer. The Coming Slavery.
5. W. W. Willoughby. Social Justice.

Source:  Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in economics, 1895-2003. Box 1, Folder “Economics, 1902-1903”.

______________________

Economics 14
Mid-year Examination, 1902-03

  1. Give an account of More’s Utopia.
  2. Is there any ground for supposing that Utopian schemes have influenced social development? Give reasons.
  3. What were the periods of greatest activity in the founding of communistic settlements in America? What stimulated the activity in each period, and what were the general conditions favorable to such activity?
  4. Does the history of communistic experiments in America throw any light on the probable success or failure of socialism on a large scale? Give reasons.
  5. Give an account of the communistic plans and activities of Etienne Cabet.
  6. Describe the Communist Manifesto. What place does it hold in socialistic literature, and why?
  7. Compare the socialism of Rodbertus with that of Karl Marx.
  8. Outline Marx’ theory of surplus value.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Mid-year Examinations 1852-1943. Box 6. Papers (in the bound volume Examination Papers Mid-years 1902-1903).

______________________

Economics 14
Year-End Examination, 1902-03

  1. Give some account of Fourier and the Fourieristic experiments in the United States.
  2. Distinguish between Utopian and Scientific Socialism.
  3. What part has religion played in the history of Communistic Experiments?
  4. How does Karl Marx explain the existence of poverty?
  5. Trace briefly the history of the German Social Democratic Party.
  6. Distinguish between land and other forms of property.
  7. How do you account for the share of the capitalist in distribution?
  8. Is there any relation between the unequal distribution of workers among different occupations and the unequal distribution of wealth?
  9. What is meant by the term “Natural Monopolies.”
  10. Define “Christian Socialism” and explain how it differs from Marxian Socialism.

Source:  University Archives. Examination Papers 1873-1915. Box 6. Papers Set for Final Examinations in History, Government, Economics, History of Religions, Philosophy, Education, Fine Arts, Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Music in Harvard College, June 1903 (in the bound volume Examination Papers 1902-1903).

Image Source: Harvard Class Album, 1906.

Categories
Funny Business M.I.T.

M.I.T. Faculty skit. Robert Solow as the 2000 year old economist.

Would Mel Brooks' famous 2,000-Year-Old Man have understood modern language? Researchers say there's a possibility.

 

 

A skit in economics typically involves a humor transplant of some sort. The following script from the faculty contribution to an annual M.I.T. economics skit party (ca.  1979-80 which is when Luis Tiant pitched for the Yankees) took its inspiration from  two greats in American comedy, Carl Reiner & Mel Brooks, who sometimes performed as interviewer and 2,000 year-old man, respectively.

While it is fairly clear that Robert Solow performed and probably wrote the entire skit, the identity of the interviewer still needs to be established. Hint: there is a comment box at the bottom of this post. 

The script comes from a file of such Solovian skits that Roger Backhouse has copied during his archival research and has shared with Economics in the Rear-View Mirror.

_________________

 

Q: You have probably all heard the interviews with the recently discovered 2000-year-old man. We are fortunate to have with us tonight another great find, the 2000-year-old economist, Robert M. Solow. By the way, Dr. Solow, just what does the M stand for?

A: Methuselah, dummy.

Q: Dr. Solow has seen so many skit parties in his life, that he was not very happy about appearing at this one. Do you remember the first skit party you ever went to?

A: No. Skit parties are like hangovers – best thing to do is forget ’em and swear never to do it again. I do have a hazy recollection of an early skit party, I think it was what the one where I first heard the joke about bordered determinants…

Q: What is the joke about border determinants?

A: I don’t know, but they sure laugh[ed] their fool heads off.

Q: Any other recollections about that skit party?

A: Well, you could hear them building pyramids in the background, I remember, and there was this Sphinx-like object, looked a lot like Dick Eckaus… You don’t suppose that, even then???? Nah, forget it.

Q: Turning to more serious issues, what is the biggest change in economics since the old days?

A: Mechanization, by cracky. First the electric typewriter, then the computer, then the Xerox machine [handwritten insert: but not fast enough for (3 or 4 illegible words)]. Nowadays people write papers at the rate they used to wipe their… glasses. I believe Feldstein has solved the problem of hooking the typewriter directly to the Xerox machine, and the whole paper is reproduced without being touched by human hands. There is even a rumor that he has a secret way of getting the paper written without human intervention…

Q: Come come, Dr. Solow, you don’t believe that.

A: Well, have you looked at any of Feldstein’s recent papers? Now in the good old days, stand-up roll-top desks, quill pens, the main-frame abacus, a man thought twice before he wrote a paper. At least he thought once. If only old Tom were here.

Q: Tom who?

A: Tom Gresham. You know: bad working papers drive out good. Not to mention Dave Hume, the inventor of the quantity theory of working papers. As Milton used to say: any way you slice it, it’s still baloney.

Q: Is that Milton Friedman?

A: No, Milton Horowitz, the inventor of the pastrami sandwich. I believe he appears in a footnote in Joskow’s classic mustard-stained work on the subject.

Q: Let’s come to your recent impressions. What do you see as the most important recent development in economics?

A: That’s easy – the increase in the mandatory retirement age to 70. Of course it’s got a long way to go before it does me any good, but I underestimate the DRI Mandatory Retirement Age Monitor estimates the retirement age to be rising at 1.73 years per year, so time is on my side.

Q: Apart from its effects on you personally, why do you think this is an important development?

A: It saves a lot of time at department meetings never to have to make a tenure appointment again. And you know what department meetings are like – even worse than skit parties.

Q: How do you think the change will affect students?

A: They’ll love it. Courses will be the same year after year. Reading lists will never change. Textbooks will go on and on and on. Can you imagine the 200th edition of Dornbusch and Fischer? I hope it’s printed on better paper than the low-grade papyrus of the first edition… I do wonder about Eckaus and that Sphinx…… Exams will be the same year after year. Students hate change. Look at what happened when you fellows tried to change 14.121 this year.

Q: Turning to economic theory, what has been the most important development you have witnessed in the last 2000 years?

A: The two-dimensional diagram.

Q: Be serious.

A: I am serious. Can you imagine Bhagwati, the Picasso of the Production Possibility Locus, trying to fit all those curves in a one-dimensional diagram, which was all we had in the old days? There wasn’t hardly room for anything besides the axis.

Q: Come, come. Bhagwati would find a solution for that little difficulty. Who needs an axis?

A: Maybe so, but can you imagine four-color one-dimensional diagrams? How could we have expensive textbooks without four-color diagrams? How could we have expensive professors without expensive textbooks? How could……

Q: OK, OK. What is the second most important development in economic theory in your lifetime?

A: The subscript.

Q: Don’t you know the difference between trivia and serious economic theory?

A: Sure. Trivia are worth remembering, but serious economics is OK to forget.

Q: Maybe we better stick to trivia…

A: I was just kidding. I really know the answer. There is no difference between trivia and serious economic theory.

Q: Tell us about the most interesting experience you ever heard of an economist having?

A: Easy. Happened to an agricultural economist I knew, feller named Samuelson, farm boy from Gary, Indiana. He was digging on the farm one day, checking out the law of diminishing returns, and he found a potato growing with a nickel in it. Marvelous thing. Folks came from miles away to see a potato with a nickel in it. Old Samuelson frittered away the rest of his life looking for another potato with the nickel in it. Never could find one. He did find a couple with three cents in them, but somehow it wasn’t the same. Never accomplished another thing, old Samuelson. Wonder whatever became of him? He’d be 2009, I reckon. By the way, whatever became of that other farmer, Weitzman?

Q: You mean Chaim Weitzman, the founding father of Israel? His last words were: you don’t have to convince me, Professor [Frank] Fisher, I’m Jewish too.

A: No, I mean Marty Weitzman, old quick and dirty, the lion of Levittown.

Q: Why do you ask?

A: Reminds me of the fellow I used to know, a Secretary of the Treasury named Hamilton……

Q: Reminds you of who? Oh, I get it, they both got killed in the dual.

A: Watch out, Buster – the agreement was that I tell the jokes and you prove the theorems.

Q: All right. Let’s get away from personalities. What do you think of recent macro theories?

A: Not much.

Q: What about rational expectations?

A: If there were any truth in that, it would have been thought up long ago.

Q: Not necessarily. The old-timers could have thought that someone would think of it, without thinking of it themselves.

A: That’s true, but the old-timers were too sensible to think that anyone would think a thought like that.

Q: How about the quantity theory?

A: Ingenious.

Q: Really?

A: Imagine saying that velocity is so stable that only money matters, and so unstable that no use can be made of the theory, and imagine getting away with both statements.

Q: But what is macroeconomics left with then?

A: Well, the old Ioto-Sigma Lamba-Mu [Greek for “IS-LM”] curves were good enough for Aristotle, it’s good enough for me.

Q: Would you care to comment on the theory of built-in stabilizers?

A: If you’re not going to be serious, we might as well go watch a ballgame. I understand Louis Tiant, the 2000-year-old pitcher is going for the Yankees.

Q: Use your 2000-year-old imagination. I’ll give you an example of built-in stabilization – Social Security.

A: How so?

Q: The less likely it is that anyone will ever be able to collect benefits, the likelier it becomes that they make even more money consulting on Social Security. Take [Peter] Diamond, for example.

A: You take Diamond.

Q: No thanks. Imagine a man leaving a perfectly good career in public finance to go into law and economics and make a hash out of both fields.

A: Stick to the straight-man lines, please.

[Handwritten insert begins here]

Q: What do you think of the proliferation of journals?

A: I think it is terrific. Of course it has been going on for a long time – ever since BJEA, the Babylonian Journal of Economic Analysis was challenged by the SEJ, the Sumerian Economic Journal.
What I particularly like is the increased specialization. Like JHR, the Journal of Human Regressions and JME, the Journal of Mathematical Existence.

Q: The Journal of Mathematical Existence – isn’t that the one that started with the famous 2-line proof: I count, therefore I am?

A: Yes and was followed by a 47 page proof that without continuity existence was still generic.
I also like this trend toward paired journals.

Q: Paired journals?

A: Yes, like the two Harvard journals – one publishes theory without measurement and the other measurement without theory.
And then there’s the 2 JPE’s – the Journal of Public Economics and the Journal of Private Enterprise.

[handwritten insert ends]

Q: What do you see as the greatest danger facing the economics profession?

A: The threatened extension of truth-in-lending legislation to truth-in-teaching. We could have the biggest rash of malpractice suits since Nicky Kaldor retired.

Q: I think you’re onto something there. How foresighted of this department to have hired an expert on malpractice like Marilyn Simon [joined faculty 1977-78 academic year], the world-famous author of Unnecessary Surgery – The View from the Inside.

A: Simon only writes about malpractice – [Jeffrey E.] Harris actually does it, I understand.

Q: You seem to have discovered a lot since you turned up around here. Anything else new on the malpractice front?

A: There’s a rumor that the University of Chicago has had to recall all the degrees issued during the last five model years.

Q: You mean…

A: Right. Defective transmission mechanisms.

Q: Gad. Are there any good defenses against malpractice suits in your long and varied experience?

A: You can hire a mathematician for the faculty.

Q: What good does that do?

A: How the hell would I know? All I can say is that every department seems to be hiring mathematicians these days. It’s got to be for something.

Q: I’m looking for some more tried and true defense.

A: There’s always the Long-and-Variable Lags defense. See the Supreme Court decision in Tobin versus Friedman, in which Friedman successfully argued that first it’s true, second he never said it, and third wait till next year.

Q-: How about the Roy Lopez Defense?

A: You mean P–K4, P-K4; N-KB3, N-QB3; B-QN5, P-QR3?

Q: No, I mean Roy Lopez, the middle line-backer for the Princeton Economics Department – anyone sues for malpractice, he breaks their legs.

A: Sounds good. There’s also the classic defense due to Stanley Fischer, that truth should be indexed. Today’s malpractice is tomorrow’s conventional wisdom.

Q: Speaking of conventional wisdom, have you spoken with Professor Galbraith since your return?

A: No, but I have been reading his latest book: Why Are People Poor?

Q: I’ll bite; why are people poor?

A: Not enough income, according to Galbraith.

Q: Does he have a remedy?

A: Move to Switzerland.

Q: I see.

A: I can’t wait until the news reaches Calcutta.

Q: One last question, to return to the subject with which we started. Do you see any trends in student skits?

A: Longer.

Q: Longer and funnier?

A: Longer.

Q: Any final comment?

A: Let me ask you a question. What do you consider the most remarkable thing in this interview?

Q: That’s easy. We never mentioned IBM.

 

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archives. Papers of Robert M. Solow. Box 83.

Image Source:  Carl Reiner and Mel Brooks performing the 2000 year old man from NPR KNAU, Arizona public radio article “Could You Talk To a Caveman?” (May 9, 2013) .