Tag: Haberler

Harvard. Economics professors who signed petition supporting Congressman Jerry O’Connell’s resolution, 1938

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2025-09-22

In a random search for interesting newspaper reports about the Austrian economist Gottfried Haberler during his early years on the Harvard faculty, I came upon a report of a Spanish Civil War rally held at Harvard featuring the Montana one-term Congressional democrat, Jerry O’Connell, that had taken place on March 27, 1938 in Emerson Hall. The U.S. Communist Party newspaper The Daily Worker reported that a number of Harvard faculty members signed a petition to support an anti-fascist amendment to U.S. neutrality legislation of the time. They included the economists:

Gottfried Haberler
Alvin Hansen
Wassily Leontief
Edward Mason.

The amendment would have prohibited commerce with aggressor nations [Germany and Italy] and have opened American markets to the victims of aggression [the Loyalist Republicans].

This naturally leads to questions as to why these economists took a side and why other senior colleagues did not? I presume lower ranks of the faculty (instructor-tutors) also signed the petition, but all my casual research has uncovered is found in the article transcribed below.

_______________________________

Backstory of the O’Connor Peace Bill

In March 1938 Representative Jerry O’Connell introduced a House resolution to amend the existing neutrality legislation, including the Spanish embargo. Sam McReynolds, chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, initially agreed to hearings before finally refusing. James Roosevelt claimed that the hearings were stopped by the State Department to avoid public discussion of the Spanish embargo. On 24 March Breckinridge Long, employed as a lobbyist by pro-Loyalists, visited Roosevelt to argue in favor of repealing the embargo. FDR, sympathetic but noncommittal, suggested that Long talk to Hull. A week later Hull told Long that the embargo might be lifted if fascist intervention could be proved: ‘‘Hull said he would reconsider if he received sufficient factual information about Italo-German invasion in Spain—so sufficient to justify a change of policy so the president could revoke the Proclamation of Neutrality and embargo of war implements. The Spanish Ambassador today furnished him with substantial proof of alleged ‘invasion’ of Spain. Whether that is sufficient remains to be seen.’’

Long did secure a promise that the embargo issue would be placed before the president. But on 10 April Long thought that no change of policy was likely, primarily because the Loyalists looked close to military collapse. Late March was also the height of the fight in Congress over reorganizing executive agencies, and FDR was particularly reluctant at this time to engage in a violent political quarrel to lift the embargo. On 5 April Byron Scott introduced a House resolution to repeal the Spanish embargo, but this effort also failed. Hull, who favored wider neutrality reform but not the repeal of the Spanish embargo, telegraphed the U.S. embassy in Spain in early April to state that repeal was ‘‘not in prospect.’’ But a few weeks later Roosevelt was told that Senator Key Pittman, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, might act on the Spanish question. On 2 May Senator Gerald Nye introduced a resolution to allow arms sales to Loyalist Spain.

… there is little evidence that Roosevelt sought to lift the Spanish embargo in the spring or summer of 1938.

Source: Dominic Tierney. FDR and the Spanish Civil War Neutrality and Commitment in the Struggle that Divided America, Chapter 7: Covert Aid. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2007, pp. 92-94.

_______________________________

46 Harvard Faculty Members
Back O’Connell Peace Bill
16 Professors Among Signers of Petition

Montana Representative Main Speaker at Peace Rally in Cambridge
— Points to Danger From Reactionaries in U.S.

(Special to the Daily Worker)

BOSTON, Mass., March 27. —A group of 16 prominent Harvard professors in addition to 30 other members of the university faculty presented a petition supporting the O’Connell Peace Bill, yesterday afternoon to Representative Jerry O’Connell of Montana on the occasion of his address at a peace rally of undergraduates in Emerson Hall.

The professors who signed the petition for the Act, which would empower the President to name the aggressor nation in case of war, and apply economic sanctions against that aggressor, were:

Professors:

Arthur Holcombe—Government
Ralph Burton Perry—Philosophy
David Prall—Philosophy
Walter B. Cannon—Harvard Medical School
Hassler Whitney—Mathematics
Gordon Allport—Psychology
Gottfried Haberler—Economics
Alvin Hansen—Economics
Wassily Leontieff—Economics
Edward Mason—Economics
Kenneth Murdock—English
H. L. Blumgart—Harvard Medical School
T. Morrison—English
C. L. Kuhn—Fine Arts
Ernest Simmons—English
W. C. Greene—Classics

Speaks on Fascist Danger

In his address, Rep. O’Connell stressed the recent unparalleled spread of fascism through Europe. He pointed out the danger to American democracy from certain reactionary business interests in this country. O’Connell traced the recent development of collective security sentiment in the country and in Congress. After drawing a vivid picture of Loyalist Spain under the bombs of fascism, O’Connell urged his audience to write letters to the House Foreign Affairs Committee urging immediate consideration and passage of his Peace Act. “To keep America out of war,” he said, “keep war out of the world.”

The meeting was sponsored jointly by the Harvard Student Union (local A.S.U, chapter), the American League for Peace and Democracy, and the Cambridge Teachers’ Union.

The petition read: “We wholeheartedly support the proposed O’Connell amendment to the Neutrality Act. This amendment would prohibit commerce with aggressor nations and open American markets to the victims of aggression.”

Source: Daily Worker (New York), March 28, 1938, p. 4.

Image Source: Harvard Class Album, 1942.

Tags Haberler, Hansen, Leontief, Mason

Economists Harvard

Harvard. Annual report on the department of economics. Dunlop, 1961-1962

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2025-05-26

An overview of the annual comings and goings of a department are typically chronicled in a report prepared by the department chair. Such low circulation documents are sometimes targeted to a specific readership, e.g. a visiting committee, a dean, the alumni, but the report transcribed in this post for the Harvard economics department in 1961-62 does not appear to have had a particular audience in mind.

___________________________

About Chairman John T. Dunlop
(Harvard Album, 1960)

Sallying forth from an office in the farther reaches of Littauer to Washington, D.C., JOHN THOMAS DUNLOP, Professor of Economics and faculty member in the Graduate School of Public Administration, is certainly one of the university’s most travelled professors. Dunlop, a labor expert, teaches an undergraduate course on unionism and public policy applying to labor relations and problems; in the grad school he conducts two seminars, in one of which he had worked closely with the late Professor Slichter. But in addition to his teaching, Professor Dunlop is one of the country’s leading strike arbitrators, and he figures that he travels in the vicinity of 150,000 miles a year on this outside work. The occasion for a weekly trip to the nation’s capital is his post as the impartial chairman of a joint committee in the construction industry, comprising representatives of the eighteen major unions and contracting firms. In this position Professor Dunlop must mediate disputes between the union and management. He is also a permanent umpire for the women’s garment industry and in the past has served in similar capacities for the brass companies of Connecticut and the bituminous coal producers. The dispute in 1955 involving the complexities of the ratio of required conductors to the length of a freight train called him back to the role of mediator, following a long term with the Atomic Energy Labor panel. At present he edits the Wertheim series on the histories of various big corporations and unions, and he also administers a Ford Foundation grant to study the functionings of labor and management in the underdeveloped countries of Asia.

Professor Dunlop was born in the Forty-Niner gold region and graduated from the University of California in 1935. He has been with Harvard since 1938, when he joined the faculty as an instructor. He gets back to California at least once a year, and the last time he returned he did so by travelling eastward via Indonesia. Professor Dunlop lives in Belmont, and, when not compiling mileage, he devotes his time to his wife and three children, and concentrates on his tennis game.

Source: The Harvard Album, 1960, p. 29.

___________________________

Previously posted departmental reports

Department Reports to the Dean (1932-41)
Department Reports to the Dean (1942-1946)
Department Reports to the Dean (1947-1950)
Department Report to the Dean (1955-56)
Department Newsletter (June 1960)

___________________________

June 26, 1962

Report
Department of Economics, 1961-1962

1. Staff

Professor Gerschenkron was Taussig Research Professor for the year, and Professor Albert J. Meyer, lecturer in the Department, was also on leave. Professor Galbraith and Kaysen continued on leave in government appointments. During the spring term Professor Harris was on sabbatical leave; Professor Bergson held a Ford Faculty Research Fellowship, and Professor Leontief was Visiting Professor at the College du France, Paris. Assistant Professors Gill and Vanek were also on leave throughout the year.

As a consequence of the number of senior members on leave, the Department included this year a relatively large number of visiting professors and lecturers. Professor Jesse Markham of Princeton University taught the courses in industrial organization; Dr. Frank Spooner was in charge of economic history; Professor William H. Nicholls of Vanderbilt instructed in agriculture and economic development. Professor Jacob Viner was Taussig Research Professor, and while he taught no courses, we were delighted to have him with us for the year. Professor Schmookler of Minnesota was associated with the science and public policy seminar of the Littauer School, and was a visiting lecturer in the Department. In addition, Professor Domar of M.I.T. taught a course in the Soviet economy in the spring term. Mr. Langley gave courses ordinarily taught by Professor A.J. Meyer, and Professor Caleb Smith of Brown University continued to teach the accounting course.

2. New Appointments

The Executive Committee unanimously recommended the appointment of Professor Richard Caves as a permanent addition to the Department. Following the established procedures, the governing boards on May 14, 1962 voted his appointment as Professor of Economics effective July 1, 1962. Professor Caves completed his Ph.D. degree in the Department in 1958 and has been on the staff at the University of California (Berkeley) since 1957. He has been vice-chairman of the Berkeley Department. The appointment of Professor Caves will materially strengthen the Harvard Department, particularly in the fields of international trade and industrial organization. Moreover, he is regarded as an excellent undergraduate teacher.

The Department unanimously recommended and the President and governing boards approved the appointment of four new assistant professors starting July 1, 1962: Clopper Almon, Jr., Elliot Berg, Phoebus Dhrymes, and Thomas Wilson. It is planned that these assistant professors in the Department will devote part time to research and be paid in part from research budgets. Such arrangements, combined with the higher salary scales starting July 1, 1962, should facilitate the recruitment of first rate assistant professors; it has often been difficult in the past to fill this rank in this Department.

In approving these four appointments on March 5, 1962, President Pusey stated:

“It is my understanding that these four new Assistant Professors will devote part of their five-year tenure to special research projects and that an appropriate fraction of their salaries during these periods will be charged against the project budgets. I approve in principle the idea of experimenting in this way with charging portions of the salaries of assistant professors to grants or contracts, provided these grants or contracts are of sufficient duration to avoid the danger of funds running out when there are still large salary commitments in excess of our normal academic salary budget. Thus I feel that we should move with caution in this direction, treating the above appointments as experimental, and waiting for the results to become apparent before venturing further along this road.”

3. Chair in Modern China Studies and Economics

The primary responsibility for filling this chair has now been placed in the Department of Economics. After a series of conferences with the East Asia Research Center of Harvard University, President Pusey approved the arrangements under which the Department will seek a permanent appointment competent in Economics and with a command of the Chinese language. In the meanwhile, the Department is to be responsible for providing some instruction on term appointments in the field and is to have the use of the income of the endowment for such instruction and to develop promising scholars in this field.

Professor Kuznets is to be Chairman of the Committee of the Department to seek appropriate appointments. It is expected that Mr. Dwight Perkins, a graduate student in the Department, will provide a half course of instruction on the Economy of China in the spring term, 1963.

4. Undergraduate Program

The enrollment in the undergraduate courses in the Department has grown in the last several years. The aggregate enrollment in undergraduate courses was 926 in the fall of 1959 and 1375 in the fall of 1961; the aggregate enrollment was 1080 in the spring term of 1960 and 1281 in the spring of 1962. These figures include the enrollment in Economics 1 which averaged 540 in 1959 and 628 in 1962. It is thought that these increases in part reflect the reorganization of the undergraduate program placed into effect in the fall of 1960 following several years of work on the part of the committee on undergraduate instruction. The division of full year courses into half year courses, the arrangement of courses into four groups according to prerequisites and level of difficulty, the lectures in Economics 1 and the addition to the curriculum of a few new courses is thought to have stimulated enrollment.

Despite the increases in enrollment in undergraduate courses, the Department faces a serious continuing problem to maintain and to increase the number of concentrators in the field. The percentage of all concentrators who elect the field of Economics has declined from 7.7 percent in 1956-57 to 6.0 percent in 1960-61. The low concentration in Economics at Radcliffe is of particular concern to the Department, and conferences seeking to increase interest among the students have been held with President Bunting and other members of the Radcliffe staff.

In order to improve the quality of our instruction, Economics 98 (junior tutorial) is to be reorganized. The adoption of the Gill plan by the Faculty materially increased the number of students in Economics 98 from 40 or 50 to more than 80. The instruction in economic theory by lectures has proven to be inappropriate with the larger group. Next year, 1962-63, it is planned to divide the group into three or four seminars, each of approximately 20 students; each seminar is to be under the direction of a senior member of the Department or an assistant professor. In addition, tutorial groups of four or five students will meet with individual tutors. Professor Caves has been given overall responsibility for this important part of the undergraduate program.

5. Graduate Instruction

There was a total of 48 first year graduate students in the Department this year including 5 women and 3 enrolled through Littauer. There were 88 continuing graduate students including 6 women, 6 from Littauer, and 2 in joint degrees, for a total of 136 graduate students; in addition, the Department had 10 special students and 10 special auditors. A total of 21 Ph.D. degrees were awarded to students in the Department of Economics.

The competition for places in the graduate schools for work in the Department of Economics has grown more severe in recent years. From the more than 260 applications for admission to the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences received in the spring of 1962, there will only be about 45 new graduate students in the fall of 1962. Almost half of these students will be from outside the United States and Canada. For the fall of 1962 we have been able to obtain the admission of 8 out of the first 10 on our list, a considerably higher fraction than in recent years.

The Department faces strong conflicting pressures in making decisions on the number of new graduate students to be admitted. On the one hand, the Department is anxious to provide individual instruction particularly after the first year of graduate study for the highest quality students. A greater enrollment would also complicate materially the teaching of the required graduate courses in economic history, statistics and theory, and after a point would require further manpower so that two senior members of the Department might give parallel courses or sections. On the other hand, the Department is anxious to make its contribution to the increased demands for economists particularly for developing countries. Moreover the quality of a number of the students rejected for admission (perhaps as many as 15 to 20) appears to be very good. In the selection of students from abroad it is particularly difficult to know whether one has made the best selections. When students are admitted whose records turn out to be poor, there are often many complications for both the student and the University. The Department has spent considerable energy in reviewing the records of students admitted during the past decade; a careful statistical study was made under the direction of Professor Houthakker. The Department is continuing to seek to improve admission procedures.

Financial resources available to the Department for its own use for scholarships and fellowships is a serious problem since the money made available by the generous gift of Mr. Roger Kyes has now been exhausted.

6. Organization of the Department

The Department now performs much of its routine business through committees. The two major committees are on Undergraduate Instruction under Professor Eckstein and on Graduate Instruction under Professor Dorfman.

7. Research

A very large amount of research activity is carried out by members of the Department of Economics. In addition to individual research by senior members, an increasing number of research projects which employ a number of graduate students and junior staff are being conducted under the direction of senior members. These research projects often provide opportunities for training of graduate students in research methods and afford topics and financing for Ph.D. dissertations.

Among these research projects with financial support are the following:

Professor Leontief	Harvard Economic Research Project which has recently been refinanced for a period of years.
Professor Mason	The relations of government and business in economic development.
Professor Mason and Dr. Papanek	Overseas operations and training (Center for International Affairs)
Professor Kuznets	Economic growth
Professor Eckstein	Economics of public expenditures
Professor Houthakker	Forecasting consumers’ expenditures
Professor Harris	Education and Public Policy
Professor Schelling	Defense studies and Experimental Study of Bargaining
Professor Dunlop	Labor-Management History and Economics of Medical Care
Professor Duesenberry	Capital Markets
Professor Meyer	Business Decisions
Professor Bergson	Soviet Economics
Professor Gerschenkron	Economic History Workshop

8. Public and Professional Activities

A number of members of the Department were engaged in a wide variety of professional activities and public service during the year. A few instances may be of interest; no attempt is made for a complete listing.

The president of the American Economic Association comes from this Department two years in a row. Professor Mason is president for 1962, and Professor Haberler is president-elect.

Professor Leontief was chairman of the International Conference on Input-Output Techniques held in Geneva, Switzerland in September 1961 and sponsored by the Harvard Economic Research Project in association with the U.S.[sic] Secretariat. He was also a member of the Commission of Experts for the United Nations which reported on the Social and Economic Consequences of Disarmament.

Professor Dorfman served as a member of the President’s Scientific Advisory Committee team on Waterlogging and Salinity in West Pakistan. He is also a member of the President’s Committee to Appraise Employment and Unemployment Statistics.

Professor Harris is serving as Economic Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury and is a member of the Public Advisory Board of the Area Redevelopment Program.

Professor John R. Meyer served as a consultant in connection with the President’s message on Transportation Policy.

Professor Kuznets is Chairman of the Committee on the Economy of China of the Social Science Research Council.

Professor Bergson is a member of this same Committee and chairman of the Joint Committee of Slavic Studies of the Social Science Research Council and the American Council of Learned Societies. His study, The Real National Income of Soviet Russia Since 1928, was published in 1961 by the Harvard University Press.

Professor Mason is Chairman, Advisory Committee, A.I.D.

Professors Duesenberry, Eckstein and Smithies have been consultants to the Council of Economic Advisors. Professor Duesenberry was on the staff of the Commission on Money and Credit and was chairman of the Joint Economic Committee’s Inventory Study Committee.

Professor Schelling has been a consultant to the Department of Defense and to the Scientific Advisory Board of the Air Force. His study Strategy of Arms Control (with Morton J. Halperin), was published by the Twentieth Century Fund in 1961.

Professor Houthakker has worked on revenue forecasting problems for the Department of the Treasury.

Professor Dunlop was a member of the Presidential Railroad Commission (1960-1962), and is a member of the President’s Missile Sites Labor Commission. He was Chairman of the International Conference on Labor Productivity under the auspices of the International Economic Association held August-September 1961.

9. Visiting Committee

A series of meetings this year with the Chairman of the Visiting Committee, and others of its members, have improved the relations between the Visiting Committee and the Department of Economics. I believe these new attitudes are reflected in the annual report of the Committee. There is a genuine desire on the part of both the Department and the Committee for a constructive relationship.

___________________
John T. Dunlop
Chairman

Source: Duke University. Economists’ Papers Archive. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Edward H. Chamberlin Papers, Box 17, Folder “Economics Department 1960-62”.

Image Source: The Harvard Class Album 1960, p. 29.

Tags AlmonC, BergE, Bergson, Caves, Dhrymes, Domar, DorfmanR, Duesenberry, Dunlop, Eckstein, Galbraith, Gerschenkron, Gill, Haberler, Harris, Houthakker, Kaysen, Kuznets, Langley, Leontief, Markham, Mason, MeyerAJ, MeyerJ, Nicholls, Papanek, Perkins, Schelling, Schmookler, SmithCaleb, Smithies, SpoonerF, Vanek, Viner, WilsonT

Economist Market Economists Harvard

Harvard. Haberler pushes hiring Caves rather than Chenery or Arrow in 1961

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2025-05-05

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror has already posted two artifacts revealing Gottfried Haberler’s unfiltered opinions of other economists that he put into writing.

re: John Kenneth Galbraith vs. Paul Samuelson
re: Samuel Bowles

In my reading of the memo transcribed below I get the sense that Haberler was not shy of overstating his case for the appointment of Richard Caves by diminishing Arrow’s virtues: “I cannot help feeling that some of his [Arrow’s] work is fanciful and esoteric in the extreme and its chance of survival is very low.”

Personal note: I once paid my Yale mentor William Fellner a courtesy call when he was a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. in the 1970s. Fellner was a lunch-buddy of Gottfried Haberler and he invited me to join the two of them for lunch at the Mayflower Hotel. I confess (with a combination of understanding for myself and shame) that I hadn’t a clue who the frail old man wolfing down his lunch across the table from me was and he displayed no interest in conversation with me either. And now here I sit, posting a 63 year old Haberler memo for the historical record.

____________________

All three were eventually given
Harvard professorships anyway

Kenneth Arrow (1951 Ph.D. Columbia, Harvard appointment 1968)

Richard Caves (1958 Ph.D. Harvard, Harvard appointment 1962)

Hollis Chenery (1950 Ph.D. Harvard, Harvard appointment 1965)

____________________

Haberler’s Protest:
Preface to his Colleagues

To the Senior Members of the Department:

I am going to send the attached letter to the President unless anybody strongly objects. For the members of the Department I should like to add that I somewhat resent the surprise tactic used in bringing up the name of Arrow in yesterday’s discussion. Let me confess that this was not immediately clear to me — which on reflection causes me to deplore it all the more. I have reason to believe that others too were taken by surprise.

December 13, 1961

____________________

Haberler’s Protest in Full

CONFIDENTIAL.

MEMO TO: The President, the Senior members of the Department of Economics, the Dean of the Graduate School of Public Administration

FROM: Gottfried Haberler

In my opinion, the Department of Economics is making a serious mistake in filling up the Department too much with mathematical and econometric economists through the proposal to appoint Arrow and Chenery. May I say by way of introduction that, although I am not myself a mathematical economist, I have a high appreciation of the mathematical and econometric method and have consistently shown that by my votes in the Department.

I do believe, however, that at the present time the Department is well supplied with talent in this field. Five members of the permanent staff belong to that category — Dorfman, Houthakker, Leontief, Meyer, Schelling. True, all of them have developed strong interests in policy problems and have worked on applied problems. None of them is a “pure” theorist in the sense that he works exclusively in the theoretic-mathematical-econometric field, but all of them (with the exception of Schelling) have been appointed for their theoretical, mathematical, econometric skills.

In addition to the permanent members, there are always non-permanent members in that category, at present especially Clopper Almon [Obituary].

No two of these five men are quite alike and Arrow is different from all of them. As far as I know, Arrow has not yet developed an active interest in policy questions. I do not criticise him for that — it may well be an asset. All I want to say is that we are well supplied in his general field of competence. He certainly is a most competent man and he, rightly, has a high reputation in the profession. But I cannot help feeling that some of his work is fanciful and esoteric in the extreme and its chance of survival is very low. On earlier occasions when he was discussed in the Department, Professor Leontief expressed precisely the same doubts and reservations. Now he thinks that a large department, such as ours, should have men of that type even if — as he still readily concedes — the permanent value of his ideas is problematic. My point is that we are well supplied with this sort of talent and that we are tilting the balance of the Department too strongly in one particular direction.

The fact that we propose to the School of Public Administration the appointment of Chenery fortifies in my opinion the above criticism.

Chenery too is a mathematical-econometric economist of high quality and great energy. His special field is input-output analysis in its application to less developed countries. He is not, of course, a “pure” theorist. On the contrary, application of the theoretical-statistical tools is his strength, especially of input-output analysis. He has also developed administrative talents. At this time, he holds an important position in Washington which makes him look especially attractive to Littauer, I am not in a position to evaluate his suitability for his government assignment. But I should like to say this: I feel strongly that input-output is of no use for the less developed countries, because their basic statistics are woefully inadequate. This does not mean that Chenery will be a poor administrator. It is possible that for him, in his present position, input-output will be a mere ritual. I assume, however, that Littauer does not appoint him for his administrative capabilities, but rather for his scholarly talents, and these latter belong to the same general field — mathematical-econometric analysis — as Arrow’s and the five members of the Department whom I mentioned.

I feel all the more strongly that the Department is making a grave mistake, because we are passing up a rare opportunity to appoint another man who fits into our Department better than either of the two men mentioned and who has other talents which we urgently need, namely, Richard Caves.

The Department has unanimously voted to recommend the appointment of Caves if Arrow is not available. I therefore need not argue his high competence and standing in this profession. Let me only say this: Caves has shown that he not only understands and appreciates the modern mathematical, statistical and econometric methods of analysis, but also — which is a different thing — that he knows how to use them. He has shown himself at the same time to be a master of traditional economic theory and of modern quantitative analysis, a very rare combination indeed. In addition to that he has become a very effective and stimulating undergraduate teacher, which neither one of the other two men is. We are often criticised for neglecting undergraduate teaching. We have tried to remedy this situation, but the difficulty has always been to find a man who measures up to our standards of scholarship and is at the same time an effective undergraduate teacher. Here we have the very rare opportunity, the opportunity of a lifetime, to appoint a man who is both at the same time — an accomplished scholar who is thoroughly familiar with the history of his science and wields modern quantitative methods of analysis effectively, and is also an inspiring undergraduate teacher. It would be inexcusable to let that opportunity pass.

It should be added that Caves is younger than the other two and is being considered by two leading universities for a permanent position. If we do not get him now we will in all probability have lost him forever.

I should also like to say that I disagree with the view that Chenery is better suited for Littauer than Caves. True, being older he has more administrative experience. But this should not be decisive, in my opinion, except that from a superficial public relations standpoint it may look appropriate to appoint someone to Littauer who has held a high position in Washington. Both men are intensely interested in policy problems, but both will always feel that they are primarily economists and neither will want to lecture only on policy problems or only to Littauer students.

December 13, 1961

Source: Economists’ Papers Archive, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Duke University. Edward H. Chamberlin Papers, Box 17, Folder “Economics Department 1960-62”.

Image: Radcliffe Archives. Portrait of Gottfried Haberler. (1965).

Tags AlmonC, Arrow, Caves, Chenery, DorfmanR, Haberler, Houthakker, Leontief, MeyerJ, Schelling

Fields Harvard

Harvard. Report on Long-range Plans for the Department of Economics. 1948

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2025-05-04

The following transcribed report of a special committee regarding the future of the Harvard economics department looking forward from 1948 is fascinating. Eight senior professors would be retiring over the coming decade and there was a serious discussion of the economists needed to replace them. For my money the most interesting comparison is the one made between Arthur Smithies and Paul Samuelson. I’ll let you or your AI of choice fish that out of the report. But there is much more to be found.

_____________________________

The Provost is not amused
[No letterhead, unsigned.
Apparently a copy.]

December 22, 1947

Dear Mr. Burbank:

I am not at all happy with the recommendation sent me by the Department of Economics and the School of Public Administration for the appointment at professorial rank of a man to serve jointly in the Department and in the School. As you realize, the five votes taken by the group reveal a confused picture in which no clear preference is indicated. Nor have I been successful in clarifying the situation by requesting from each member of the group a letter addressed to me in which he explained fully his vote. Hence I believe it necessary to suggest a different procedure from that which has been followed.

One source of the difficulty, it occurs to me, is that the recommendation for the joint appointment has not been studied sufficiently in relation to the other vacancies which are to be filled within the next year or two. As you know, the Department has, in addition to the joint professorship, a vacancy in the rank of full professorship created by the resignation of Professor Crum, and one in the rank of associate professorship. It also has due it in 1950-51 a second vacancy as associate professor. Hence it appears that within a short span, the Department has four major appointments to make. It goes without saying that those appointments will influence in great measure the future of economics at Harvard for many years to come. The importance of making wise selections cannot be lost sight of.

It seems to me that we must consider all these appointments as a related problem. Consequently I shall take no action on the recommendation for the joint appointment until the Department has thought through its entire slate. No evidence has been given me yet which suggests that the Department has worked out a consistent plan or program into which all these appointments can be fitted and which meets, within the resources available, the demands which the Faculty as a whole may properly make upon the Department of Economics.

I have no desire to lecture the Department as to its obligations, but I do have certain responsibilities to discharge as Dean of the Faculty. Hence I venture to suggest that there are certain questions which may reasonably and properly be directed to the Department for an answer. Among those questions are the following:

What is your concept of teaching and research within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences?
What fields will you cover, within the resources at your command, in carrying out the answer to the first question?
Are you properly discharging your obligations to your sister departments of the Faculty and to the programs which the Faculty has legislated as common ventures?
Do your specific recommendations harmonize with a general plan and program?

I understand fully that these are no easy questions to answer and that the difficulty of finding an answer is a prime factor in creating the present state of confusion. But I suspect that more preliminary efforts to answer the questions might have reduced the degree of confusion. Certainly so long as the basic issues are not clarified, the discussion of individuals to be appointed breaks down into fragmentary views.

I am also distressed by the fact that many of the professors in the Department have informed me that they do not consider themselves either willing or competent to serve as Chairman of the Department when your term expires in June. One conclusion which might be drawn from this situation is that the Department as now constituted needs some recruitment from men competent and willing to think of economics in general, and of the relation of economics to the faculty at large and to the world outside the university.

I must also report a sense of uneasiness among members of the Faculty in other Departments, that the Department of Economics is showing a tendency not to give due weight in the filling of its vacancies to common programs. If there is cause for this apprehension, I should be quite dismayed. At a time when the Faculty as a whole gives indication of the need in teaching and research for ever greater cooperation between disciplines of learning, it would be regrettable if the Department of Economics adhered to narrow and vertical procedures. To make the point quite specific, I might inquire what the Department of Economics plans to do in regard to Economic History and to the Area Program in Russian.

I also wonder whether in your immediate desire to fill the vacancies with men now available, you have given proper consideration to the range of younger men coming to maturity in your field. I have, for example, observed two young economists now in the Society of Fellows who seem to me to have ultimate promise of achievement greater than that of at least some of the men now available. There must be many other such men in the University and elsewhere. It would seen wise in any general approach to the problem to give assurance that proper consideration had been made in our appointment schedule for the generation of economists now coming to maturity.

These are some of the matters I have in mind, both general and particular, which incline me to the decision that we should follow an approach in handling these appointments different from the one followed to date. I fear that the approach followed so far is leading into an impasse from which the only escape will be the making of something less than the wisest appointments. Hence I suggest a change of procedure and ask first that the Department present me, in advance of any specific recommendation, with a statement which deals with the questions raised earlier in this letter. Recommendations may accompany this document, but they will not be accepted without it and unless they are shown to have meaning in relation to it.

Finally, the time has come, I believe, when I must personally associate myself with the development of this program. I am therefore arranging a dinner and evening meeting in the rooms of the Society of Fellows on January 21 at 6:30 p.m. to which I shall invite each member of the Executive Committee (all Professors and Associate Professors) of the Department. I shall preside at this meeting, and we shall begin then discussion of the issues outlined in this letter. Needless to say that because of the urgency of the matter, I shall expect a full attendance of the Executive Committee at the dinner.

I am sending a copy of this letter to each Professor and Associate Professor of the Department.

Sincerely yours,
[Unsigned by Paul H. Buck]
Provost

Professor H. H. Burbank
Littauer Center

_____________________________

C O N F I D E N T I A L

REPORT ON LONG-RANGE PLANS
FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
(REVISED EDITION)

February 25, 1948

The Task of the Committee

In his letter of December 22, 1947, to the Chairman of the Department of Economics [Professor Harold H. Burbank], the Provost [Professor Paul H. Buck] raised a series of questions concerning the long-run plans for the growth and development of the Department. Any future appointments clearly ought to be related to a comprehensive study of the needs and objectives of the Department.

The questions posed by the Provost were as follows:

1. What is your concept of teaching and research within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences?
2. What fields will you cover, within the resources at your command, in carrying out the answer to the first question?
3. Are you properly discharging your obligations to sister departments of the Faculty and to the programs which the Faculty has legislated as common ventures?
4. Do your specific recommendations harmonize with a general plan and program?

Following an evening meeting on January 21, 1948, with the Executive Committee of the Department, the Provost appointed a committee of five to consider the above questions and to prepare a report on long-run plans for the Department. The Committee was also directed to recommend appointments for existing vacancies in the light of such a comprehensive survey of long-range problems. Four appointments are under consideration at this time: (1) a full professor replacement for Professor Crum, (2) a full professor to be appointed jointly in the Department and in the Littauer School of Public Administration, (3) an associate professor available July 1, 1948, and (4) an associate professor normally not available until July 1, 1951, but who might be appointed at an earlier date.

The Prospective Situation in the Department

The growth of the Department in recent years is indicated in the following tabulation of the number of permanent positions and the number of undergraduate and graduate students for selected years since 1925.

Year	Permanent Positions	Undergraduate Concentrators	Graduate Students*
1925-26	10	324	75
1930-31	14	397	82
1935-36	13	376	47
1940-41	16	321	102
1947-48	17	726	264

* Prior to 1940, graduate students with Corporation appointments were not required to register in the Graduate School. The graduate figures for 1940-41 and 1947-48 include Joint Degree and Littauer School candidates who take most of their work in Economics.
Radcliffe students are included in the figures only for 1947-48.

The Department of Economics may reasonably anticipate the retirement of one-half of its present permanent members by June 30, 1958. On the normal assumption that retirement takes place at age sixty-six, eight of the sixteen present permanent members may be expected to become emeritus during the next ten years. The members of the Department who are, and are not, expected to retire before 1958 are indicated in the following lists. (The dates of birth are given after each name.)

Expected Retirement by 1958		Active Status Expected, Fall 1958
A.P. Usher	January 13, 1883	E. Frickey	August 20, 1893
J.A. Schumpeter	February 8, 1883	S.E. Harris	September 8, 1897
J.D. Black	June 6, 1883	O.H. Taylor	December 11, 1897
A.E. Monroe	August 2, 1885	E.S. Mason	February 22, 1899
J.H. Williams	June 21, 1887	E.H. Chamberlin	May 18, 1899
H.H. Burbank	July 3, 1887	G. Haberler	July 20, 1900
A.H. Hansen	August 23, 1887	W.W. Leontief	August 5, 1905
S.H. Slichter	January 8, 1892	J.T. Dunlop	July 5, 1914

The Department can look forward, under the existing rules of the University, to a total of six new permanent appointments, including the four now under consideration during this ten-year period. The Department can also expect the appointment of an economist to the Lamont University Professorship upon the retirement of Professor Slichter. Accordingly, the Department can expect to retain a total of fifteen permanent appointments in the academic year 1958-59 in comparison with the seventeen permanent members during the current academic year (the above list plus Professor Crum). (The number of permanent members of the staff may at any given time be larger than retirement dates would indicate by reason of extension of normal term of service.)

These expected changes in the personnel of the Department over the next ten-year period indicate clearly the decisive nature of the appointments now under deliberation. Four of the six expected appointments are under study. The distinction and reputation of the Department for many years to come is at stake. It is imperative that every effort be made to appraise the needs and opportunities of the Department during the next decade and to canvass with insight all possible candidates.

The Place of the Department in the Faculty

The first question posed by the Provost in his letter of December 22, 1947, was: “What is your concept of teaching and research within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences?” The Committee makes the following points in a re-examination of the role of the Department.

(a) The Faculty of Arts and Sciences has embarked on programs of General Education and Area Studies [e.g., Russian Studies]. The Department of Economics has a substantial and distinctive contribution to make to each of these experiments: the development of a common core of a liberal education and the integration of different disciplines around the problems of a significant geographical area.

(b) The past twenty years have witnessed an unprecedented expansion in the need for economists in a variety of positions outside the academic world — government service, business concerns, research organizations, labor and farm groups, consulting practice and economic reporting. The Department of Economics needs to develop a more flexible graduate program to meet this more diversified demand in cooperation with other Departments in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and with various Graduate Schools in the University. The recognition of these broader objectives will supplement rather than detract from the training of economists for academic posts.

(c) The balance between graduate and undergraduate instruction in Economics is always a delicate adjustment. Indeed, the Provost has recently indicated that the strength and prestige of Harvard College lies in the fact that we are truly a “University College.” The Committee has analyzed the relative proportion of the time of its permanent members devoted to graduate and undergraduate course instruction for selected years since 1925. The permanent staff of the Department gave more courses for undergraduates in 1947-48 than in 1925-26. The proportion of all course time devoted to undergraduate instruction, however, has been reduced in this same period from a half to little more than a third. In other words, the increased permanent manpower of the Department over this period (permanent positions increased from ten to seventeen) has been devoted largely to graduate instruction.

The following table compares the number of courses “taught” or “supervised” by permanent members of the Department for undergraduates with the offering of courses for graduate students for selected dates. Comparative figures are also presented for the History and Government Departments.

Courses of Instruction by Permanent Staff
	Economics		History		Government
Dates	Undergrad.	Grad.	Undergrad.	Grad.	Undergrad.	Grad.
1925-26	8 ½	8 ½	14	12	6 ½	8
1930-31	9	11 ¾	14	22 ¾	5	9 ½
1935-36	8 ¾	12	15 ¼	31	5 ¼	10 ¼
1940-41	9 ¾	19 ½	14	13 ½	7 ¼	19 ¾
1947-48	12 ½	22	15	10 ½	9	9

These figures would appear to indicate that graduate course instruction has expanded in Economics relatively to undergraduate course instruction and also relative to the experience of graduate instruction in other departments. It should be noted, however, that the large increase in graduate courses after 1935/36 was associated with the establishment of the Graduate School of Public Administration which affected both the Department of Economics and the Department of Government.

These data on course offering need to be interpreted in terms of graduate enrollment and undergraduate concentration. The following table presents this information. The figures indicate the incidence of the postwar expansion in University enrolment upon the burden of instruction in Economics and allied departments.

Undergraduate Concentrators and Graduate Students
	Economics		History		Government
Dates	Undergrad.	Grad.	Undergrad.	Grad.	Undergrad.	Grad.
1925-26	324	75	190	—	113	45
1930-31	397	82	254	138	130	56
1935-36	376	47	283	104	292	38
1940-41	321	102	272	146	314	76
1947-48	726	264	321	207	763	129

The Committee believes that undergraduate instruction in Economics in the past two years has suffered materially by the suspension of the tutorial system. The assistant professor rank in which there is normally considerable contact with undergraduates has not been fully manned in recent years. The Committee believes that undergraduate instruction needs to receive more attention in the Department, not so much by more courses given by permanent members but by rebuilding a strong group of younger teachers in the assistant professor and annual instructor rank.

Assuming the number of the permanent staff at present contemplated to be fixed, the size of the graduate student body in Economics must be reduced from its present size of more than 260 if members of the Department are to fulfill their total obligations to the University and if a more diversified graduate student body is to receive adequate instruction and supervision. The Committee suggests a figure of 200 graduate students — twice the pre-war level — as a normal standard for the period under review. The rate of admission planned for the Fall term, 1948, will eventually yield a student body close to this figure. It is impossible at this time to foresee whether the numbers of qualified graduate students seeking economic instruction at Harvard will substantially exceed 200 after the special circumstances accounting for the present large numbers have been eliminated. If, as may well happen, the demand on the part of first-rate men and women for graduate instruction in economics exceeds the capacity of the staff as at present planned, it may indicate a need for revision of plans of instruction in economics.

(d) There is imperative need for more systematic development of research plans in Economics and for financial arrangements whereby permanent members may be relieved of all duties for periods of a term to pursue research on a full-time basis. Research grants should be used in part to secure substitute instruction. Several research projects which provide a practicable model for the expansion of research have recently been undertaken by members of the Department. Individual members of the Department should be encouraged to organize specific research projects and solicit support, in cooperation with the University administration. These projects should make provision for full-time leave for a term whenever possible. Such projects, moreover, may well become a training center for the most advanced students.

(e) The Department of Economics should expect a continuation of the distinguished tradition of participation by many of its members in wider forms of service to the community — government service, consultation to business and industry, private arbitration, private research organizations, etc. A danger exists, however, that these activities may consume too large a proportion of the time and energy of members of the staff. A devotion to productive scholarship should be an indispensable requirement of every appointee.

In making appointments the Department must be concerned to choose men with the energy and capacity for developing these outside interests and contacts. The Department has not only an obligation to the world of scholarship but also a unique responsibility for leadership at the many points where Economics has a contribution to make to the world of affairs.

The Urgent Needs of the Department

The second question posed by the Provost in his letter of December 22, 1947, asked: “What fields will you cover, within the resources at your command, in carrying out the answer to the first question?” When the objectives for the Department outlined in the preceding section are considered in conjunction with the present personnel and the retirement pattern outlined in Section 2 above, the following needs of the Department appear to be the most urgent. (The listing of these requirements at this point does not imply any particular hierarchy of urgency.)

(a) Economic History. This field has been a required part of the graduate program in Economics for many years. Moreover, for over half a century instruction in this area has been located in the Economics Department. The retirement of Professor Usher requires that provision be made for this field in any comprehensive plan for the Department.

(b) Agriculture and Marketing. Professor Black has developed work in two fields: (1) The Economics of Agriculture and Land Use Planning, and (2) Marketing and Distribution. Ideally two men would be required to carry on this work.

(1) Agriculture. The Committee is of the opinion that work in the Economics of Agriculture and Land Use Planning is indispensable. Research and training in this field have constituted a major contribution of the Department. Moreover, the agricultural field is of particular concern in the School of Public Administration.

(2) Marketing. The Committee reluctantly concludes that, under present prospects and despite the importance of work in marketing and distribution, it is unlikely that one of the few appointments available can be allocated in this field. It may be that the field of Business Organization can be reorganized to permit the inclusion of some portion of the work in the present field of Marketing and Distribution.

(c) General Education and the Area Program. It is imperative that the Department take an active part in the formulation and development of these new programs. The availability of half-time appointments from the General Education and Area budgets would permit the Department of Economics to make two appointments (of half-time each) for one budget vacancy. That is, the appointment of two men, a half time of one in an Area and of the other in General Education, might fill one of the vacancies in the Economics Department.

(d) Business Organization. The resignation of Professor Crum and the administrative responsibilities of Professor Mason make an appointment in this area urgent. Moreover, the field constitutes one of the largest areas of undergraduate and graduate concentration.

(e) Public Policy. The systematic development of the field of the Economic Aspects of Public Policy is essential to the growth of the Graduate School of Public Administration. One of the appointments available at this time has been explicitly earmarked for this purpose.

(f) Public Finance. The retirement of Professor Burbank in the period indicates the necessity for providing for work in this area. The field is indispensable both to the Economics Department and the Graduate School of Public Administration.

(g) Statistics. The burden of instruction in the field of Statistics is heavier than one man should be asked to assume. In addition to undergraduate and graduate courses, this required field involves participation in virtually all general examinations. Ideally instruction should be provided in the field of national income and mathematical statistics. If an additional appointment is not devoted exclusively to this field, consideration should be given to the recruitment of men able to develop such statistical instruction as a part of their program.

(h) Department Chairman. The Department is required to give serious weight in making appointments to qualities which make for a successful Chairman. The Department is so large as to place very heavy administrative responsibilities on its Chairman. The Department should have in its ranks a number of persons qualified to perform the duties of Chairman so that the burden on one individual over the years is not unreasonable.

The Committee believes that the Department should examine its internal operations to determine whether an administrative reorganization might not facilitate the effectiveness of the work of the Department. A systematic survey could be made of such duties as: counselling graduate students, placement, recruitment of superior students, and the supervision of Economics A and the junior teaching staff. Careful study should be given to the possibility of delegating more responsibility to standing committees of the Department.

While the Committee has emphasized, and it believes properly, certain specific needs of the Department, the overriding need, which should take precedence in all appointments, is for able men. If a first-rate man cannot be found in a specific field, it is better either to neglect the field or to divert the attention of existing personnel to this field than to fill the vacancy with second-rate material.

The Committee believes that the answer to the Provost’s third question, “Are you properly discharging your obligations to sister departments of the Faculty and to the programs which the Faculty has legislated as common ventures?”, must, at present, be “no.” It considers, however, that the addition of the personnel suggested below will, together with some reallocation of the time of present officers, enable the Department to meet these obligations.

A consideration of the Provost’s fourth question, “Do your specific recommendations harmonize with a general plan and program?” leads directly to a discussion of the proposed appointments.

Recommendations

(a) The Committee recommends that one appointment at the associate professorship level be utilized in the following manner: that Alexander Gerschenkron be invited on the understanding that the Department assume the responsibility for half his salary, the Russian area assuming responsibility for the other half; that John Sawyer, now a Junior Fellow, be appointed to an assistant professorship at the end of 1948-49, on the understanding that the responsibility for half his salary be assumed either by General Education or the Department of History.

Gerschenkron is one of the two best economists in the country now working on Russian problems, the other being Abram Bergson of Columbia University. Gerschenkron has the advantage of being an economic historian. Consequently, his appointment would enable the Department to take care not only of instruction and research in Russian economics but also to replace Professor Usher’s work in European economic history on his retirement.

Sawyer is an historian of an intellectual ability fully equal to that of our own Junior Fellows, Tobin and Kaysen. He has evinced an interest in cultivating the field of American economic history and also of working in General Education. Since Sawyer’s prospects in the History Department are extremely good, it would be necessary to assure him, on appointment as an assistant professor, that a clear road to advancement exists in the Department, if he shows the competence the Department expects of him.

These two appointments, which would fill one vacancy, would go far towards meeting the Department’s obligations toward the Russian area and toward General Education as well as taking care of economic history.

(b) The Committee feels that the vacancy left by the resignation of Professor Crum must be filled and that the best candidate available is Sidney Alexander, now an assistant professor. Although Alexander’s publication to date does not justify promotion, he has an impressive series of contributions due for publication during the next year which will make him an eminently qualified candidate for promotion by the end of the academic year 1948-49. The Committee therefore believes that one of the vacancies at the associate professorship level should be reserved for the advancement of Professor Alexander.

(c) In many ways the most serious and difficult problem confronting the Committee concerns the replacement of the work now carried on by Professor Black. The research and training program in agricultural economics and land use is an asset of great worth both to the Department of Economics and to the Graduate School of Public Administration.

The Committee understands that before the date set for Professor Black’s retirement the Administration will request him to continue his services to the University for a number of years. It therefore believes that some four to five years are available in which to select a man fully capable of carrying on Professor Black’s work. The Committee believes that there are a number of able young men in the field of agricultural economics who might be secured at the assistant professorship level. The Committee therefore recommends that one or more of these candidates be brought to Harvard and that the next two or three years be utilized to survey the field, including such men as are brought here at lower than permanent rank, to assure the selection of the best possible man.

(d) If one position is filled by Gerschenkron and Sawyer, and another is reserved for Alexander, there remain two positions at the professorial level. These positions might be treated in any one of the following ways:

(1) Both positions could be filled at once;

(2) One position could be filled now and the other held vacant for Professor Black’s successor;

(3) One position could be filled, the other held vacant pending the appearance of a suitable candidate not necessarily in the field of agricultural economics. In this case it must be assumed that the vacancy caused by Professor Black’s retirement would be filled from the appointment accruing to the Department in 1954, which appointment might be advanced in time. It should also be recognized that this appointment might have to be at the professorial level which would involve a departure from present University policy.

In considering the possibility of filling both vacancies now, the Committee was heavily influenced by the desirability of maintaining balance in the Department not only as among various fields of interest but as among types of mind and of methodological approaches to economic problems. In this connection the Committee considered carefully the qualifications of both Smithies and Samuelson. While of the opinion that each of these men might individually be considered intellectually superior to the rest of the field, the Committee feels strongly that the addition of both would give a particular stamp to the Department that should, if possible, be avoided. Both of these men are, in a sense, system builders, concerned with the logical and mathematical interrelations of the elements of their systems. Neither has done much empirical work. Smithies has shown recently a concern for, and an interest in, institutional developments and public policy. Moreover, he has had extensive experience in government service. The Committee believes that while each of these men is pre-eminent in his type of work the two together do not make a satisfactory combination.

The problem then narrows down to the question of Samuelson or Smithies and someone else. The Committee considers that the interests and type of mind represented either by Richard Bissel or Colin Clark would effectively supplement the Smithies-Samuelson characteristics. No effective way of communicating with Clark suggested itself to the Committee, and there is certain evidence to support the view that he would not be available. It appears that Bissel may not be available at this time. If his views change in the near future, the Committee considers him its first choice.

Of other possibilities the Committee discussed at length the qualifications of Galbraith, Yntema, David Wright, Albert Hart, Donald Wallace, and others. For various reasons, too lengthy here to enumerate, none of these candidates seemed first-rate possibilities.

The Committee therefore recommends that one of the professorial positions be held vacant for the time being pending the appearance of a satisfactory candidate. As to the relative merits of Smithies and Samuelson, the Committee, after deliberating at length, favors Smithies. While recognizing that Samuelson has in his field of activity a better record than anyone near his age in any field, the Committee was heavily influenced by the probability that Smithies’ contribution to the needs of the Department would be substantially greater. He appears to be an ideal man to develop the work in the School of Public Administration on Economic Analysis and Public Policy; he appears to be an eminently satisfactory man to take over the work in Public Finance on Professor Burbank’s retirement; he is clearly a man who would make an able Departmental Chairman. In addition he is competent to develop work in advanced statistics should the Department consider this desirable. For these reasons, and others, the Committee recommends the appointment of Smithies.

Paul H. Buck, Chairman
John T. Dunlop
Wassily Leontief
Edward S. Mason
John H. Williams

Source: Duke University, Economists’ Papers Archive, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Edward H. Chamberlin Papers. Box 17, Folder “Economics Department Faculty, 1944-47.”

Image Source: Harvard Seal detail from the cover of the Harvard Law School Yearbook 1949.

Tags Alexander, Bergson, Bissel, BlackJD, Burbank, Chamberlin, ClarkC, Crum, Dunlop, Frickey, Galbraith, Gerschenkron, Haberler, Harris, HartAB, Kaysen, Leontief, Mason, Monroe, Samuelson, SawyerJ, Schumpeter, Smithies, TaylorOH, Tobin, Usher, WallaceDH, WilliamsJH, WrightD, Yntema

Economist Market Economists Harvard Michigan

Harvard. Department recommends promotion of James Duesenberry to associate professor with tenure, 1952

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2024-08-04

Thanks to Milton Friedman’s filing habits, we are able to catch a glimpse into the tenure and promotion process at Harvard for the case of James S. Duesenberry in 1952. Friedman was invited to serve on the ad hoc committee to review the case for promoting Duesenberry from assistant professor to associate professor of economics with tenure in Harvard’s economics department. A typed copy of the department’s two-page recommendation submitted by the chairman Arthur Smithies, a one page c.v. for Duesenberry, and additional letters of support by Wassily Leontief and Gottfried Haberler from Milton Friedman’s file are transcribed below .

What strikes me most is just how short this written record appears when compared to the paper steeplechase of university hiring and promotion procedures of the present day.

_____________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CAMBRIDGE 38, MASSACHUSETTS

Office of the Provost

April 4, 1952

Confidential

Professor Milton Friedman
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Professor Friedman:

I am happy to learn from President Conant that you have kindly consented to serve on the ad hoc committee to consider an appointment in our Department of Economics. The committee will hold its meeting on Friday, April 18, at ten o’clock in the Perkins Room in Massachusetts Hall.

The position to be filled is that of Associate Professor of Economics. This rank carries permanency of tenure, and an assured progress toward a full professorship provided the man appointed lives up to expectations. For this reason we are seeking as good a young man as we can find in the age bracket under approximately forty years.

The Department of Economics has recommended Dr. James B. Duesenberry. I enclose for your scrutiny a copy of the Department’s recommendation, which, like all the material presented to the ad hoc committee, is strictly confidential. The next step in procedure is for the specially appointed ad hoc committee to advise the President and the Provost. In this connection not merely should the qualifications of Dr. Duesenberry be assessed, but he should also be compared with other men of his age group in the same field.

If there are any questions I can answer before the meeting of the committee, please do not hesitate to let me know. I am also enclosing a special travel voucher for your convenience in reporting your travel expenses in connection with the meeting of the ad hoc committee.

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Paul H. Buck
Paul H. Buck
Provost

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

COPY

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Office of the Chairman

M-8 Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

February 18, 1952

Provost Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall

Dear Provost Buck:

At its meeting of February 12th, the Department of Economics unanimously decided to recommend Assistant Professor James S. Duesenberry for promotion to an Associate Professorship beginning in the academic year 1952-1953.

The meeting was attended by Professors Black, Chamberlin, Dunlop, Galbraith, Hansen, Harris, Leontief, Mason, Slichter, and Smithies, all of whom voted in favor of the promotion. Professors Gerschenkron, Haberler, and Williams and Dr. Taylor who were unavoidably absent from the meeting have all indicated their approval.

I am attaching a brief curriculum vitae of Duesenberry and a list of his publications and papers.

We make this recommendation after a careful survey of all the economists in the country whom we felt might be qualified or available for an Associate Professorship. Altogether we considered about twenty young economists, both in the United States and abroad. It is our judgment that none of them could serve this faculty better than Duesenberry and very few if any of them are on a par with Duesenberry.

He is undoubtedly one of the very few outstanding young economists in the country. I know that if he were to indicate his availability he would be flooded with offers from many leading universities. To illustrate, the University of California has just lost Fellner to Yale and they have told me that they would gladly take Duesenberry as one of their two leading economists in Economic Theory.

When we had narrowed our list down, it included Baumol at Princeton, Dorfman at California, Tobin at Yale, Goodwin who is now in Cambridge, England, and Robert Rosa of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Rosa appealed to many of us particularly. He has had a brilliant career in the Bank which has merely been an extension of the brilliance he has shown throughout his professional career. I knew him as an undergraduate at Michigan, and he has fulfilled all the promise he showed at that time. Unfortunately, he finally decided that he was not available. Otherwise, we might have recommended Rosa’s appointment in conjunction to that of Duesenberry since we have two vacancies that we can fill.

Where Rosa would have been largely complementary to Duesenberry in view of his specific banking experience, the others on the list are more competitive with him. We were particularly impressed with Baumol who some of us know and Tobin who all of us have known for some years. Both these men are undoubtedly first class intellectually, and it would be difficult to rate them below Duesenberry. However, Duesenberry has shown a breadth of interest and a willingness to relate economics to other disciplines that the others have not yet demonstrated to the same extent. Goodwin and Dorfman are also of first-class intellectual ability, but we felt that they too were more specialized in their interests than Duesenberry.

In the last few years, Duesenberry has shown a remarkable capacity to bring together the fruits of theoretical and empirical research. His interests are now leading him in the direction of an historical study of the problem of economic development, and he has been cooperating on an experimental course on economic motivation with a member of the Social Relations Department. I believe that economies has suffered seriously in recent years from over-specialization. In particular, the theorists and the statisticians have tended to feel that the truth has been revealed only to them. History until recently has attracted far too little interest. I am confident that Duesenberry will be an important influence in reversing these tendencies.

Duesenberry made a name for himself nationally and internationally with his first book, Income, Saving, and the Theory of Consumer Behavior. His new hypothesis of “ratchet effects” has helped to avoid many of the mistakes that had previously been made in attempting to predict consumer behavior and has wide general implications for economic analysis. In this and his other work, he has already helped to rescue economies from the straight-jacket of static analysis, and I am sure he will do much more.

In view of the present needs of the Department, I wish we could have found a man who combined all Duesenberry’s other qualities with striking performance on the lecture platform. Unfortunately, that has not been possible. However, while not a striking lecturer, Duesenberry has been and will continue to be a very effective part of our undergraduate teaching. He has been a tutor in Dunster House for some years and as such has been a conspicuous success. He has also proved to be the member of the Department best equipped to teach the senior course in economic analysis for honors students. In these respects he will prove to be an important addition to the permanent staff from the point of view of undergraduate teaching.

On personal grounds, the Department looks forward very much to having Duesenberry as a permanent member. He will combine a thoroughly independent point of view with an understanding attitude towards differences of opinion with his colleagues. In general, it is the unanimous view of the Department that we could hardly make a recommendation in which we had greater confidence.

Yours Sincerely,
/s/ Arthur Smithies
Chairman

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

JAMES STEMBLE DUESENBERRY

Born July 18, 1918

B.A., University of Michigan, 1939
M.A., ibid., 1941
Ph.D., ibid., 1948
Teaching Fellow, University of Michigan, 1939-1941
U.S.A.A.F., 1942-1946.
Instructor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1946.
Teaching Fellow, Harvard University, 1946-1948.
Assistant Professor, Harvard University, 1948 to present

Publications

Books:

Income, Saving, and the Theory of Consumer Behavior, Harvard University Press, 1949.

Business Cycles and Economic Development, to be published in the fall of 1952 by McGraw-Hill Company.

Articles:

“Income Consumption Relations”, Income, Employment and Public Policy, Norton, 1948.

“The Mechanics of Inflation”, Review of Economics and Statistics, May, 1950.

“Mr. Hicks and the Trade Cycle”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, September, 1950.

“The Role of Demand in the Economic Structure”, Studies in the Structure of the American Economy, in press.

“Some Aspects or the Theory of Economic Development”, Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, December 1950.

“The Leontief Input-Output System”, (ditto); to be published in a volume on Linear Programming by Paul Samuelson.

Papers Read but not Published:

“Some New Income-Consumption Relationships and Their Implications”, Econometric Society, January, 1947.

“Induction Evidence of the Propensity to Consume”, American Economic Association and the Econometric Society, December, 1947.

The Present Status of the Consumption Function” Conference on Income and Wealth, June, 1950.

“Theory of Economic Development”, Econometric Society, December, 1951.

“Needed Revisions in the Theory of Consumer Expenditures”, Econometric Society, September, 1950.

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

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Gottfried Haberler
Professor of Economics

325 Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts
March 20, 1952

Provost Paul H. Buck
Harvard University
Cambridge, Mass.

Dear Mr. Buck:

If you permit, I should like to add my personal views on the proposed appointment of James Duesenberry as Associate Professor. May I say that I know Duesenberry intimately and that I have been increasingly impressed by his work. The little book, INCOME, SAVING AND THE THEORY OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR, which he published with the Harvard University Press, is generally regarded as one of the most important and original contributions to the widely discussed and extremely important subject of the relations of national income, saving and consumption. It has been much and favorably commented upon. Duesenberry displays the rare talent of combining theoretical analysis, statistical analysis and sociological insight in a most illuminating and successful manner. He is also a very inspiring teacher.

In recent years he has turned his attention to the also much discussed problems of economic development. The parts of his forthcoming book which I have seen display a mastery of combining different approaches in a most fruitful way. His eminence in this particular field, which in a very welcome way rounds out the field covered by members of our department, is widely recognized in the economic profession at large. He was asked to address the convention of the American Economic Association last December, and Professor Innis of Toronto, the new president of the American Economic Association, has asked him to speak again on the problem of economic development at the next annual meeting of the Association.

To sum up, in my opinion the appointment of Duesenberry will greatly strengthen the Economics Department, enhance its reputation and help attract first rate students.

Very sincerely yours,
/s/ G. Haberler
G. Haberler

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

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Cambridge 38, Massachusetts
March 24, 1952

Provost Paul Buck
University Hall
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Provost Buck:

In anticipation of my appearance before the ad hoc committee, I would like to state my reasons for having vote [sic] in support of the departmental recommendation for appointment of Assistant Professor Duesenberry as associate professor. I have followed Jim’s development from the time he became, on my recommendation, an economics instructor and assistant in my undergraduate course on economic theory.

Duesenberry is one of the few outstanding young economists who established their reputation in the post war years. Baumol, Arrow, Goodwin and not more than one or two others, could be named as belonging to the same group. Among these, Duesenberry distinguished himself through his notable breadth of interest and what is in a sense more important, his remarkably productive scientific imagination. His well known contributions to the theory of consumption and the not yet published equally original work in the field of economic development, reveal a singular combination of intuitive insight, practical sense and theoretical “know-how”.

Duesenberry has already taken an important part in the work of the Harvard Economic Research Project, and I have no doubt that he will play a leading role in the development of economic and general social science research at Harvard.

Although not typically a smooth lecturer, Duesenberry is very effective in a classroom. His enthusiasm and real interest in students makes him an excellent tutor and undergraduate advisor.

If in its subsequent recommendations for permanent appointments we succeed in keeping our sights as high as in the present choice the future prospects of the Economics Department would be very bright indeed.

With best regards.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Wassily Leontief
Wassily Leontief

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

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CAMBRIDGE 38, MASSACHUSETTS

Office of the President

April 19, 1952

Dear Professor Friedman:

I am returning herewith material which I believe you left in the Perkins Room at the time of the ad hoc committee meeting yesterday.

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Virginia Proctor
Virginia Proctor
Secretary to the President

Professor Milton Friedman
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
Chicago 37, Illinois

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Papers of Milton Friedman, Box 24, Folder “25.29 Correspondence. Duesenberry, James S.”

Image Source: Harvard College. Classbook 1957.

Tags Duesenberry, Friedman, Haberler, Leontief, Smithies

Columbia Economist Market Economists Harvard

Harvard and Columbia. President of Harvard headhunting conversation regarding economists. Mitchell and Mills, 1936

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2023-11-28

The following typed notes were based on a conversation that took place on February 21, 1936 regarding possible future hires for the Harvard economics department. President James B. Conant (or someone on his behalf) met with Columbia university professors Wesley C. Mitchell and his NBER sidekick, Frederick C. Mills. This artifact comes from President Conant’s administrative records in the Harvard Archives.

In the memo we find a few frank impressions of members of the Harvard economics departments together with head-hunting tips for established and up-and-coming economists of the day.

An observation that jumps from the paper is the identification pinned to the name Arthur F. Burns, namely, “(Jew)”. Interestingly enough this was not added to Arthur William Marget (see the earlier post Harvard Alumnus. A.W. Marget. Too Jewish for Chicago? 1927.) nor to Seymour Harris.

________________________

[stamp] FEB 25, 1936

ECONOMICS

Confidential Memorandum of a Conversation on Friday, February 21, with Wesley [Clair] Mitchell and his colleague, Professor [Frederick Cecil] Mills (?) of Columbia

General impression is that the Department of Economics at Harvard is in a better state today than these gentlemen would have thought possible a few years ago. The group from 35-50 which now faces the future is about as good as any in the country. [Edward Hastings] Chamberlin, [John Henry] Williams,[Gottfried] Haberler and Schlichter [sic, [Sumner Slichter] are certainly quite outstanding. Very little known about [Edward Sagendorph] Mason; he seems to have made a favorable impression but no writings. [Seymour Edwin] Harris slightly known, favorable but not exciting.

[John Ulric] Neff admitted to be the best man in economic history if we could get him. Names of other people in this country mentioned included:

[Robert Alexander] Brady — University of California, now working on Carnegie grant on bureaucracy; under 40.

Arthur [F.] Burns at Rutgers (Jew) now working with the Bureau of Economic Research and not available for 3 or 4 years. Said by them to be excellent.

Henry Schultz of Chicago, about in Chamberlin’s class and age, or perhaps a little better.

[Arthur William] Marget of Minnesota, Harvard Ph.D., I believe; well known, perhaps better than Chamberlin. Flashy and perhaps unsound. (Mitchell and Mills disagree to some extent on their estimate of his permanent value but agree on his present high visibility).

Winfield Riffler [sic, Winfield William Riefler], recently called to the Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton, probably one of the most if not the most outstanding of the younger men.

Morris [Albert] Copeland of Washington; good man but not so good as Chamberlin.

Giddons [sic, Harry David Gideonse?] of Chicago, very highly thought of by Chicago people but has not written a great deal; supposed to be an excellent organizer.

C. E. [Clarence Edwin] Ayres, University of Texas, about 40; in N.R.A. at Washington. Mitchell thinks very highly of him.

England

[Theodore Emmanuel Gugenheim] Gregory, at London School of Economics, about 50, same field as Williams but not so good. Mills more favorable than Mitchell.

Other outstanding young Englishmen:

[Richard F.] Kahn, Kings College, Cambridge

F. Colin [sic, Colin Grant] Clark, of Cambridge

Lionel Robins [sic, Lionel Charles Robbins] of London, age 35, rated very highly by both Mills and Mitchell

F. A. Hayek, another Viennese now in London; spoken of very highly by both Mills and Mitchell.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Records of President James B. Conant, Box 54, Folder Economics, “1935-1936”.

Image Sources: Wesley Clair Mitchell (left) from the “Original Founders” page at the website of the Foundation for the Study of Business Cycles; Frederick C. Mills (right) from the Columbia Daily Spectator, Vol. CVIII, No. 68, 11 February 1964.

Tags Ayres, Brady, BurnsAF, Chamberlin, Colin Clark, CopelandMA, Gideonse, GregoryTE, Haberler, Harris, Hayek, KahnRF, Marget, Mason, MillsFC, Mitchell, Neff, Riefler, Robbins, SchultzH, Slichter, WilliamsJH

Economist Market Economists Fields

Harvard. Economics department professors plan review of junior staff. 1932

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-05-04

Within the faculty of the Department of Economics at Harvard University, there was a Committee of Professors. From the following memo it appears that within the Committee of Professors there was an Executive Committee. The memo is interesting to read as an announcement of a pending review of the junior staff that will be stratified into five layers: “unusually able men”, “capable and useful” (hold), “capable and useful” (encourage to seek elsewhere), “not as useful here” (push to seek elsewhere), “capable young” (hold). Somewhat surprised that the strata assignments were identified ex ante.

[I have added the full names and plus the dates and names of the institutions where undergraduate and graduate degrees had been awarded.]

Also worth noting are hopes for attracting Gottfried Haberler to continue and explicit mention of Wassily Leontief as someone to consider for hiring.

_______________________________________

[Handwritten note: Presented at Meeting Exec Cte Jan 21, 1932]

VERY CONFIDENTIAL

A. Among other matters the Committee of Professors will be asked to consider the status and work of certain members of the Junior Staff.

I. The men in this group have passed their Generals and are at work on their dissertations. They are unusually able men deserving special consideration.

Sweezy
[Alan Richardson Sweezy. A.B. (Harvard) 1929; A.M. (Harvard) 1932; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Walsh
[John Raymond Walsh. A.B. (Beloit College) 1921; A.M. (Harvard) 1931; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Smith
[Dan Throop Smith. A.B. (Stanford) 1928; A.M. (Harvard) 1931; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Abbott
[Charles Cortez Abbott. A.B. (Harvard) 1928; A.M. (Harvard) 1930; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1933]

II. The men in this group either have their degrees or will have them shortly. They are capable and useful, perhaps more. It may be to their advantage and ours to encourage them to remain here for some time longer. For the coming year, at least, promotion to faculty instructorship is not involved.

Anderson
[Karl Leopold Anderson. S.B. (Mt. Allison University) 1928; A.M. (Harvard) 1930; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

Goldstein
[Aaron Goldstein. A.B. (Johns Hopkins) 1928; A.M. (Harvard) 1931; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Hoover
[Edgar Malone Hoover, Jr.] A.B. (Harvard) 1928; A.M. (Harvard) 1930; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

Hunt
[Bishop Carleton Hunt. B.B.A. (Boston University) 1920; A.M. (Harvard) 1926; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1930]

Shaffner
[Felix Ira Shaffner, Rhodes Scholar (Oxford) 1924; A.B. (Harvard) 1925; A.M. (Harvard) 1926; Litt.B. (University of Oxford, England) 1928; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1933)]

Wallace
[Donald Holmes Wallace. A.B. (Harvard) 1924; A.M. (Harvard) 1928; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1931]

Wernette
[John Philip Wernette. A.B. (University of California) 1924; A.M. (University of Southern California) 1926; A.M. (Harvard) 1929; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

III. The men in this group, all Ph.Ds, have reached or are nearing the point when they can be placed elsewhere most advantageously. They are capable and very useful here. They should be encouraged to take acceptable offers.

Currie
[Lauchlin Bernard Currie. S.B. (University of London, England) 1925; A.M. (Harvard) 1927; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1931]

Ellsworth
[Paul Theodore Ellsworth. A.B. (University of Washington) 1920; B.A. (University of Oxford) 1924; A.M. (Harvard) 1930; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

Gilbert
[Donald Wood Gilbert. A.B. (University of Rochester) 1921; A.M. (University of Rochester) 1923; A.M. (Harvard) 1924; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

White
[Harry Dexter White. A.B. (Stanford) 1924; A.M. (Stanford) 1925; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1930]

IV. The men in this group have their Ph.Ds or will have them shortly. They are useful here, but less so than group III. They should be moved at the first opportunity.

Ratzlaff
[Carl Johann Ratzlaff. S.B. (University of Minnesota) 1922; A.M. University of Minnesota) 1925; A.M. (Harvard) 1928; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1930].

Crane
[John Bever Crane. A.B. (Northwestern University) 1924; A.M. (Harvard) 1926; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

Danielian
[Noobar Réthéos Danielian. A.B. (Harvard) 1928); A.M. (Harvard) 1929; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

Eaton
[Albert Kenneth Eaton. A.B. (Acadia University) 1922; S.B. (London School of Economics) 1928; A.M. (Harvard) 1929, Ph.D. (Harvard) 1933]

Fields
[Morris Joseph Fields. S.B. (Tufts College) 1921; M.B.A. (Harvard) 1923; A.M. (Harvard) 1928; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

Phinney
[Josiah Thompson Phinney. A.B. (Yale) 1923; A.M. (Harvard) 1928; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1931]

Ross
[James Alexander Ross, Jr. S.B. (Princeton) 1922; B.A. (University of Oxford, England) 1925; A.M. (Harvard) 1933; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Towle
[Lawrence William Towle. A.B. (Bowdoin College) 1924; A.M. (Harvard) 1927; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1932]

V. The men in this group are capable young men and will probably remain here for some time longer.

Baker
[George Pierce Baker, Jr. A.B. (Harvard) 1925; A.M. (Harvard) 1930; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Cassels
[John MacIntyre Cassels. B.A. (University of Alberta) 1924; B.A. (University of Oxford) 1927; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

Krost
[Martin Max Krost. Senior Economist, Division of Research an Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (October 1940) ]

Wendzel
[Julius Tugendreich Wenzel. A.B. (Kalamazoo College) 1928; A.M. (Tufts College) 1930, Ph.D. (Harvard) 1934]

B. The Committee should also consider our instruction in International Trade. At present Associate Professor Cole is giving Economics 9a, the undergraduate course in International Trade. The Department has voted that when possible this course is to become part of a full course—International Economic Problems. Our graduate course—Economics 39—will be given by Dr. Haberler during the second half of this year. Dr. Haberler may be available for another year or two if the Department cares to invite him.
Professor Cole is interested in the undergraduate instruction in International Trade and International Economic Problems, but not particularly in the graduate instruction.
A.E. Monroe is interested in the graduate instruction in International trade. Although he is on one-half time appointment, probably an arrangement could be made for him to give the graduate course.

C. There is a possibility—if some of our non-faculty instructors accept positions elsewhere—that we may be able to make a few new appointments. The following men should be considered.

Leontieff (if Haberler is not reappointed) (One of his articles is available in Mrs. Gilboy’s office).

Gardner (sic) Means
[Gardiner Coit Means. A.B. (Harvard) 1918; A.M. (Harvard) 1927; Ph.D. (Harvard) 1933]

Schmidt (California Ph.D. Credentials may be had from Miss Rogers).

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Department of Economics general office files. (UAV349.11) Box 11, Folder “Full Professors Meetings of Department of Economics.”

Image Source: Detail from cover of the Harvard Class Album 1946.

Tags AndersonKL, BakerGP, CaselsJM, ColeAH, CraneJB, Currie, DanielianNR, EatonAK, Ellsworth, FieldsMJ, GilbertDW, Goldstein, Haberler, HooverEM, HuntBC, KrostMM, Leontief, MeansGC, Monroe, Phinney, Ratzlaff, RossJA, Shaffner, TowleLW, WallaceDH, WendzelJT, Wernette, WhiteHD

Economics Programs Harvard Undergraduate

Harvard. Economics Department Reports to the Dean, 1946-47 to 1949-50

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-04-18

This post adds the Chair’s annual reports on the Harvard Economics Department for the early post-WW II years to previously posted reports for 1932-33 through 1945-46.

Reports to the Dean of Harvard
from the Department of Economics.

1932-1941

1941-1946

___________________________

1946-1947

September 29, 1947

Dear Dean Buck:

You have requested a brief report on the work of the Department of Economies for the academic year 1946-47.

This report necessarily follows much the same pattern as the report for last year. Again our work has been dominated by the number of students, undergraduate and graduate, and the lack of a trained junior staff.

The number of undergraduates of course is entirely so beyond our control. In Economies A and in most of our “middle group” courses, the elections taxed our capacity for effective instruction. Under the most propitious conditions the crowded classrooms would have presented many problems but with a dearth of trained teaching fellows and annual instructors the load carried by the senior staff was unduly heavy. Foreseeing this range of problems, the Department voted on February 19, 1946 [sic, 1947 probably correct. In December 1946 departments wereallowed to withdraw from offering tutorials] to suspend tutorial instruction for a period of two years. It may be stated here that this was probably a wise decision. Concentration in Economics appears to have resumed the trend apparent before the war. In the current year the number of concentrators will approach, or perhaps exceed 800. Even should no consideration be given to the expenditure involved, the possibility of finding and training effective tutors even for honors candidates seems somewhat remote.

On the graduate level the problems of instruction were even more difficult. During the year the number of graduate students receiving instruction was approximately 286. Our course offering on this level is large. Nevertheless, the principal graduate courses were crowded to a point where the maintenance of standards was difficult. After the graduate student has completed his preliminary program and has been accepted as a candidate for the Ph.D, degree, the instruction is largely individual. In the last year we were just coming into the situation where a considerable proportion of the students were receiving such instruction. The full impact of this situation will be felt in the current year. Most members of the senior staff will be directing the theses of some 10 to 15 students. Some officers will be responsible for even larger numbers. With the numbers we are attempting to handle on the graduate level the single task of examining candidates in the general and special examinations becomes a major consideration. During the last academic year the staff conducted general and special examinations. Such an amount of examining and of individual instruction on the graduate level has its bearing on tutorial instruction for undergraduates.

The Department voted to accept the large number of graduate students now on our rolls only after considerable investigation and discussion. It is my own personal opinion that we have set our limit altogether too high. However, the pressure upon us for admission has been very strong and our obligations to the Littauer School, where the pressure is hardly less, just be observed.

This matter of the size of the Graduate School in the immediate future is one of our most difficult problems. It will receive our attention in the current year.

In the last two or three years these reports have noted certain experiments in instruction, especially in connection with Economics A. Such experiments are dependent upon the presence of a considerable number of able and mature young men with adequate teaching experience, as well as upon a margin of free time. Both of these factors are lacking to such a degree that substantial and outstanding progress could not be expected but the plans were active and some progress was made.

If full tutorial instruction is not resumed by the Department, experimentation in undergraduate courses is imperative and this we have planned. It is our expectation that a good deal in the way of individual guidance can be accomplished in connection with Economics A and some of our middle group courses. We believe that we can make our instruction more efficient with a much smaller personnel and at much less expense than the tutorial system would involve. However, a definitive decision has not been reached on all of these matters.

It is hardly necessary to emphasize that the heavy instructional demands discussed above affected our research projects. Furthermore, the officers of this Department are severely handicapped by the lack of research funds. This dearth of research funds is a question which has been placed before our Visiting Committee.

In spite of the difficulties involved, the contributions of the members of the Department were substantial. The following books were published:

Teoria de la Competencie Monopolica, by E. H. Chamberlin, Mexico, 1946. (Spanish translation of The Theory of Monopolistic Competition)

Economic Policy and Full Employment, by A. H. Hansen. McGraw-Hill. 1947.

The New Economics, S. B. Harris, editor and contributor Knopf. 1947.

The National Debt and the New Economics, by S. E. Harris. 1947.

Income and Employment, by T. Morgan. Prentice-Hall. 1947.

New enlarged edition of Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, by J. A. Schumpeter.

The Challenge of Industrial Relations, by S. H. Slichter, Cornell University Press, 1947.

Postwar Monetary Plans and other Essays, by J. Williams. Knopf, 3rd edition. 1947.

articles were published.

Although we are able to record only one new volume and one republication of an older volume in the Harvard Economic Series for the past year, four other volumes are in the hands of the printer and will appear in the current year.

In the area of distinctions or honors, I believe the only items to be noted concern Dean Edward S. Mason. Last spring he was appointed Economic Advisor to Secretary of State Marshall at the Moscow Conference. In July he was appointed a member of President Truman’s Committee on Foreign Aid.

Sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean Paul H. Buck

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Provost Buck—Annual Report of Dept.”

___________________________

1947-1948

September 30, 1948

Dear Provost Buck:

You have requested a brief report on the work of the Department of Economics for the academic year 1947-48.

The report on the work of the Department for the last year can be given in part in the same terms that have been employed in the last three reports. Our major problems have been quantitative and have presented the same difficulties that were emphasized in the other post-war reports. However, we believe that the last year did reach the peak of the load and that the pressure of numbers will abate steadily. The problem of building and maintaining an effective junior staff was hardly less than in the preceding years. Crowded classrooms and insufficiently trained assistants imposed unduly severe burdens upon the senior teachers responsible for course instruction. Some improvement, especially in the middle group courses, is in prospect for the coming year but it is probable that two to three years more will be necessary before these courses will be adequately staffed. In the introductory course which relies heavily upon a large number of young instructors and teaching fellows, the situation is still serious but latterly we have been able to utilize young men with more satisfactory preparation and training. Because of the heavy demands for the services of these young men by other institutions, the turnover is large leaving us each year with a relatively inexperienced staff.

Graduate instruction continues to make unusual demands upon the time and energy of the senior staff. During the past year we conducted 109 general examinations and 26 special examinations. Examining and the related task of directing the research of candidates for the higher degrees undoubtedly have an incidence upon undergraduate instruction which raises questions of fundamental importance. It is encouraging that the number of graduate students is, through the action of the Department, declining.

In spite of the difficulties presented by the numbers of undergraduates and graduates, the Department, perhaps belatedly, has given particular consideration to its commitments in the Areas and in General Education. A report on General Education is enclosed.

Also, the Department has considered at length and in detail various problems of instruction, particularly undergraduate instruction. These considerations will be continued in the current year. By completely revising the content of our basic courses it may be possible to increase the effectiveness of our instruction and reduce somewhat the number of courses offered. A preliminary report on this aspect of our work is included.

A year ago I noted that many of our senior officers were handicapped severely by the lack of research funds. As you know, it can now be recorded with sincere satisfaction that a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation and that several projects under the auspices of the Research Marketing Act, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Charles H. Hood Dairy Foundation, the Ferguson Foundation Fund, and the Carnegie Corporation Fund, meet the situation effectively for some of our officers. The set-up of these projects promises not only to be of great value to the professors in charge of the research but it contributes heavily to the training of our most promising graduate students and younger officers.

The following books were published by members of the Department:

How Shall We Pay for Education? by Seymour Harris. Harpers.

Stabilization Subsidies by Seymour Harris. Historical Report Series, U.S. Gov’t.

Price Control of International Commodities by Seymour Harris. Archives Volume, Historical Records Office.

International Monetary Policies, by Gottfried Haberler (with Lloyd Metzler and Robert Triffin). Postwar Economic Series, Federal Reserve System Board of Governors.

Problemas de Conjuntura e de Politica Economica, by Gottfried Haberler. Fundacao Getulio Vargas, Rio de Janiero.

Production in the United States, 1866-1914, by Edwin Frickey. Harvard University Press.

Seventy-eight articles have been published. Three books were published in the Harvard Economic Series during the past year. Five volumes are in the hands of the Press to be published later this year.

Professor Edward H. Chamberlin has been appointed to succeed Dr. Arthur B. Monroe as Managing Editor of the Quarterly Journal of Economics. Both the Quarterly Journal of Economies and the Review of Economic Statistics are well established intellectually and financially. With the demands of instruction and research, the editing of the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economics and Statistics, as well as the direction of the Harvard Economic Series, raises questions regarding the adequacy of the manpower within the Department.

In the area of distinctions or honors, Professor Joseph A. Schumpeter was chosen to be President of the American Economic Association for 1948. Dean Edward S. Mason was awarded an honorary degree, D. Litt, from Williams College, June, 1948.

Very sincerely,
H. H. Burbank

Provost Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Provost Buck—Annual Report of Dept.”

___________________________

1948-1949

September 28, 1949

Dear Provost Buck:

The pattern of the report of the Department of Economics on the work of the last year is essentially the same as the other reports for the post-war years. Indeed, not a little of the introduction to the report of a year ago could be utilized in the current report. The quantitative side of our work has been among our major problems. I think I was correct in predicting that the peak of the load would be passed in 1948-49. For the year 1949-50, numbers, particularly on the graduate level, will be approximately less although the total is still beyond the capacities of our senior staff.

Again I can repeat that the problem of building and maintaining a junior staff presents great difficulties. We have strengthened our position on the level of the assistant professor but we are unable to hold our most promising young Ph.D’s for appointment at the instructor level. All of our undergraduate instruction suffers because of this factor, but Economics 1 (the introductory course) is affected particularly. The demand for these young men by other institutions continues at a high level resulting in a high rate of turnover and leaving us sech year with a relatively inexperienced staff. [end of p. 1]

[Note: need to replace unfocussed image of page 2]

[p. 3 begins ] …expectation that we will be able to revise our general examination effectively.

In the post-war years the Department has been striving to meet its obligations to General Education and to the areas. We believe that we have made an excellent beginning in both General Education and in the Russian Area. We are still actively engaged in the attempt to strengthen our position in the Chinese Area. This is exceedingly difficult but I believe that some progress is being made.

Last year we were able to record with great satisfaction that some research projects were being established satisfactorily. These projects under the auspices of the Rockefeller Foundation and under the auspices of various groups interested in agriculture and marketing are now going forward successfully and up proving to be important for us not only as research projects but also because of their general effect upon a relatively large group of our graduate students. We can now give a type of training to our most promising men which would have been impossible without such projects. It should be emphasized at this point that other areas of interest need research funds.

The following books were published:

Collective Bargaining: Principles and Cases, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1949, by John I. Dunlop.

Labor in Norway by Walter Galenson. Harvard University Press, 1949.

Monetary Theory and Fiscal Policy, by Alvin Hansen McGraw-Hill, 1949.

The European Recovery Program, by Seymour E. Harris. Harvard University Press.

Foreign Economic Policy for the U.S., edited by Seymour E. Harris, Harvard University Press.

Price Control of International Commodities, by Seymour E. Harris. Archives Volume for Historical Records Office.

Saving American Capitalism, edited by Seymour E. Harris. Knopf.

Economic Planning, by Seymour E. Harris. Knopf.

Post-war Monetary Plans and Other Essays, by John H. Williams. Oxford, Basil Blackwell.

The American Economy, Its Problems and Prospects, by Sumner H. Slichter. Knopf.

There were 62 articles published by members of the Department during the past year. Five books were published in the Harvard Economic Studies and two volumes are in the hands of the Press to be published later this year. There has been a total of 86 books published in the Harvard Economic Studies to this date.

It should be recorded that both the Quarterly Journal of Economics under the editorship of Professor Chamberlin and the Review of Economics and Statistics have prospered during the year. Again I do feel it necessary to refer to the fact that editing the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economics and Statistics and the carrying forward of the Harvard Economic Studies continues to raise questions regarding the adequacy of the manpower within the Department.

In the area of distinctions and honors, Professor Slichter was awarded honorary degrees (LL.D.) from the following universities: Lehigh University, Harvard University, University of Rochester, University of Wisconsin and Northwestern University. Professor

Haberler was awarded an honorary degree of Doctor of Economics (“Doktor der Wirtschaftswissenschaft honoris causa”) from Handelshochschule, St. Gallen, Switzerland. Dr. Galbraith was awarded the President’s Certificate of Merit, Medal of Merit Board, for services in Price Control and Economic Stabilization during the war.

Sincerely
[Harold H. Burbank]

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Departmental Annual Reports to the Dean 1948-54”.

___________________________

1949-1950

[Draft] Report to Dean, October 2, 1950
Professor Burbank

In each of the reports for the last three years, emphasis has been placed upon two matters; our efforts to handle the increased numbers incident to the war, particularly on the graduate level, and our attempts to revise and improve our instruction, particularly on the undergraduate level.

With a good deal of satisfaction we are able to report that for the last year substantial progress has been made in each of these areas. Immediately after the war the number of our graduate students increased from approximately 100 to nearly 300. By raising the standards of admission and giving the most careful scrutiny to applications, the numbers on the graduate level are now well under 200, and will be reduced somewhat more for 1950-51.

The work of supervising and directing graduate students falls very unevenly upon the various members of the senior staff. Even with not over 150 graduate students some members of the staff will carry an inordinate part of individual instruction and of examining for the higher degrees. Further, large graduate classes tend to dilute the instruction.

On the undergraduate level the Department has revised its requirements for concentration, including the content of many of our key courses. This plan has been accepted by the Faculty and is now in operation. It is an ambitious scheme that involves not only a change in the content and coverage of our key courses but it also involves the strengthening the staff in these courses and an integration of course work with tutorial work. Undoubtedly it will take some years to complete this plan. Much depends upon our ability to build a strong junior staff, especially on the annual instructor level. When this reorganized instruction is in full operation it is expected that a number of courses now offered for undergraduates may be deleted.

Also it is with a good deal of satisfaction that after a period of suspension tutorial instruction has been reestablished and is developing steadily. The period of suspension was unfortunate but probably inevitable. We are now approaching a position with respect to both graduate and undergraduate instruction that at least approximates a normal situation, with a possibility of a carefully planned and well integrated system of undergraduate instruction. As a part of this plan increased attention has been given to reestablishing the General Examinations on something approximating the level of earlier years. Since we are lacking experienced tutors the establishment of tutorial instruction is a very real task but it is believed it can be done successfully.

We have been fortunate to have been able to attract to the Graduate School a group of unusually able young men. The very top of this group represents ability of the very highest order. Unfortunately only rarely can we retain the services of these young men even on the assistant professor level. However, the Department is keenly aware of the difficulties it faces in recruitment and every effort is being made to follow the progress of the product of other schools as well as the progress of our own young scholars.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Provost Buck—Annual Report of Dept.”

___________________________

1949-1950

January 5, 1951

Provost Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Provost Buck:

I am now somewhat belatedly submitting the report of the Department of Economics for 1949-50.

I. Undergraduate Instruction

Four hundred eighty-two Harvard and Radcliffe students concentrated in economics in 1949-50 as compared with 608 in the previous year. The enrolment in Economics 1 was 402 as compared with 546 in the previous year. Seventy-seven students graduated with honors; 20 obtaining magna cum laude and 57 cum laude.

The entire senior staff gave courses at the undergraduate level— a practice that distinguishes Harvard sharply from institutions such as Columbia and Chicago which restrict the activities of some of the most talented members of the staff to graduate instruction. Nevertheless, the strength of our undergraduate teaching has depended very largely on the unusually fine group of assistant professors we now have on our staff.

During the past couple of years the Department has been gradually moving toward restoration of the tutorial system and last spring it decided finally to give tutorial instruction to all honors students in their junior and senior years,

II. Graduate Instruction

Two hundred graduate students in economics were in residence last year as compared with 234 the previous year. The Department gave 58 general examinations for the Ph.D. and 47 special examinations.

The number of graduate students is still too large to handle effectively with the present staff. The students themselves justifiably complain that they cannot see enough of the members of the faculty. However if they did see as much of the faculty as they wanted to, the faculty would have little time for reading and research and the quality of instruction would decline. We are planning to deal with this problem as far as possible by making sure that more graduate students attend reasonably small seminars and do have an opportunity to get to know at least one faculty member reasonably well.

I believe that the quality of our graduate work has suffered through overemphasis on course work and preoccupation with grades. We tend to make graduate instruction too much of a prolongation of undergraduate instruction. We also tend too much in the direction of specialization and provide too little encouragement for students to become coordinated in the whole economic field. The remedy for this state of affairs depends more upon the general attitude of the Department rather than any specific measures of reorganization. We shall do whatever is possible to encourage students in the feeling that their main function here is to acquire the maturity that is essential for scholarship rather than to accumulate a collection of pieces of isolated information.

III. Research

Professors Mason, Leontief, Black, Galbraith and Dunlop are all conducting organized research projects within the Department. Apart from their substantive value, these projects give a considerable number of graduate students an opportunity to take part in organized research activity. I believe these projects have an important part to play in the future of the Department as a whole rather than as special interests of individual members. However, I do not share the view that most of our intellectual activities should be directed towards organized research. There is danger that we may become a research bureaucracy and that the merits of individual scholarship may achieve less recognition than they deserve. While the research project is invaluable in training the students in specialized activity, it does little to cultivate the maturity that should be one of the most important products of our graduate training.

IV. The Staff of the Department

Professor Schumpeter’s death has meant a loss to the Department that cannot be covered by any individual that we now have on the staff or could get from the outside. The only way to make up for his absence is for the present members of the faculty to direct part of their attention to the aspects of economic thought in which Schumpeter was particularly interested. This has in part been done. I think it is true to say that since Schumpeter’s death his own work has received more attention in Harvard classrooms than it received while he was alive.

The only new additions to the to the staff at the professorial level in 1949-50 were assistant professors Orcutt and Sawyer. Orcutt is giving a course at the graduate level and the undergraduate level on empirical economies in which he stresses the quantitative aspects of economic theory. He is also a first-class statistician. Since the resignation of Professor Crum we have had only one professional statistician in the Department, and it seems highly desirable to have at least two. Sawyer will add considerable strength to the Department’s work in economic history although he will spend half of his time in the General Education program.

**VI. [sic] Distinctions**

Members of the Department received the following distinctions:

Professor Edward Chamberlin — An honorary degree (Dr.) awarded by the Universita Catholica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy. December 1949.

Professor Sumner Slichter — President, Industrial Relations Research Association.

Professor Gottfried Haberler — President, International Economic Association for 1950 (held by Professor Schumpeter at the time of his death).

I am attaching a bibliography of the writings of the members of the Department. [not included in this folder]

Sincerely yours,
Arthur Smithies

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers (UAV 349.11), Box 2, Folder “Departmental Annual Reports to the Dean 1948-54”.

Images Source: Burbank (left) from the Harvard Class Album 1946, Smithies (right) from the Harvard Class Album 1952.

Tags BlackJD, Burbank, Chamberlin, Crum, Dunlop, Frickey, Galbraith, Haberler, Hansen, Harris, Leontief, Mason, Metzler, Monroe, Orcutt, SawyerJ, Schumpeter, Slichter, Smithies, Triffin, WilliamsJH

Economics Programs Harvard Teaching

Harvard. Haberler and Chamberlin fight over last-minute course changes, 1942-43

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2022-02-12

Exogenous shocks are really useful for finding out how the economy works. They also help dear colleagues reveal themselves when their private interests conflict with those of other colleagues in particular or with departmental needs in general. The U.S. entry into the Second World War forced several adjustments in the graduate and undergraduate instructional staffing at the Harvard economics department.

This post provides some light on the time Gottfried Haberler was asked to teach the first of the two term graduate economic theory sequence for the academic year 1942-43. The course was a direct descendent of Frank Taussig’s Economics 11 (the expansion of course offerings over the decades required moving into 3 digits for some course numbers and a zero was dropped into the middle of “Economics 11” to obtain “Economics 101”). At the last minute Chairman Edward Chamberlin decided that he wanted “his” course back for both semesters but Gottfried Haberler was clearly not one to go quietly. And so we witness the performance of an academic drama before colleagues, of Professor X and Professor Y claiming conflicting rights to a particular course.

The record presented here is incomplete. I have been unable to find Haberler’s written plea on his own behalf. Reading the material one might think that Chamberlin got his way and Haberler was left to find another course to satisfy his annual teaching obligation. However, a look into the annual report of the President of Harvard College for 1942-43 finds that as far as the staffing of Economics 101 in 1942-43 goes, ex ante equals ex post. The course was ultimately divided that year between Messrs. Haberler and Chamberlin.

___________________________

Economics 101: syllabi (with links to most readings) and examinations for fall and spring terms 1941-42 taught by Edward Chamberlin.

___________________________

Who ended up teaching what 1942-43

Edward Chamberlin

Economics 1a. First term, undergraduate course “Economic Theory”.

Economics 102b. Second term, graduate course “Monopolistic Competition and Allied Problems”.

Co-taught Economics 101 with Gottfried Haberler. Full-year graduate course “Economic Theory”. Presumably Haberler taught the first term and Chamberlin taught the second term.

Gottfried Haberler

Economics 18b. Second term, undergraduate course on the Economic Aspects of War,

Co-taught Economics 45a with Alvin Hansen. First term, undergraduate course “Business Cycles”.

Economics 144. Graduate School of Public Administration Seminar “International Economic Relations”.

Co-taught Economics 101 with Edward Chamberlin. Full-year graduate course “Economic Theory”. Presumably Haberler taught the first term and Chamberlin taught the second term.

___________________________

Ex Ante Course Announcement

Economics 101. Economic Theory

Mon., Wed., and (at the pleasure of the instructors) Fri., at 12. Professors Chamberlin and Haberler.

Source: Final Announcement of the Courses of Instruction offered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences during 1942-43. Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXXIX, No. 53 (September 23, 1942), p. 55.

___________________________

Ex Post Course Enrollment and Staffing

[Economics] 101. Professors Chamberlin and Haberler. — Economic Theory.

Total 24: 16 Graduates, 4 School of Public Administration, 1 Graduate Business School, 3 Radcliffe.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College 1942-1943, p. 47.

___________________________

Presumably the statement prepared by Edward Chamberlin (referring to himself in the third person)

October 9, 1942

Course Economics 101 was announced in the catalogue for 1942-3 to be given jointly by Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler. This arrangement was never considered as final but was subject to adjustment at the beginning of the college year in view of the general uncertainty as to the status of such of the graduate instruction until enrolments in various courses were known. (In particular, it seemed likely that either 102b or 163 or both might be bracketed, thus freeing either one half or one full course of Mr. Chamberlin’s time). It was, however, agreed between Mr. Haberler and Mr. Chamberlin that, in case the course were given jointly, Mr. Haberler would give the first half year and Mr. Chamberlin the second. Several times prior to the opening of college Mr. Haberler asked Mr. Chamberlin about the status of the course and was told that unfortunately nothing final could be decided until enrolments were known; it was agreed, however, that Mr. Haberler would take the first meeting, or meetings, of the course until a decision was reached. The matter was mentioned on Friday morning, October 2, at a casual meeting between classes at which time, since no final decision had been taken, Mr. Chamberlin said that it was still possible that the arrangement might stand. On Saturday, October 3, a final decision to take back the course was communicated to Mr. Haberler after considering a number of factors, among which were the following:

The enrolment in Economics 102b was only two, plus five auditors. This course had always been given in the second semester, thereby opening it to the first year students who had had the first semester of 101. The bracketing of 163 made it possible to revert to this disposition of 102b, (or to bracketing it later on if this seemed necessary). The chief obstacle to Mr. Chamberlin’s giving the first half and therefore all of 101 was thereby removed.
The class list of 101, received Friday afternoon, revealed that of 16 [or 18?] student then enrolled in the course all but two were foreigners. Many of these would have serious problems of adaptation to academic work in a new language and in a new country, and it seemed for the reason especially desirable to unify the introductory course in theory under one direction during the current year.
During the past, two years the course had, for better or worse, been split both vertically and horizontally, not by action of the department but on the initiative of Mr. Chamberlin. This was done in part to open greater possibilities for discussion through smaller sections, and in part to share the course with others who wanted very much to teach theory. At no time during that period had Mr. Chamberlin given less than a full year of the course, and its outline and organization had always been his. It was his sincere belief that now that the course was again of manageable size the department would wish it to be given as it had directed earlier, and that he was fully competent to make the decision. At that time the work of the year had not really begun.

However, Mr. Haberler objected so strongly to the change that in order to settle the matter amicably, Mr. Chamberlin proposed on Sunday afternoon, and Mr. Haberler agreed, that the matter be left to a committee composed of Professor Crum as Chairman and other members to be chosen by Professor Crum. As this Committee could not possibly be assembled and give a decision before the Monday meeting of the course it was agreed that Mr. Haberler would take that meeting and that the Committee shouId render a decision before the Wednesday meeting. The decision was in fact rendered Tuesday afternoon and was unanimous that Mr. ChamberIin should give the course, When apprized of this decision, Mr. Haberler said he would like time to consider whether or not he was willing to accept it. From this point on Mr. Chamberlin became a passive duopolist, leaving all initiative to Mr. Haberler, who proposed that he take the Wednesday meeting of the course, finishing matters which he had begun on Monday, give a cut on Friday (there was a holiday the following Monday), and decide sone time before the Department meeting whether or not he would like to bring the matter before the Department. Meanwhile, the Committee had decided that certain questions which it had discussed apart from the immediate issue should be brought before the Department at its meeting October 13th. Mr. Haberler’s final decision on Thursday was that if the Department is going into the whole theory question anyway, they should also decide on the present status of Economics 101.

___________________________

Chairman Chamberlin announces his attention to return statement with statement

October 10, 1942

Dear Leonard [Crum]:

It has occurred to me that, since Haberler has given you in writing a statement of the facts as he sees them, I might, even at this late date do the same. My own statement will add some details and perhaps present a different emphasis at one or two points It may be used at your discretion in whatever way you think best, (including, of course, the possibility of no use at all beyond your own reading). I am sending a copy to Haberler.

Sincerely,

E. H. Chamberlin

___________________________

Chairman Chamberlin makes his written statement available to the department

October 17, 1942

To Members of the Department of Economics:

In view of the fact that Professor Haberler’s statement with respect to Economics 101 had some circulation prior to last Tuesday’s meeting and was also read in the meeting, whereas my own statement has to this moment been seen only by Professor Crum and one other member of the Department, I should like now to make both equally available to any who may wish to consult them. Accordingly, they will both be found in the blue folder in Mrs. Arnold’s office. Also in the blue folder are: (1) The minutes of the last three meetings, and 2) The report of the Chairman to the Dean of the Faculty covering the work or the Department for the past year.

Chairman [Chamberlin]

___________________________

Special Committee sides with Chamberlin

CONFIDENTIAL

(for use of Department
of Economics officers
only)

Report of a Special Committee
on the assignment for teaching Economics 101.

13 October, 1942

On Monday, October 5, the Chairman of the Department brought to my notice a personal disagreement between himself and Mr. Haberler concerning the assignment for teaching Economics 101, and asked that I serve as Chairman of a Special Committee to “arbitrate” in the case, and report before the meeting of Economics 101 on Wednesday the 7th. I was instructed to associate with myself such members of the Department as I saw fit in making up the Committee. I asked Mr. Burbank, formerly Chairmen of the Department, to be a member, and also four other members of the Department who have at present no active part in the teaching of economic theory and whose views on the matter at issue were unknown to me. One of these individuals was unable to serve because of his inability to meet with the Committee at any time available for meeting within the interval during which action had to be taken. The Committee, therefore, was made up as follows: Crum, Chairman, Black, Burbank, Dunlop, and Usher.

The Committee met and considered to the best of its ability all aspects of the case, and herewith reports certain recommendations to the Department for such action as it wishes to take. The Chairman of the Committee reported on Tuesday afternoon the 6th to Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler the findings of the Committee in outline form because the Chairman thought that the two individuals concerned might have agreed to abide by the finding of the “arbitration” and might be willing to put the findings into effect immediately. The Chairman of the Committee did, however, report to both participants in the controversy that he did not regard the Committee as being clothed with any conclusive authority and that unless the participants in the controversy both accepted the findings of the Committee those findings would have to go to the Department as recommendations and would be subject to such action as the Department saw fit to take.

Statement of the issues.

Course Economics 101 is announced in the spring issue of the current Courses of Instruction pamphlet as to be given jointly Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler, and I am informed that they had during the summer agreed among themselves that, in case the course was given jointly, Mr. Haberler would give the course during the first half year and Mr. Chamberlin during the second. Late in the week in which instruction of the present half year began Mr. Chamberlin indicated to Mr. Haberler that he thought the entire course should be given by Mr. Chamberlin. Mr. Haberler objected to any such change and insisted that he continue to give the course during the first half year. The issue, accordingly, was whether the conduct of the course should go forward on the basis of joint responsibility of Mr. Haberler in the first half year and Mr. Chamberlin in the second half year, or should be restored to the basis prevailing for several years in which Chamberlin gave the full course.

History of the case.

After the retirement of Professor Taussig, Course 101 (formerly called Course 11) was given for several years by Mr. Schumpeter by an arrangement which was understood to be provisional and subject to later change. At the end of this interim, after extended consideration of the needs and purposes of the Department with respect to the teaching of the several courses in economic theory, the Department took specific action directing Mr. Chamberlin to teach Course 101. At the same time arrangements were agreed upon by which several other specialists in economic theory in the staff of the Department participated in the instruction in economic theory. Presently the enrolmont in Course 101 became so large that its conduct as a single course by the discussion method became difficult; and, without specific vote of the Department, the course was divided into two sections, with one conducted by Mr. Chamberlin and Mr. Taylor in 1940-41 and by Mr. Chamberlin and Mr. Leontief in 1941-42, the other by Mr. Haberler and Mr. Chamberlin in both years.

With the decline in enrolment which has occurred, no occasion for such splitting of the course persists, and it has long been forseen that Economics 101 would be conducted as a single section during the present year. In recognition of this, an arrangement was made, without specific action by Department vote, to announce Economics 101 for the present year as to be given jointly by Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler. At the time this arrangement was made the expectation was that Mr. Chamberlin would be giving during the first half year Economics 1a and Economics 102b and that he should not be called upon to carry the additional instruction involved in teaching Economics 101 during the first term.

The initial enrolment in Economics 102b was so small that the course has been withdrawn from the first term offering, and although it is announced for the second term doubt remains whether the enrolment will be sufficient even then to warrant giving it. In recent months, various changes in personnel of the Department and the necessity of distributing the teaching and other load in all branches of the Department work as fairly and efficiently as possible have resulted in various changes in the assignments of particular officers to particular duties. In these circumstances it became possible for Mr. Chamberlin to resume during the first term instruction in Economics 101 without making his course load excessive.

In connection with the controversy, the Chairman of the Committee had a conversation with Mr. Chamberlin in which the latter presented his own views concerning the history of the case and the points at issue. Mr. Haberler submitted a written statement to the Chairman of the Committee setting forth his ideas on the matter. Those items were brought to the attention of the Committee by its Chairman. Following the meeting of the Committee, Mr. Chamberlin also submitted a written statement to the Chairman of the Committee. Either or both of the written statements will be laid before the Department on request.

Meeting of the Committee.

The Committee met on Tuesday, October 6. The Chairman gave the Committee a history of the case and a summary of the information available bearing upon the point at issue. The Chairman also informed the Committee that he did not understand that the Committee had any conclusive powers and would be obliged to report its findings in the form of recommendations to the Department.

The Chairmen specifically urged the Committee, therefore, in proceeding toward its findings to consider the wisdom of bringing in findings which, in its opinion, would probably be supported by the Department. The Chairman reminded the Committee that adequate treatment of the particular matter at issue might well involve (a) recommendations by the Committee concerning certain related matters affecting other courses; and (b) recommendations by the committee concerning certain longer run matters relating to the general question of our offering in economic theory. The Chairman discussed with the Committee certain basic principles bearing upon the case, and received the concurrence of all the members of the Committee in these principles. They are outlined below.

The Committee then proceeded to discuss the matter at issue and various related matters. Discussion by the members of the Committee was free and active and the Chairman made a special effort to call forth the views of each member of the Committee. After this discussion the Committee agreed upon a set of recommendations to be made to the Department, and to be reported to Messrs. Chamberlin and Haberler in the hope they would accept the findings. The agreement of the Committee was unanimous. Those recommendations are presented below.

Basic principles.

In approaching a set of findings with respect to the issues raised the Committee had in mind a series of basic principles in which members of the Committee concurred. Those are as follows:

(a) Because of its compressed personnel in wartime and because of the extraordinary wartime adjustments needed in its work: the Department has a peculiarly difficult task of assigning functions to its various officers with a view to getting the essential work of the Department done with such distribution of the burden as will be primarily efficient from the point of view of the Department and secondarily fair from the point of view of the individuals.

(b) Even in peacetime the needs of the Department and the objective of securing maximum efficiency in the performance of Department work transcend the interests and preferences of individual officers. Although in peacetime many concessions can be made with a view to accommodating the preferences and interests of individual officers and with a view to protecting the rights or supposed rights of individual officers, the Department would in general not recognize that such individual interests can overrule the general interest of the Department. In wartime this condition is even more emphatically true, and in such time the individual preferences and interests may be obliged to give way to the general interest of the Department more frequently and more extensively than in normal times. Throughout the duration of the war many if not all of the officers of this Department will be doing work which they prefer not to do and will be denied the opportunity to do work which they would like to do. Without such sacrifices the essential work of the University cannot be effectively handled in wartime.

(c) The Department and the University cannot afford to allow the general interest to be sacrificed because of informal commitments or quasi agreements made among individual officers when such agreements fail to take adequate account of the general interest of the Department, even though those who made the agreements acted in good faith. That agreements thus made may from time to time have to be set aside in the interest of the Department, and that such setting aside may involve some sacrifice by one or more individuals involved must be accepted as one of the costs of giving primary importance to the general interest of the Department. Ordinarily it is to be expected that individuals will refrain from making arrangements for which they have no power under the law of the Department; but ever if such arrangements are entered into under a grant of power, the individuals concerned must recognize that the Department itself has a clear right to final determination at one of its meetings.

(d) To the best knowledge of the Committee, the purpose of the Department with respect to the assignment of instruction in Course 101 remains as it was last officially determined by Department vote several years ago, namely, that Course 101 should be given by Mr. Chamberlin.

(e) Under the stress of war the Department may be obliged to sacrifice in part some branches of its work, and the Committee believes that graduate instruction will probably need to be sacrificed before instruction in undergraduate courses, tutorial instruction, and other Department work directed toward the teaching of undergraduates. A policy which exposes graduate instruction to the principal sacrifices is also likely to result in the most frequent disregard of personal preferences and even of supposed rights of individual officers; but presumably the Department would nevertheless feel that such a policy must be adopted and maintained.

Recommendations to the Department.

After considering the facts laid before it in connection with the matters at issue and in the light of its own agreement on basic principles, the Committee agreed unanimously to present the following recommendations to the Department at its meeting on Tuesday, October 13, and to report these recommendations at once to the parties in the controversy:

(a) That during the present year Mr. Chamberlin be assigned to conduct the entire Course 101.

(b) That, in view of chancing conditions which may mean that the Department’s present total offering in economic theory covering the entire range of courses in that field does not most satisfactorily meet the needs of instruction in that field, the Department promptly and earnestly reconsider the total offering with a view to making such changes as may be necessary in the next announcement of courses. The Committee makes no recommendation as to how the reconsideration should be conducted, whether by the appointment of a committee or by general Department discussion or by a combination. It also makes no specific recommendation as to any changes in the present offerings of courses, but merely notices that such a general reconsideration may well cover the possibility that Mr. Haberler might be asked to give work in economic theory.

(c) The Committee recommends that the Department consider asking Mr. Haberler to take charge of an additional half course during the present academic year, with a view to replacing the first half of Course 101 in rounding out his teaching assignment. The Committee specifically recommends that Course 18b be considered as one of the possibilities for additional instruction by Mr. Haberler; and makes this recommendation because on the one hand the Committee feels that the hurried arrangement by which that course was assigned jointly to four officers won Mr. Harris withdrew may have been ill-advised in that use of too numerous instructors in such a course may damage the continuity from the point of view of the student; and on the other hand the Committee believes that Mr. Haberler’s areas of specialization would enable him to handle this particular course very effectively.

(d) The Committee recommends that the Department consider carefully the question whether in determining that the enrolment in a course is so small that the course should be withdraw only those enrolled for credit should be counted, or whether in addition the auditors should be counted (this question was raised before the Committee in connection with Course 102b in which the first term enrolment was two members for credit plus five others. Course 102b has been withdrawn from the first term offering, but will be announced again for the second term, and the question posed above may at that time again be raised).

W. L. Crumm

___________________________

Thus spake the Dean

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

Paul Herman Buck, Dean
Henry Chauncey, Assistant to the Dean
Jeffries Wyman, Jr. Assistant Dean

5 University Hall

January 12, 1943

To the Senior Members of the Department of Economics:

After considerable contemplation of the issue which has arisen between Professors Chamberlin and Haberler and which I have undertaken to arbitrate, I find I am in complete accord with the Report of a Special Committee on the assignment for teaching Economics 101, dated October 13, 1942. I commend especially as sound, the basic principles outlined on page 3 of that report and I accept as my official decision the recommendations to the Department given on page 4 of that report.

Frankly, it seems to me most unfortunate that the issue should have descended into personalities. The department should be prepared to face the large problems of policy which I have outlined in a letter to your Chairman which, I trust, will be read at your meeting tonight. Obviously those problems will not be solved intelligently and equitably if they are not approached with a vision directed to the loyalties of one’s subject and university rather than to self. Is it asking too much to relegate the personal aspects of this issue to oblivion?

It seems to me very important so to do. I have taken a great deal of pride in the distinction of the Department of Economics at Harvard and I have spoken in many circles boastfully of having what seems to me one of the very few remaining great departments of economics in the world. Certainly the responsibility of keeping that department great and of enabling it to develop continuing leadership should be the major loyalty to which every other consideration is subordinate. The awareness of this responsibility and the opportunities it presents will preoccupy your time and energies. Let me conclude by saying that I have always had and retain confidence in the intelligence, initiative, devotion. and cooperative spirit of your membership. I write this with all the more assurance because I know so many of you intimately and appreciate from personal friendship the qualities I have mentioned.

Very truly yours,
[signed]
Paul H. Buck

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence & Papers 1902-1950. Box 25. Folder “Graduate Instruction in Theory. Economics 101. 1942-43.

Tags BlackJD, Burbank, Chamberlin, Crum, Dunlop, Haberler, Leontief, Taussig, TaylorOH, Usher

Economics Programs Harvard Teaching Undergraduate

Harvard. Economics Department Reports to the Dean, 1941-1946

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2021-12-03

This post adds the Chairman’s annual reports on the Harvard Economics Department for the World War II years to the series:

Department of Economics Reports to the Dean of Harvard, 1932-1941

More about Harvard during WWII: Coreydon Ireland, “Harvard Goes to War,” The Harvard Gazette (November 10, 2011).

_______________________

1941-42

October 15, 1942

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith a report on the work of the Department of Economics covering the past year.

The only honor conferred upon a member of the Department during this period has been the election of Professor Leontief to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Several books have been published by members of the Department, including Professor Harris’s two major works (appearing, I believe, not more than a month apart), The Economics of American Defense and Economics of Social Security; Professor Black’s Parity, Parity, Parity; Professor Hansen’s Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles; and Professor Haberler’s Consumer Credit and Economic Fluctuations. Professor Haberler’s Prosperity and Depression has also gone through a third edition. Professor Crum was co-author of Fiscal Planning for Total War. The list of articles, pamphlets, reviews, and other items seems unusually long. Professor Hansen has listed thirteen items, Professor Slichter eight, and Professor Black six. The Harvard Economic Studies has expanded from 70 to 72 volumes during the year.

The contribution of the Department to the war effort has been substantial. Professor Mason continues on leave of absence with the Office of Strategic Services, and Professor Harris has recently been granted full time leave to serve as Director of the Division of Export-Import Price Control in the Office of Price Administration. Among those in the Department who are more or less active as Consultants or in other part time war activities are Professors Black, Crum, Hansen, Leontief, and Slichter, and Dr. Butters. Numerous younger men have, of course, entered the war services or have declined possible reappointment at Harvard in order to accept administrative and research positions in Washington.

The problem of maintaining instructional standards has, of course, been aggravated by the war. Fortunately, exceptions to the two-thirds rule have been granted in many cases; otherwise it would have been literally impossible in the face of competing wartime opportunities to recruit a staff of younger men at all. Out of the present staff of fifteen teaching fellows eleven are on more than two-thirds time, and almost without exception these men would not have been available (that is, not even at two-thirds time) if exceptions to the rule had not been made. The average experience of the Economics A staff has improved owing to a policy of putting more experienced men into Economics A and breaking in new men either in tutorial work or in the Statistics and Accounting courses. 36% of concentrators in Economics are tutored by new men this year; 60% by men of one year or less experience. The very sizeable staff in Statistics and Accounting is made up almost entirely of new appointees.

In view of the desperate need for trained economists in the expanding activities of the United States Government, the Department has announced for the current year an Undergraduate Training Program in Economics for Government Service which has attracted a substantial enrolment. The program has been opened to non-honors as well as to honors candidates. It has been carefully designed to give advanced training of a type which will enable them to undertake with a minimum of delay and adaptation administrative and research positions in the government service. It includes, in addition to a substantial corps of standard courses in Economics, three new courses, namely, Economics 7a and 7b, Research in Market Organization, Commodity Distribution, and Prices; Economics 19a, Research in Money and Finance; and Economics 22b, Government Statistics. One striking indication of the merits of this program might appear in the fact that a program of training announced by the Department of Government seems to consist essentially in normal concentration Government plus an election from these new courses in Economics.

Sincerely yours,

E. H. Chamberlin

Dean Paul H. Buck

_______________________

1942-43

October 21, 1943

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith the report on the work of the Department of Economics for the academic year.

The war effort has continued to deplete our staff. Since the opening of the academic year Professors Chamberlin and Haberler and Dr. Dunlop have been granted leave of absence to undertake work in war agencies in Washington. However, Professor Crum resumes his work with the Department after leave of absence from the University to conduct an investigation on Fiscal Planning for the National Bureau of Economic Research of which he is currently the Chairman. Also Associate Professor Seymour Harris has returned to the University after a year and a half of service with the Office of Price Administration where he served as Director of the Office of Import-Export Price Control. A very small fraction of the once large junior staff now remains. By the end of the coming term it is expected that not more than four Annual Instructors will be active in instruction.

The incidence of war activities on research and publication has been two-fold. In some instances long-time research projects have been put aside, but concurrently much effort has been applied to projects concerned with war and post-war problems. Having in mind the inevitable interruptions of the war period, it is gratifying to be able to report that the books, scientific articles, addresses and reports have been in about the same number as the average of the immediately preceding years.

Of the major publications during the year the following should be mentioned:

J. A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy

P. M. Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development

Edwin Frickey, Economic Fluctuations in the United States: a Systematic Analysis of Long-Run Trends and Business Cycles, 1866-1914

S. E. Harris, Economics of America at War

S. E. Harris, Editor, Postwar Economic Problems

A. P. Usher, The Early History of Deposit Banking in Mediterranean Europe has just left the press.

J. T. Dunlop, Cost Behavior and Price Policy

It is also indicative of the demands of war activities that some forty or fifty articles directly related to the war and post-war economy have been published by members of the Department. In addition numerous reports have been issued to or under the auspices of various war agencies such as Professor Harris, “O.P.A. Manual of Price Control” and his “Reports on Anti-Inflationary Programs in South America,” and Professor Crum’s memorandum on Fiscal Planning for Reconstruction and Peace for the National Bureau of Economic Research. The Quarterly Journal of Economics has continued successfully through another year, bringing the total volumes of this publication to 57. The Review of Economic Statistics now in its 25th volume is continuing under the editorship of Professor Harris. The Harvard Economic Studies is now publishing its 75th volume.

The rapid reduction in the numbers of the teaching staff has been met in part by the increased activity of those remaining. With the very active cooperation of the members of the staff we have been able to offer a reasonably full and well balanced program of instruction. On the graduate level flexibility of instruction has been more necessary than in previous years because of the cosmopolitan group now in attendance –not less than a dozen different nationalities are represented. This flexibility is being achieved largely by increased individual supervision and instruction.

The sharp decline in the undergraduate body together with the presence of a small but able and experienced staff of teachers has made possible a degree of experimentation in the introductory course in Economics which should lead to significant changes in the conduct of this course in the post-war period. Also at the present time some attention is being given to a question which has been in the minds of a number of members of the staff for some year—the so-called quiz section. It has been a quite common practice, in the conduct of middle group courses to provide for two lectures and one section meeting each week. On occasion five lectures are followed by the section meeting. For many years the usefulness of the section meeting has been in question. It is to be admitted that it does relieve the instructor of a lecture, but whether or not it provides equivalent or better instruction is debatable. At the present time Professor Crum and Dr. Smith are conducting a controlled experiment in the section meetings connected with their offering Government Control of Industry and Public Utilities. In the course time they will report their findings to the Department.

At this point I should like to mention the interesting and valuable “experiment” which Professor Slichter has called The Trade Union Fellowship Project. I am enclosing Professor Slichter’s report on this project which, I believe, you will find of interest. We regard the experiment as not only highly successful from both the point of view of the University and the Unions, but the experience furnishes a good deal of evidence regarding educational processes which may prove to be highly significant.

Very sincerely yours,

H. H. Burbank

_______________________

1943-44

October 13, 1944

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith a brief report on the work of the Department of Economies for the academic year.

In the main, this report is a continuation of the report sent to you a year ago. In spite of the multifarious wartime activities of the member of the staff, the Department has maintained a well balanced offering of courses on both the undergraduate and graduate level. Course elections have continued to be surprisingly large, but I believe that the decline we have been expecting will actually begin with the Winter Term. The large proportion of foreign students on the graduate level, together with our inability to give complete offerings each Term, has necessitated an unusual amount of individual instruction.

Professors Mason and Chamberlin and Drs. Sweezy and Dunlop were on leave for the entire year. Professor Haberler resumed his work with us for the Summer Term.

I can repeat from my report of last year that the incidence of war activities on research and publication has been twofold. Most of our long time research projects have been put aside, but currently many projects concerned with war and postwar problems have been initiated and some of them completed. Although publication has been diminished by war activities, it is still gratifying to be able to report that the books, scientific articles, addresses, and reports—although not in quite the same quantity as in the prewar years—have nevertheless appeared in substantial numbers. Progress on the publication of books has shown a more definite interruption, but four books have been published during the year and not less than six books are now either actually in the press or are nearing form for publication. The books published during the year were:

J. D. Black, Food Enough

A. H. Hansen, (with H. S. Perloff), State and Local Finance in the National Economy

S. H. Slichter, Present Savings and Postwar Markets

J. H. Williams, Postwar Monetary Plans and Other Essays

Both of our periodicals — the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economic Statistics — have been able to continue publication without interruption and have been able to maintain their high standards. The difficulties encountered by scientific periodicals during these years are very real. One other volume has been added to the Harvard Economic Studies.

In my last report I mentioned the experimentation, particularly in the Introductory course, which had been initiated. I am very happy to be able to report that this experimentation has continued through another year with very gratifying results. A very interesting problem is involved in the attempt to present adequately the introductory material in Economies. Most of us who have been intimately concerned with the problem believe that a single course can serve both for those who will concentrate in Economics and for those whose main, interest lie elsewhere. The content of such a course, and the effective presentation of the material, is now being studied.

I might add here—because fundamentally it is experimentation in methods and relationships—that the Trade Union Fellowship Project has been conducted successfully for another year. At various times I have sort you Professor Slichter’s reports on these projects. We believe that a very interesting and productive educational experiment is being carried on with the Trade Union men.

Also in the sane connection I should like to record that during the last year we were presented with a variety of problems by the numerous South American students who came to us on the graduate level.We gave these students particular attention. By the end of the year we had learned that it would be highly profitable to develop for such students some specialized instruction which would overcome the difficulties under which all of them labored in their first term or two of residence. Their educational background, following European patterns, is such that it is necessary for us to present to them in concentrated form certain types of qualitative and quantitative analysis with which they are unfamiliar and which is not now offered on the graduate level.

The members of the Department have continued to discuss and to arrive at decisions regarding course instruction in the postwar years. In sone respects, we will strengthen the instruction offered mainly for the specialist in Economics, but we are more concerned with broader offerings which will prove to be desirable, and we hope necessary, for the college at large. Our permanent staff is large and versatile. We hope to be able to utilize to the full the resources we possess. In connection with the enrichment of our teaching, we expect to utilize more effectively in our instruction the material forthcoming from a number of proposed seminars.

It seems unnecessary to mention in detail the wartime activities of our staff members. Practically every member of the staff is actively engaged in some type of war activity. Without exception, each officer is utilizing his special aptitudes and training in connection with the various Federal agencies concerned with economic problems.

Very sincerely,

H. H. Burbank

Dean Paul H. Buck
University Hall 5
Cambridge, Massachusetts

_______________________

1944-45

October 24, 1945

Dear Dean Buck:

I submit herewith a brief report on the Department of Economics for the last year.

As in the preceding war years, the Department has been able to present a very respectable offering of courses, both on the graduate and undergraduate level. The number of graduate students continued to be unexpectedly large, necessitating a rather more elaborate course offering for them than we had planned. To a somewhat larger extent than in the two preceding years the students enrolled represent such a diverse background of training and experience that sone new types of instruction were involved. Some seventeen nationalities were represented. We are inclined to believe that this is not altogether a temporary and war situation. Even after the European universities are reestablished, we expect to draw many students with foreign background and training. If this expectation is fulfilled, our wartime experience with foreign students will have been of considerable value.

Even before the war the Department was concerned with the reorganization of its instruction. Our discussions continued throughout the year materializing in a curriculum in theoretical and applied Economics which tends to utilize to the full the unusual capacities of the members of the staff. Our present position, however, is by no means definitive. We have always relied heavily upon the stimulating intellectual activities of the younger members of the staff. When recruitment is again possible we expect to strengthen our position markedly through the cooperation of these younger members.

The reorganization of instruction has been concerned mainly with the content and coverage of courses, but in some cases it has dealt with the actual methods of classroom instruction. The introductory course has been completely recast, involving new types of material and new methods of presentation. The full effects of these changes will have to wait upon the enlargement of our junior staff. Also, some of our plans involving quantitative instruction necessarily are held in abeyance until the questions regarding a statistical laboratory have been settled.

The war effort of many officers of the Department continued through the year. Professor Mason and Drs. Sweezy and Dunlop were on leave from the University devoting their entire time to their respective wartime assignments. Professor Chamberlin returned to Cambridge in February from his post with the office of Strategic Services. Other members of the Department, particularly Professors Hansen, Slichter, Harris, Leontief and Black, while meeting their University obligations also served in various capacities with wartime agencies.

The incidence of this wartime service upon research and publishing activities of the group was marked. Both books and articles were fewer in number than in the normal year and in the main reflected the particular war activities of the authors. However, in all some

34 articles and 7 books were published. It should be noted that at least three volumes which the authors had expected to complete in the last year are now being prepared for the press.

The difficulties involved in the publication of scientific journals have been great but not insurmountable. We have been able to continue the publication of the Quarterly Journal of Economies and the Review of Economic Statistics without reduction in size and without omission of numbers. In the Harvard Economic Series [rest of line blank] that some four volumes either in the hands of the press or the Department were ready for publication but because of the war restrictions were not actually published.

Latterly the Department has been concerned with the vexing problems of the definition of objectives of students on the graduate level and the adjustment of these objectives to the various higher degrees offered. We are concerned with the administration not only of the Ph.D. degree in Business Economies, the Ph.D. in Political Economy and Government, and in part with the Ph.D. in Public Administration which may be conferred through the Littauer School of Public Administration. The problems involved in defining and administering each of these degrees will receive continued attention.

Although no honorary degrees have been reported by members of the staff, Professor E. H. Chamberlin was elected Membre Correspondent de L’Institut de Science Économique Appliquée, May 1945, and Professor S. E. Harris was elected to membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Very sincerely,

[H.H. Burbank]

_______________________

1945-46

September 30, 1946

Dear Dean Buck:

You have requested a brief report on the Department of Economics for the academic year 1945-46.

Although the Department of Economics had anticipated to a considerable extent the problems that would be presented by the post-war situation, it found the academic year 1945-46 presenting difficulties for which there, was no immediate solution.

Fortunately we had devoted a great deal of time and thought to our course offering and to methods of instruction. We were moderately well prepared to take up the new work involved in new instruction and also the work involved in changing the content of, old courses. Again we were fortunate in being able to meet most of the difficulties presented by the unprecedented number of graduate students. With all of the permanent members of the staff in residence, we were able to meet the graduate situation although it taxed our resources to the limit. Many of our most insistent problems were concerned with the difficulties we met in assembling and training an adequate junior staff. We began the fall term with 2 Assistant Professors (Faculty Instructors), 3 Annual Instructors, and 7 Teaching Fellows. The staff was increased during the year but it was far from adequate to meet the course work, involved in our offering. However, this would seem to be a problem of relatively short duration. A few young scholars are being brought from other institutions and occupations and our Graduate School contains a number of most promising young scholars whose development is proceeding rapidly.

During the fall of 1945 the Department surveyed repeatedly the obligations it had undertaken. We were committed to an elaborate course offering. He realized that the permanent personnel of the Department could not be expanded and we recognized that in the range of the junior staff immediate and extensive increases in personnel also were impossible. Because of the irreducible demands upon our limited resources, we reconsidered repeatedly our efforts in the area of tutorial instruction and eventually voted to suspend tutorial instruction for a period with the stipulation that the subject be reconsidered at such time as the Department might see fit and in no event not later than two years.

The foregoing remarks have indicated that all members of the staff are carrying much heavier loads than in pre-war days. The burden necessarily is apportioned unevenly but all are affected. The main incidence of this situation is on research. For some officers it means that research must be put aside temporarily. For others, less than ordinary progress is being made. However, as the following titles indicate, the contributions have been substantial:

Black, John D., and a committee consisting of M. R. Benedict, S. T. Dana, and L. K. Pomeroy; Credit for Small Timberland Owners, Including Farmers with Woodlands; A Report on Forest Credit. (In press)

Black, John D., with some guidance from Jorge Ahumada of Chile, Roberto Arellano Bonilla of Honduras, and Jorge Alcazer of Bolivia; Farm Cost Analysis, with Some Reference

Black, John D.; Clawson, Marion; Sayre, C.F.; Willcox, W. W.; Farm Management. The Macmillan Company (in press).

Chamberlin, E. H.; Fifth edition of the Theory of Monopolistic Competition (Chapter added). Translation of the above book into Spanish.

Crum, W. L., and Schumpeter, J. A.; Rudimentary Mathematics for Economists and Statisticians. McGraw-Hill.

Hansen, A. H.; America’s Role in the World Economy. W. W. Norton.

Hansen, A. H.; The United States After the War. Cornell Uiv. Press.

Hansen, A. H.; Financing American Propsperity. 20^th Century Fund.

Harris, S. E.; Price Control in the International Field. (In press)

Harris, S. E.; National Debt. (In press)

Mason, E. S.; Controlling World Trade; Cartels and Commodity Agreements. McGraw-Hill.

Morgan, T.; The Development of the Hawaiian Economy, 1778-1876. Stanford Press. (In press)

In addition to the above books, some 72 articles have been contributed to scientific journals. We feel particularly happy in having been able to carry our publications, the Quarterly Journal of Economics and the Review of Economic Statistics, through the war period without serious alterations. Both publications are in sound financial condition. Actually, the Review of Economic Statistics will be in a much sounder position financially at the end of the current fiscal year than at the beginning of the war. However, increased publication costs are a matter for concern.

We have added two volumes to the Harvard Economic Series and published a revision of one. Three more volumes are now in the press. Again, increasing publication costs constitute a serious problem.

As mentioned above, all of the permanent officers of the Department had returned to active duty in Cambridge at the beginning of the year. A few officers have maintained contacts with various Washington departments and on occasion are called upon for consultation. In this connection, Professor John D. Black has served as Chairman of the Committee on Food Supplies for the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council and also has served actively with at least four other agencies. Professor John T. Dunlop has served as Consultant in the Office of Economic Stabilization and the Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion. Professor Seymour E. Harris has served as Consultant for the office of Price Administration. Professor Edward S. Mason has served as Consultant for the Department of State.

Very sincerely,

H. H. Burbank

Dean Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall

_______________________

Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and Papers 1930-1961 (UAV 349.11). Box 2, Folder “Provost Buck—Annual Report of Dept.”

Image Source: A Harvard Army ROTC unit on parade along Memorial Drive, July 1943. From the Harvard Archives published in: Coreydon Ireland, “To Honor the Living and Dead“, The Harvard Gazette (November 10, 2011).

Tags BlackJD, Burbank, Chamberlin, Crum, Dunlop, Frickey, Haberler, Hansen, Harris, Leontief, Mason, Perloff, Schumpeter, Slichter, SweezyP, Usher, WilliamsJH

Backstory of the O’Connor Peace Bill

46 Harvard Faculty Members Back O’Connell Peace Bill 16 Professors Among Signers of Petition

Montana Representative Main Speaker at Peace Rally in Cambridge — Points to Danger From Reactionaries in U.S.

About Chairman John T. Dunlop (Harvard Album, 1960)

Previously posted departmental reports

Report Department of Economics, 1961-1962

All three were eventually given Harvard professorships anyway

Haberler’s Protest: Preface to his Colleagues

Haberler’s Protest in Full

CONFIDENTIAL.

The Provost is not amused [No letterhead, unsigned. Apparently a copy.]

C O N F I D E N T I A L

REPORT ON LONG-RANGE PLANS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS (REVISED EDITION)

February 25, 1948

VERY CONFIDENTIAL

Reports to the Dean of Harvard from the Department of Economics.

1946-1947

1947-1948

1948-1949

1949-1950

[Draft] Report to Dean, October 2, 1950 Professor Burbank

1949-1950

I. Undergraduate Instruction

II. Graduate Instruction

III. Research

IV. The Staff of the Department

VI. [sic] Distinctions

Who ended up teaching what 1942-43

Edward Chamberlin

Gottfried Haberler

Ex Ante Course Announcement

Ex Post Course Enrollment and Staffing

Presumably the statement prepared by Edward Chamberlin (referring to himself in the third person)

Chairman Chamberlin announces his attention to return statement with statement

Chairman Chamberlin makes his written statement available to the department

Special Committee sides with Chamberlin

Report of a Special Committee on the assignment for teaching Economics 101.

Statement of the issues.

History of the case.

Meeting of the Committee.

Basic principles.

Recommendations to the Department.

Thus spake the Dean

HARVARD UNIVERSITY CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

_______________________

1941-42

_______________________

1942-43

_______________________

1943-44

_______________________

1944-45

_______________________

1945-46

46 Harvard Faculty Members
Back O’Connell Peace Bill
16 Professors Among Signers of Petition

Montana Representative Main Speaker at Peace Rally in Cambridge
— Points to Danger From Reactionaries in U.S.

About Chairman John T. Dunlop
(Harvard Album, 1960)

Report
Department of Economics, 1961-1962

All three were eventually given
Harvard professorships anyway

Haberler’s Protest:
Preface to his Colleagues

The Provost is not amused
[No letterhead, unsigned.
Apparently a copy.]

REPORT ON LONG-RANGE PLANS
FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
(REVISED EDITION)

Reports to the Dean of Harvard
from the Department of Economics.

[Draft] Report to Dean, October 2, 1950
Professor Burbank

**VI. [sic] Distinctions**

Report of a Special Committee
on the assignment for teaching Economics 101.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS