Tag: Kuznets

Categories
Economists Harvard

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

John T. Dunlop

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.

Categories
Economists Harvard Teaching Undergraduate

Harvard. Annual Economics Newsletter. 1 June 1960

This three page departmental newsletter for Harvard economics from the end of the academic year 1959-60 is found in Edward H. Chamberlin papers curated at the Economists’ Papers Archive at Duke University. Among other things we learn from this newsletter is that a year’s course “Mathematics for Economists” was able to satisfy the foreign language requirement, or expressed differently, the punishment for receiving a grade less than B in the first semester of the math course was being required to pass a rigorous foreign language examination. 

Of course, finding this I wonder where I can find the first four issues of the Harvard Economics Newsletter.

___________________________

ECONOMICS NEWSLETTER
Fifth Annual Issue, June 1, 1960

UNDERGRADUATE INSTRUCTION:

The Department has been engaged in a study of its undergraduate curriculum over the past year and has now adopted a substantial series of changes in concentration requirements and, more particularly, in the undergraduate course offerings. The basic principles underlying the revisions were set out in a report of the Committee on Undergraduate Instruction under the chairmanship of Professor John Dunlop. These principles, briefly, were that the undergraduate program is “part of a liberal education” and, except in very special cases, is “not designed as professional training in Economics”; that the undergraduate program should be “clearly differentiated” from the graduate program; that the undergraduate should have as much flexibility as possible in choosing courses of interest to him; that close attention should be given to the teaching of Economics courses and to the balance of analytic and institutional material in each.

These principles clearly indicate a concern on the part of the Department that the undergraduate program may tend to become subordinate to the graduate program unless specific attention is paid to the particular interests and objectives of the younger student. The revisions, therefore, are in the direction of making a greater number of courses (particularly half-courses) open to undergraduates; breaking the traditional parallelism between graduate and undergraduate courses; and emphasizing historical, institutional and policy questions which will be of interest not only to the Economics concentrator but to able concentrators in other fields. To make certain that this greater freedom of choice does not lead to a lack of coherence, a certain “progression” has been introduced in the course offering and Honors candidates are required to take at least one “advanced” course in the area of their choice.

The sum total of these changes gives us a field of concentration which we believe will better serve the purposes of a liberal arts college. So far as undergraduate reaction is concerned, it will not be until the changes have gone into effect next year that we will be able to judge the response effectively. It is of interest, however, that the Crimson, not an altogether silent critic in the past, has called the new program a “model” which other departments might wisely study.

MATHEMATICS- LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT:

Realizing that mathematical competence is growing more important in most branches of economic work than linguistic ability, the Department has revised the language requirement in the following manner:

A full course entitled “Mathematics for Economists” has been established. All graduate students are now required to take and pass the first half of this course or pass an equivalent mathematics examination. Those who pass with at least a B may take the second half of the course, and no language will be required.

Those students who desire fluency in a foreign language or who receive a grade less than B in the first half of the mathematics course must complete the mathematics-language requirement by passing a rigorous language examination.

THE ECONOMICS OF HIGHER EDUCATION:

Professor Seymour E. Harris has been on leave this year on a Ford Fellowship, to complete the study of the Economics of Higher Education. He has visited more than 100 colleges and universities, and has submitted the following report for inclusion in this year’s Newsletter:

There were three resultant manuscripts:

  1. More Resources for Education (John Dewey Lecture), Harpers, 1960
  2. Economics and Educational Value. Edited volume based on seminar in 1958-59 for College Administrators. (Assisted by Richard Cooper and Reginald Green). Harvard University Press, 1960.
  3. Economics of Higher Education, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961.

A questionnaire sent to about 200 economists revealed attitudes towards higher education.  A considerable sentiment for:

    1. Higher tuition if accompanied by improved financing methods. But fear expressed of resultant excessive gains of enrollment for public institutions, increased recourse to colleges near home, a tendency to favor high income groups and endanger the position of many vulnerable private institutions.
    2. General agreement that much greater recourse to loans is practical. But some economists expressed dissatisfaction with the idea that young men and women should be encouraged to borrow. Furthermore, they are unaccustomed to seeking large credits.
    3. Economists generally envisaged the possibility of substantial economies — better use of plant, reduced number of courses, etc. But it was hoped that small discussion groups would not be eliminated.
PERSONNEL:

Professor Simon KUZNETS, now at Johns Hopkins, and Professor Hendrik HOUTHAKKER, now at Stanford, will join our staff next year.

Professor Otto ECKSTEIN has recently been promoted to Associate Professor of Economics. This fall he was in Washington, where he was Technical Director for the Douglas Committee investigating prices, wages, productivity, etc. Now he is in Europe working for the O.E.E.C. Professor GALBRAITH has been on leave in Switzerland for the spring term, working on a new book on corporation organization. Professor KAYSEN been working for Doxiadis Associates in Athens this year, making a study of Greek economy.

Professor James McKIE from Vanderbilt and Professor Henri THEIL from the Econometric Institute in the Netherlands have been visiting members of our staff this year.

Professor DUNLOP is President of the Industrial Relations Research Association for 1960. He has also been appointed to the President’s Committee investigating non-operating unions on the railroads.

Professor MASON has edited a book, Corporation and Modern Society. Professor DUESENBERRY has been working on his Capital Markets Project, supported by a grant from the Merrill Foundation to the Business School. Professor GERSCHENKRON’s Economic History Workshop, under a grant from the Ford Foundation, began operation in the fall of 1959.

Professor LEONTIEF gave three public lectures as Hitchcock Professor at the University of California in November 1959. Now he is in Argentina at the invitation of the University of Buenos Aires, where he is giving some lectures. He has been sent by ICA and will be there about two weeks. On the way back he will be stopping in Rio de Janeiro to give a lecture at the invitation of the Getulio Vergas Foundation.

Professor DORFMAN will be on leave next year, when he will be at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Stanford, California.

The Department was saddened by the deaths of Professor SLICHTER in September 1959 and of Mrs. John H. WILLIAMS and Professor BLACK in April 1960.

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

Image Source: “Overhead of empty Harvard Sq.” (1961) Cambridge Historical Commission, Cambridge Photo Morgue Collection. Digital Commonwealth, Massachusetts Collections Online.

Categories
Federal Government Statistics Suggested Reading

Government Statistics. Centenary History of the U.S. Survey of Current Business. Reamer, 2020

While trawling the internet for a ca. 1920 photo of Edwin Francis Gay for another post (coming attraction), I found the following history of the Department of Commerce’s publication “Survey of Current Business” commissioned for the occasion of the centenary celebration of its founding. We encounter Herbert Hoover, Wesley Clair Mitchell, Edwin Francis Gay, and Simon Kuznets on page one of the history…

_______________________

The Origins of
the Survey of Current Business:
A Window on the Evolution of Economic Policy, Research, and Statistics

By Andrew D. Reamer

For decades, the Survey of Current Business, the flagship monthly publication of the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), has provided macro-, industry, international, and regional economists with data, analysis, and methodological research concerning the national economic accounts. This was not always so.

The Survey was founded in July 1921 as Department of Commerce (DOC) Secretary Herbert Hoover’s primary tool to promote macroeconomic stabilization. Specifically, the Survey published current, detailed industry-specific data from hundreds of public and private secondary sources so businesses might make better operational and investment decisions. One decade and a Great Depression later, the extensive statistical clearinghouse feeding the Survey became the foundation for Simon Kuznets’ famed study of national income and the subsequent development of national economic accounting.

The Survey’s creation and its later repurposing were the results of efforts by economists Edwin Gay and Wesley Mitchell, largely through a series of collaborations with Hoover between 1921 and 1933. As members of Hoover’s Joint Census Advisory Committee, Gay and Mitchell recommended the Survey’s development, modeled on the statistical clearinghouse they created to guide federal economic planning in the First World War. As founding leaders of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), they guided path-setting studies of national income and business cycles, several commissioned by Hoover; trained and hired Kuznets, who contributed to several NBER studies, including one for Hoover; and detailed Kuznets to the DOC to prepare the groundbreaking national income report.

This article begins by describing the Survey’s role in economic stabilization policy in the 1920s and the development of national economic accounting in the 1930s. The succeeding sections unpack this story by delving into how the Survey came to play these successive roles, particularly through Gay, Mitchell, and Hoover’s efforts. …

Source: From “Chronicling 100 Years of the U.S. Economy,” Survey of Current Business Vol. 100, No. 10 (October 2020)

Links to archived versions of the full article: htm; pdf.

Image Source: Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover, ca.1921. From the blog of the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum.

Categories
Economic History Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania. Rejected proposal to the Committee on Research in Economic History. Kuznets, ca. 1941

 

The economic historian Earl J. Hamilton’s papers at the Economists’ Papers Archive at Duke University are, we shall say, rather disheveled, though not quite in the archival dusty way that John Maurice Clark’s papers at Columbia University are found by the rummaging historian. There are numbers of folders that might as easily be labelled “Everything plus the kitchen sink, 1930-1970” and it was in one such folder that the following undated memorandum of Simon Kuznets was found.

The backstory to this memo is that sometime around 1941 Simon Kuznets (then a forty-year old professor at the University of Pennsylvania) self-nominated his quantitative approach to economic history to become one of the pillars of a major project in economic history to be supported by the Rockefeller Foundation through the Social Science Research Council. His project was rejected which just might have had something to do with his later resignation from the Committee. The larger context is described in Arthur H. Cole. The Committee on Research in Economic History: An Historical Sketch. The Journal of Economic History, vol. XXX, No. 4 (December 1970), pp. 723-741.

In the debate pertinent to the fields most worthwhile for the Committee, considering the whole situation of public needs, quantum of research funds, paucity of existing talent, and the like, two proposals were elaborated for Committee consideration, both of which caused much debate and a postponement of decision on the selection of suitable subjects. One was submitted by [Edwin] Gay. He had apparently been much impressed by the summaries of changes in national foreign policies which Arnold Toynbee was then preparing for publication in England. (One of Gay’s personal connections was that of treasurer and active member of the Council on Foreign Relations.) He suggested a continuing group to record the significant alterations of conditions in the principal segments of the American economy. After lengthy debate, it was decided that this project would entail too great a commitment of our limited funds, and the proposition was tabled-and never called back into debate. The second scheme was that which Kuznets has prosecuted over the past two or three decades. At the period of our debate, he seemed unable to outline his program and define his objectives in a manner that satisfied his fellow members of the group. In the end this proposal also was shelved-permanently. Happily Kuznets did secure other financial backing within a few years and has been busy with the investigation ever since: the measurement of economic change and a determination of its cause. [p. 728]

In an earlier article, the (losing) Kuznets and Gay proposals were not mentioned however the winning topics were named in Arthur H. Cole, Committee on Research in Economic History: A Description of Its Purposes, Activities, and Organization. The Journal of Economic History. Vol. 13, No. 1 (Winter, 1953), pp. 79-87.

The Committee on Research in Economic History owes its start to the scholarly interests of Dr. Joseph H. Willits and Dr. Anne Bezanson, at that time both associated with the Rockefeller Foundation. A committee of inquiry was nominated by them; a report of the needs of economic history was drafted by the committee; and, at the instance of Dr. Willits, a grant was made by the Foundation. In all these latter proceedings, Dr. Edwin F. Gay, director of research at the Huntington Library and the dean of American economic historians, was the energizing element. The grant was made in 1940.
During the following ten years, the committee operated as an organ of the Social Science Research Council. Subsequently it withdrew from the Council, secured incorporation as a nonprofit institution under the laws of the District of Columbia, and is now an independent body.
The objective specified for the committee in the grant of the Rockefeller Foundation was broad but simple: merely to develop the field of economic History….
…The specific areas in economic history which the committee found to be especially worthy of research attention and to which it decided initially to devote effort were (i) the relation of the state to American economic development; (2) the evolution of the corporation in the United States and Canada; (3) the history of banking in these same areas; and (4 ) the role of entrepreneurship in our economic progress. [pp. 79-80]

_________________________

Memorandum on General Bases of the Research Program

To: Members of Committee on Research in Economic History
From: Simon Kuznets

  1. The concern of economic history is to describe and analyse changes over time in the structure and performance of an economic system. This should comprise not only qualitative changes in character of economic organization or faults in its structure (associated with such events as wars or revolutions), but also (b) quantitative measures of the economic factors and of their performance. Whatever may be said of the adequacy with which the discipline of economic history carried through task (a), it has, for various reasons, neglected (b). Yet it is in the combination of study of qualitative changes and structural faults with a quantitative analysis of factors, their interrelations and their performance, that lies the way to significant results.
  2. The aims of economic history may be viewed as (a) providing economic changes, raw materials so as to reveal the lines of causal relation among them, and the patterns of quantitative change — all in application to the concrete historical unfolding of economic events, but with a view to results that can serve as tests and cornerstones for analysis of the present and prognosis of the future. The two aims are interdependent. Whatever may be said of the past efficiency of the discipline of economic history in satisfying aim (a), there appears to be a pressing need for strengthening its performance in attaining aim (b). Also, there is an obvious relation between the neglect by economic history in the past of quantitative analysis of the substantive performance of the economic system and its failure to interpret economic change in analytical categories (i.e., between 1b and 2b)
  3. The adequacy or inadequacy of any specific study of qualitative changes in economic structure, or of any collection of raw materials, is to be judged in terms of the analytical uses to which the results can be put. The need for new data, whether qualitative or quantitative, can be seen clearly only in the light of a study guided by some significant problem which one intends to analyse in terms of historical experience. There is no way, barring the extreme and unimportant cases of complete absence of any empirical data, to determine the adequacy of raw materials and the character of the lacunae, except by coming to the data with a broad and well articulated question to which one seeks an answer.
  4. Hence, the Committee should, in planning its research program, consider the advisability of selecting at least one broad problem, one comprehensive study that could serve as a focus of whatever narrower undertakings may be launched. In view of the need of emphasizing a combination of historical-qualitative, statistical and analytical methods of inquiry, the broad central study should force the investigators to use fully each and all of these types of research tools. This, of course, does not mean that similar combination of research tools should not be employed in any of the narrower studies the Committee may wish to launch.
  5. As stated in my earlier communication, it seems to me that such a central comprehensive study could be formulated on, the broad topic of economic change in this country, to comprise: (a) a study of long term changes; (b) a study of shorter term recurrent fluctuations; and supplemented by (c) a chronological record of specific changes of the type provided by economic annals. (a) The study of long term or secular changes would deal with the quantitative aspects of the growth of population, production, size and organization of enterprise, various facets of the trade, transportation and credit systems, relation of domestic and foreign trade, relation of government etc. to the economic system, and so on. It would attempt to show how fast or slow such changes were in the past; what were the quantitatively measurable or qualitatively recordable factors that appeared to determine these rates or their changes; and what elements of persistence and variation in these long term trends can be discerned. (b) The study of shorter term fluctuations would attempt to present a record of business cycles in this country in their historical succession their peculiarities, in the light of qualitative and quantitative data available as well as of the hypotheses offered by economic theory. (c) Economic annals will seek to record the succession of specific events, which are of bearing upon both long and short term changes in the economy, events that do not appear clearly in continuous quantitative records. They will thus provide largely the qualitative materials needed for studies (a) and (b), and indeed will follow the principles of selection imposed by these broader studies.
  6. Objections may be raised to the effect that such studies are impossibly wide; that we don’t have the materials for a complete story of secular changes of business cycles in the economy of this country; that the compilation of economic annals, if taken seriously, would alone absorb the efforts of a score of investigators for years to come. To all these objections I would reply that to wait with initiation of such broad, synthetic studies until materials are relatively complete would be to wait until the Greek Kalends; that if such studies are essentially impossible, we had better give up economic history; and that we shall contribute much more to the enrichment of society’s knowledge and understanding through a glorious allure in such broad undertakings than through inglorious successes in more specific, pedestrian studies. I would also point to a complete absence of even a single broad history of business fluctuations in this country: to the relative inadequacy of the synthesis of secular changes offered in the available literature; and to the reasonable assumption that a tentative synthesis now is not the less valuable because it is necessarily tentative and will give room to a more thoroughly grounded one in the decades to come.
  7. The need for such a broad comprehensive study is suggested also by the following two considerations. First, a large literature already exists on the long term changes in various special fields, such as population various industries, some segments of the banking system, foreign trade, tariffs, business organization, etc.; and yet there are few thoroughgoing attempts, if any, to pull the threads together and weave the secular tendencies in these various, essentially related aspects of the economic system into a coherent study that would use adequately quantitative and qualitative data as well as theoretical hypotheses. On cyclical fluctuations too there are a number of special published studies, inadequate as they may be in toto. Even if the proposed inquiries of secular change and of business cycles accomplish nothing more than to bring the results of already published studies together, evaluate them critically, and point to the questions still unanswered, a valuable service will be performed. But naturally, the inquiries proposed may and will in addition utilize primary data that have not yet been analysed and published.
  8. The second important consideration is that at present, in times of rapid change in structure and performance of our economic and social system, it is particularly necessary to think through our past in terms that will shed some light on the present and on the future. I do not suggest that the broad studies proposed will provide a definitive answer as to where we go from here, or enable us to establish immutable trends and laws. But they should help us to distinguish durable from transient phenomena; guard us and others against interpreting the past and present in terms of emotionally determined patters of group or class thinking; and thus bring the results of dispassionate social study to bear most efficiently and directly to the understanding and solution of present problems. I fail to see how studies of narrower scope can be expected to perform this important function.
  9. It will be noted that the broad studies proposed involve no confining scheme except the distinction among various types of economic change by the temporal span of their persistence. This distinction is so fundamental that it cannot and should not be neglected in any historical study. Within the framework of each type of change, all the related processes of economic life should be considered — in proportion to their relative importance in determining the character and significance of the changes under study. The other topics suggested in our discussions and correspondence so far, such as the increasing control by the state, or influence of free land, or studies of firms in a given industry, or studies of a region, all appear to be too narrow to serve as the focusing point and central study of the Committee’s research program. They can be justified only within a broader framework that should explain why this and not another facet of economic life is to be studied; and how the studies so circumscribed can be expected to yield results of analytical validity without consideration of related factors presumably excluded.
  10. The carrying out of the central, basic group of studies would provide the justification for narrower undertakings, since they will supply the framework for the latter. It is the broad picture of secular changes and recurrent fluctuations in the economy of this country that will provide the needed background against which, e.g., a tendency towards increasing control by the state can be understood and studied. This does not mean that in actual practice we should wait with beginning the more specific studies until the synthetic studies are completed. But it does mean that the latter are an indispensable core of the program; should be envisaged, planned, and initiated among the first; and serve throughout the Committee’s activity as the focusing point of the whole range of undertakings.
  11. The narrower studies should be launched only in so far as they are seen to contribute to the broader picture of trends and fluctuations in this country’s economy: either directly and immediately through their results or because they suggest new types of data, new types of approach, new methods which we wish to encourage because, if multiplied and followed, they will add significantly to the understanding of changes in the past and present. Some such criterion is indispensable if we are to guard against lowering the potential value of our efforts by devoting them to following beaten tracks, and adding to a large body of already existing data another batch, of low marginal utility.
  12. This memorandum is intended as an amplification of the proposals submitted before; and to serve, if the Committee so wishes, as a basis for discussion at its forthcoming meeting. It need not be added that, strongly as I am inclined to the views presented here, I realize that they may be unduly influenced by past personal experience in economic and statistical research, by ignorance of the literature of economic history, and by a predilection towards broad canvas and general results; and I am therefore looking forward with interest to whatever critical comments the members of the Committee may wish to offer.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Earl J. Hamilton Papers, Box 2, Folder “Correspondence—Misc. 1930’s-1960s and n.d.”.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Economics of population growth. Syllabus and examination. Kuznets, 1963

Simon Kuznets was born in Pinsk (Russian Empire, now Belarus) April 30, 1901. He went to secondary school in Rovno and in Kharkov. In 1918–1921 he attended Kharkov Commercial Institute, after which he worked 1921–1922 in the Department of Labor Statistics of South Bureau of Council of Trade Unions. His family emigrated to the United States in 1922.

The Kharkiv National University of Economics in Ukraine was named after Simon Kuznets in 2013.

Previously transcribed and posted here at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror: materials from Simon Kuznets’ 1960-61 Harvard course, Economics 203 “Economic Growth and Comparative Economic Structures”.

____________________________

Course Announcement

Economics 286. Economics of Population Growth
Half course (spring term). Tu., 2-3:30. Professor Kuznets.

A review of long-term trends in growth and structure of population and of their economic implications.

Source: Harvard University. Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Courses of Instruction for Harvard and Radcliffe, 1962-1963. Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. LIX, No. 17 (August 20, 1962), p. 108.

____________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics
Economics 286
Professor Kuznets

Spring Term, 1963

List of Readings (preliminary)

The Malthusian Theory

  1. T. R. Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, 1st edition 1798, reprinted by Macmillan 1929 (or other reprints)
  2. James Bonar, Malthus and His Work, London 1885, reprinted in 1924, (particularly Book I, pp. 1-207)

(For Browsing)

  1. Kenneth Smith, The Malthusian Controversy, London 1951
  2. Harold A. Boner, Hungry Generations, New York 1955

The Low-level Equilibrium Trap

  1. R. R. Nelson, A Theory of the Low-Level Equilibrium Trap, American Economic Review, December 1956, pp. 894-908
  2. Harvey Leibenstein, Economic Backwardness and Economic Growth, New York 1957, Chapter 10, pp. 117-173

Historical Background

  1. United Nations, The Determinants and Consequences of Population Trends, New York 1953, Chapter II, pp. 5-20

Mortality

  1. United Nations, volume listed under (7), Chapter IV, pp. 47-70
  2. George J. Stolnitz, A Century of International Mortality Trends, Population Studies, vol, IX, no. 1, July 1955, pp. 24-55 and vol. X no. 1, July 1956, pp. 17-42

(For Browsing)

  1. Thomas McKeown and R. S. Record, two papers on causes of decline in mortality in England in the 18th and in the 19th centuries, Population Studies, vol. IX, 1955, pp. 119-41 and vol. XVI, 1962, pp. 94-122

Fertility

  1. United Nations, volume listed under (7), Chapter V, pp. 71-97
  2. Frank Lorimer, Culture and Human Fertility, UNESCO 1954, pp. 15-251
  3. Kingsley Davis and Judith Blake, Social Structure and Fertility: An Analytic Framework, Economic Development and Cultural Change, vol. IV, no. 3, April 1956, pp. 211-35
  4. Gary S. Becker, An Economic Analysis of Fertility, Demographic and Economic Change in Developed Countries, Universities-NBER Committee volume, Princeton 1960, pp. 209-240
  5. E. E. Hagen, Population and Economic Growth, American Economic Review June 1959, pp. 310-327

Migration

  1. United Nations, volume listed under (7), Chapter VI, pp. 98-134

Economic Implications

  1. United Nations, volume listed under (7), Chapter XIII, pp. 220-38
  2. Simon Kuznets, Population Change and Aggregate Output, in the volume listed under (6), pp. 324-351
  3. Ansley J. Coale and Edgar M. Hoover, Population Growth and Economic Development in Low Income Countries, Princeton 1958, Part Five, pp. 295-335

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003, Folder “Economics, 1962-1963 (2 of 2)”.

____________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Economics 286
Examination, May 23, 1963

Please answer six and no more than eight questions, choosing at least one question in each of the four Roman numeral groups.

A detailed outline of an answer is a good substitute for writing out the answer in full,

Please write legibly.

I

  1. What are the connections in the Malthusian theory of population growth among the rate of natural increase of population, the “Iron” law of wages, and the law of diminishing returns? In answering consider birth and death rates separately.
  2. What assumptions are made in the low-level equilibrium trap theories concerning the connection between death rates and per capita income? Concerning the connection between birth rates and per capita income? Discuss the validity of these assumptions.

II

  1. What factors made for significant declines in mortality in the period since the late 18th century? In outlining the groups of factors involved, suggest why the declines were delayed for long periods in the 19th century in many developed countries.
  2. Indicate the differences in magnitudes of decline in mortality among (a) age groups; (b) sex groups; (c) urban and rural population. Select any two of these for a discussion of the factors that may have been responsible for the differences in magnitude of mortality decline.

III

  1. Outline the major trends in the birth rates since late 18th century in: (a) older developed countries of Europe; (b) younger offshoots of Europe overseas; (c) underdeveloped countries. In answering the questions, indicate, in case trends are significant, whether they apply to crude rates alone or also to rates per woman of child-bearing age and per married woman of child-bearing age.
  2. What groups of factors have been suggested to account for the downward trends in birth rates in the developed countries? In outlining these, and the relevant theories, mention also the cross-section differentials in birth rates that provide the empirical base for such theories.
  3. What do the current differences in crude birth rates between developed and underdeveloped countries reflect in the way of different marriage rates, different ages of women at marriage, differential fertility by age of mother and age of father, total number of children in a completed family? Suggest some economic implications of these differences.

IV

  1. What relationship between population trends and economic trend account for much of internal and external migration observed since the late 18th century in and among developed countries? In answering, try to specify as closely as possible the economic and the population trends involved.
  2. What effects on the efficiency of labor can be ascribed to internal (and external) migration in developed countries? Indicate briefly the various types of effect that might be usefully distinguished.
  3. What effects on the pattern of life and consumption of the population can be ascribed to internal (and external) migration in developed countries? Indicate briefly the various type of effect that might be usefully distinguished.

Source: Harvard University. Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Papers Printed for Final Examinations [in] History, History of Religions, … , Economics, …Naval Science, Air Science. June 1963. In bound volume: Social Sciences, Final Examinations, June 1963 (HUC 7000.28, Vol. 147 of 284).

Image Source: Simon Kuznets portrait from 1971 in Wikipedia Commons.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Readings, midterm and final exams for economic growth course. Kuznets, 1960-61

 

Simon Kuznets (b. 1901; d. 1985) left Johns Hopkins University to join the Harvard economics faculty beginning with the 1960-61 academic year. This post provides the reading list and exams for Kuznets’ signature course on economic growth from his first year as a Harvard professor. 

_________________________

Course Enrollment

[Economics] 203 Economic Growth and Comparative Economic Structures. Professor Kuznets. Full course.

(F) Total 23: 12 Graduates, 1 Senior, 1 Junior, 2 Radcliffe, 7 Other Graduate.

(S) Total 22: 12 Graduates, 1 Senior, 1 Junior, 2 Radcliffe, 6 Other Graduates.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1960-1961, p. 77.

_________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics
Economics 203

Long Term Changes and International Differences—National Income and its Components

GENERAL

  1. Simon Kuznets, “National Income and Industrial Structure,” in Economic Change, Chapter 6, 145-192.
  2. Simon Kuznets, “International Differences in Income Levels,” ibid., pp. 216-252.
  3. Colin Clark, Conditions of Economic Progress, 3rd Edition 1957 or any of the earlier editions (for browsing).
  4. M. Gilbert and I.B. Kravis, An International Comparison of National Products and the Purchasing Power of Currencies, Paris, O.E.E.C., 1954.
    or (Comparative National Products and Price Levels, 1958)

RATES OF GROWTH

  1. Simon Kuznets, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. V, no. 1, October 1956.
  2. Simon Kuznets, Six Lectures on Economic Growth, Free Press, 1959, pp. 13-41.

INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE

  1. A.G.B. Fisher, The Class of Progress and Security, London 1935.
  2. E.M. Ojala, Agriculture and Economic Progress, Oxford University Press, 1952.
  3. T.W. Schultz, The Economic Organization of Agriculture, N.Y. 1953, part I.
  4. Hollis B. Chenery, “Patterns of Industrial Growth,” American Economic Review, September 1960, pp. 624-654.
  5. P.T. Bauer and B.S. Yamey, Economic Journal, December 1951, pp. 741-755.
  6. Simon Kuznets, Economic Development and Cultural Change, (a) Supplement to No. 4, Vol. V, July 1957; (b) Part 2, Vol. VI, July 1958, also Six Lectures on Economic Growth, pp. 43-67.

FACTOR SHARES

  1. R. M. Solow, “The Constancy of Relative Shares,” American Economic Review, September 1952, pp. 618-30.
  2. I. B. Kravis, “Relative Income Shares in Fact and Theory,” American Economic Review, December 1959, pp. 917-947.
  3. Simon Kuznets, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. III, No. 3, Part 2, April 1959.

CAPITAL FORMATION

  1. M. Abramovitz, ed., Capital Formation and Economic Growth, Princeton 1955. Papers by Kuznets, Goldsmith, Usher, MacLaurin, and Rostow.
  2. Simon Kuznets, Economic Development and Cultural Change,
    (a) Vol. VIII, no. 4, Part II, July 1960.
    (b) Vol. IX, no. 3, Part II, April 1961

CONSUMPTION PATTERNS

  1. M. K. Bennett, “International Disparities in Consumption Levels,” American Economic Review, September 1951, pp. 632-649.
  2. Simon Kuznets, Regional Economic Trends and Levels of Living,” in P.M. Hauser, Population and World Politics, Free Press 1958.
  3. International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, Income and Wealth Series II, Chapter VI, particularly pp. 167-177. (1953)

INCOME DISTRIBUTION BY SIZE

  1. I. B. Kravis, “International Differences in the Distribution of Income,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, November 1960, pp. 402-416.
  2. Simon Kuznets, “Economic Growth and Income Inequality,” American Economic Review, March 1955, pp. 1-28.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003. Box 8, Folder “Economics, 1960-1961 (2 of 2)”.

_________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Economics 203
Midyear Examination
January 1961

Choose 6 out of the 8 questions, omitting one out of group 2-5 and one out of group 6-8.

Please write clearly and concisely. An outline of the answer rather than a full presentation is also acceptable, provided the outline is sufficiently detailed and informative.

  1. Outline the time pattern of rates of natural increase of population in the transition from the pre-modern period to modern growth, distinguishing movements of birth rates and death rates, separately for the older (European) and younger (overseas) countries. Comment briefly on probable causes.
  2. State the connection between Malthus’ population theory, the theory of differential rent, the law of diminishing returns, the iron law of wages, and the theory of long-term trends in distribution of national product and of the approach to the stationary state.
  3. Outline the types of evidence claimed in support of Pearl’s “law of population growth” and comment on their validity.
  4. What is the general structure of assumptions underlying an empirical projection of population growth? Distinguish the theory of the model from the theory of deviations and comment briefly on each.
  5. Indicate the reasons adduced by Alvin Hansen to demonstrate the depressive effects on economic growth of retardation in the growth of population, and evaluate them.
  6. Outline the major features of trans-ocean trade in the centuries immediately prior to the industrial revolution, and the various contributions made by it to the emergence of modern capitalism.
  7. Why was the industrial revolution concentrated primarily in cotton, iron, steel, and steam power?
  8. Discuss the slackening in the rate of technical change in the cotton textile industry after the mid-nineteenth century, as well as in the economic effects of technical change in the industry. Indicate both the ways of measuring the changes, and the reasons for slackening in the rate of their occurrence.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Social Sciences, Final Examinations. Vol. 131. January 1961. Papers Printed for Final Examinations. History, History of Religions, …, Economics, …, Naval Science, Air Science. January 1961.

_________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Economics 203
Final Examination
June 6, 1961

Answer at least 4 questions, choosing at least one from each of the four Roman numeral groups. You may answer more if you wish. A detailed outline of an answer, instead of a complete text, is acceptable.

Group I

  1. In what sense is the association between technical changes and scientific discoveries, illustrated by the history of the radio industry, different from that characterizing the inventions of the Industrial Revolution? Discuss.
  2. Outline (and discuss) factors making for a retardation in the rate of growth, observable in most specific industries in the Western European countries and in the United States.

Group II

  1. Indicate properties of national income or product estimates as measures of economic growth. Consider particularly limitations arising out of difficulties as to scope, netness, and valuation.
  2. What are the implications of the rates of growth in per capita product, observed for the past half century or longer for the developed countries, as to the comparative levels of per capita product in underdeveloped countries today and in the presently developed countries just prior to their industrialization? Discuss.

Group III

  1. Discuss the factors involved in the long-term decline, in the process of modern economic growth, in the share of agriculture in national product? In labor force? Distinguish clearly between the trends in the share in product and in the share in labor force.
  2. How do you explain the rise in the shares of labor force attached to the service industries in the course of economic growth? Define the service industries before answering the question.

Group IV

  1. Define various types of proportion of capital formation to aggregate product (gross-net, domestic-national, etc.) that can be calculated; the corresponding types of capital-output ratios; and discuss their possible use in the analysis of economic growth.
  2. Discuss factors that might have made for a rising trend in the proportion of capital formation to national product observed in many (if not all) countries. Distinguish between gross and net capital formation proportions; and between domestic and national.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Social Sciences, Final Examinations. Vol. 134. June 1961. Papers Printed for Final Examinations. History, History of Religions, …, Economics, …, Naval Science, Air Science. June 1961.

Image Source: National Academy of Sciences. 2001. Biographical Memoirs: Volume 79. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, p. 202.

Categories
Columbia Economists NBER

Columbia Alumnus Arthur F. Burns applies to NBER for Research Associateship, 1930

 

 

Arthur F. Burns was twenty-five years old when he submitted the following application for a Research Associate position that provided 11 months funding at the National Bureau of Economic Research. Results from this project would be ultimately incorporated into Burns’ doctoral dissertation published as the NBER monograph Production Trends in the United States Since 1870 (1934).

_____________________

Arthur F. Burns’ late NBER application forwarded to Edwin Gay

National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

February 25, 1930

Dr. Edwin F. Gay
117 Widener Library
Harvard University
Cambridge, Mass.

Dear Dr. Gay:

The attached application of Mr. Arthur Frank Burns has just been received. Athough the time limit has passed, you might wish to consider it, and I am therefore forwarding it to you.

Yours very truly,
[signed] G. R. Stahl
Executive Secretary

GRS:RD

[handwritten note]
[Frederick C.] Mills knows something about this man and regards him favorably.

_____________________

NBER Research Associate Application of Arthur F. Burns
(February, 1930)

National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

51 Madison Avenue
New York

RESEARCH ASSOCIATES’ APPLICATION FORM

Applications and accompanying documents should be sent by registered mail and must reach Directors of Research not later than February 1, 1930. Six typewritten copies (legible carbons) should accompany each formal application.

Candidates should have familiarized themselves with the main objects and work of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Candidates are expected to be in good health, free from physical or nervous troubles, and able to complete their work in New York without predictable interruption.

Research Associates will not accept other remunerative employment while connected with the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Candidates’ names should be written plainly on each manuscript.

Title of Project

A Study of Long-Time Indexes of Production

Name of Candidate

Arthur Frank Burns

Date of Application

February 21, 1930

 

THE CANDIDATE

PERSONAL HISTORY:

Name in full: Arthur Frank Burns
Home address: 34 Bethune St., New York City
Present occupation: University teaching
Place of birth: Stanislawow, Poland
Date of birth: April 27, 1904
If not a native-born citizen, date and place of naturalization: About 1920; Bayonne, New Jersey
Single, married: Married
Name and address of wife or husband: Helen, 34 Bethune Street
Name and address of nearest kin if unmarried: [blank]
Number, relationship, and ages of dependents: [blank]

Name the colleges and universities you have attended; length of residence in each; also major and minor studies pursued.

Columbia College, Sept. 1921-Feb. 1925. Majors—Economics, German. Minors—English, History
Columbia University, Feb. 1925-June 1927. Major—Economics. Minor—Statistics.

List the degrees you have received with the years in which they were conferred.

B.A.—Feb. 1925
M.A.—Oct. 1925

Give a list of scholarships or fellowships previously held or now held, stating in each case place and period of tenure, studies pursued and amount of stipend:

Columbia College Scholarship, 1921-1924. $250 per annum
Gilder Fellowship, Academic Year 1926-1927, Columbia University. Stipend $1200. Chief study pursued—Monetary Theory

What foreign languages are you able to use?

French and German

 

ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

Give a list of positions you have held—professional, teaching, scientific, administrative, business:

Name of Institution

Title of Position

Years of Tenure
Columbia University

Instructor in Extension

Feb. 1926-June 1927

Soc. Science Res. Co.

 Report on Periodicals Summer of 1927
Rutgers University Instructor

1927 to date

Of what learned or scientific societies are you a member?

Phi Beta Kappa
American Statistical Society

Describe briefly the advanced work and research you have already done in this country or abroad, giving dates, subjects, and names of your principal teachers in these subjects:

Master’s essay on Employment Statistics, under Professors F.A. Ross and W.C. Mitchell, in 1925
Studies in the field of Business Cycles, under Professor W.C. Mitchell, 1926 to date
Studies in the field of Monetary Theory, under Professors Mitchell and Willis, 1926-1927
Work on Negro Migration, under Professor F.A. Ross, Summer of 1925
Work on Instalment Selling, under Professor E.R.A. Seligman, Summer of 1926
Report on Social Science Periodicals for the Social Science Research  Council, under Professor F. Stuart Chapin, Summer of 1927.

Submit a list of your publications with exact titles, names of publishers and dates and places of publication:

See separate sheet on publications

THE PROJECT

PLANS FOR STUDY:

Submit a statement (six copies) giving detailed plans for the study you would pursue during your tenure of an Associateship. This statement should include:

(1) A description of the project including its character and scope, and the significance of its presumable contribution to knowledge. Describe how the inquiry is to be conducted, major expected sources of information, etc.
(2) The present state of the project, time of commencement, progress to date, and expectation as to completion.
(3) A proposed budget showing the amount of any assistance, whether of a statistical or clerical nature, or traveling expense that you would require to complete your project.

REFERENCES:

Submit a list of references

(1) from whom information may be obtained concerning your qualifications, and
(2) from whom expert opinion may be obtained as to the value and practicability of your proposed studies.

_____________________

Arthur F. Burns

THE PROJECT
A Study of Long-Time Indexes of Production

            Several years ago I embarked upon an inquiry into the broad problem “The Relationship between ‘Price’ and ‘Trade’ Fluctuations.” The study had two main purposes: (1) to provide a systematic description and analysis of one structural element of the “business cycle,” (2) to determine and appraise the empirical basis for the widely held view that “business stability” may be attained through the “stabilization of the price level.” But soon enough I found it difficult to adhere to the project that I had formulated. The task in the course of execution in the statistical laboratory loomed more formidable than in the “arm-chair” in which it found its inception. But another circumstance proved even more compelling in bring about a restriction of the area of the investigation: no sooner was a small segment of the plan that served as my procedural guide completed, but a host of new queries, not at all envisaged in the original plan, arose and pressed for an answer. Thus, impelled by considerations of a practical sort—working as I did single-handed, and by a growing curiosity, I subjected the project to successive reductions of scope. The present project, “A Study of Long-Time Indexes of Production,” is the untouched, and perhaps an unrecognizable, remainder of the original inquiry. On this limited project I have been at work intermittently for about a year and a half.

            The object of the present project is to study the “secular changes” in “general production” in the United States, and thereby throw light on one important constituent aspect of the trend of “economic welfare.” The establishment of a theory of secular change in general production calls, in the main, for the performance of two tasks. In the first place, the rate of growth of the physical volume of production and its variation have to be determined. In the second place, the empirical generalizations so arrived at have to be interpreted. The general plan of the investigation is built around these two problems; but to perform these tasks adequately, a host of subsidiary problems have to be met.

            Some details of the organization of the project, as well as the point to which work on the project has been carried thus far, may best be indicated by setting forth the extent to which the tentative individual chapters have been completed. The first chapter treats of the contents of the concept “economic welfare,” and traces, analytically and historically, problems in the measurement thereof; this chapter is practically finished. The materials for the second chapter, which is devoted to the history of production indexes, have, for the greater part, already been collected; and a preliminary draft of the chapter has been completed. Much of the third chapter, which is concerned with an analysis of a conceptually ideal measure of the physical volume of production, and the special bearing of this analysis on long-time indexes of production, is written; this chapter is to be but an extension of the paper on “The Measurement of the Physical Volume of Production,” which was published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, 1930. In the fourth chapter, an analysis of the available long-time indexes of production is made; this chapter covers a much more extensive area than the brief reference to it may lead one to suppose; and though several months of continuous work have already been devoted to it, considerable literary research and statistical routine remain. The fifth and six chapters will present the results of the computations on the rate of secular change in physical production; though much ground has been covered (over one hundred trends have already been determined), even more remains to be done. Of the next and final two chapters, in which an interpretation of the computed results is to be offered, very little has been put into written form; but a substantial body of literature has been abstracted; and a preliminary outline of some portions of the theory to be presented, now that many of the calculations are completed, has been worked out.

            It will be apparent from this statement of the work already done on the project that it has reached a point where completion by the middle of 1931 may well be expected. In fact, the freedom to pursue the investigation unencumbered by academic duties may make possible a more intensive cultivation of the demarcated field than is presently contemplated; or, if it be deemed advisable, an extension of the investigation, now confined to the United States, to several other countries for which what appear to be reasonably satisfactory materials have of late become available.

            Needless to say, the above statement of the project constitutes no more than a report on its present status. There probably will be modifications of some importance. One change, in fact, is now being seriously considered: the replacement of Chapters II and III by a brief section, to be worked into the introductory chapter, to the end that a nicer balance between the divisions on, what may be described as, “data and method” and “results” be achieved.

            In continuing with this study there will be no travelling expenses to speak of. At the most, there will be a trip or two to Washington. It goes without saying that the study will proceed more rapidly if clerical assistance is had. Only a single statistical clerk would be needed, and a halftime clerk might suffice.

_____________________

Arthur F. Burns

References

Group I

Professor Robert E. Chaddock, Columbia University
Professor Wesley C. Mitchell, Columbia University
Professor H. Parker Willis, Columbia University
Professor Eugene E. Agger, Rutgers University
Professor Frank W. Taussig, Harvard University

Group II

Professor Wesley C. Mitchell, Columbia University
Professor Wilford I. King, New York University
Mr. Carl Snyder, New York Federal Reserve Bank
Dr. Edmund E. Day, Social Science Research Council
Dr. Simon Kuznets, National Bureau of Economic Research

_____________________

Arthur F. Burns

Publications

A Note on Comparative Costs, Quarterly Journal of Economics, May, 1928

The Duration of Business Cycles, Quarterly Journal of Economics, August 1929

The Geometric Mean of Percentages, Journal of the American Statistical Association, September, 1929

The Ideology of Businessmen and Presidential Elections, Southwestern Political and Social Science Quarterly, September, 1929.

Thus Spake the Professor of Statistics, Social Science, November, 1929

The Quantity Theory and Price Stabilization, American Economic Review, December, 1929

The Relative Importance of Check and Cash Payments in the United States: 1919-1928, Journal of the American Statistical Association, December, 1929

The Measurement of the Physical Volume of Production, Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, 1930

_____________________

Reference Letter:  H. P. Willis

Columbia University
in the City of New York
School of Business

February 27, 1930.

Mr. G. R. Stahl,
Executive Secretary,
National Bureau of Economic Research,
51 Madison Avenue,
New York City.

My dear Mr. Stahl:

            I have received your letter of February 26. Mr. Arthur F. Burns, whom you mention, was a student here some years ago, passed his doctorate examination with money and banking as one of his topics. I had general supervision of his work in money and banking and also came into contact with him individually now and then. I thought him a specially acute and capable student of the subject and it seemed to me that he had rather unusual research ability. He has been teaching, I believe, at Rutgers University for a couple of years past and during that time he has occasionally written articles in the scientific magazines and has sent me copies. I have read them with substantial interest and have thought that they showed steady growth in the grasp of the subject and in ability to present it.

            I do not know exactly what kind of work you would be disposed to assign him in your bureau were you to appoint him, and hence it is difficult for me to give specific opinion of his “strong and weak points”, for strength and weakness are relative to the work to be done. I should suppose that in a statistical research relating to monetary and banking questions, and particularly to the price problem, Mr. Burns would be decidedly capable. I do not think of any elements of corresponding weakness that need to be emphasized, but perhaps you might find him less devoted to the necessary routine work that has to done in every statistical office, than you would to the planning of investigation and the initiation of inquiries in it. Put in another was this might be equivalent to saying that Mr. Burns is perhaps stronger in conception and planning than he is in execution and yet I do not know that he is in any way to be criticized for his power of execution. I simply mean that he does not seem to be as outstanding in that direction as he is in the other.

            I, however, commend him unreservedly to you as a capable man in connection with price, banking and credit research.

Yours very truly,
[signed] H. P. Willis

HPW:S

_____________________

Reference Letter:  Willford I. King

AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION

Secretary-Treasurer
Willford I. King
530 Commerce Building, New York Univ.
236 Wooster Street, New York City

February 27, 1930.

Mr. G. R. Stahl,
National Bureau of Economic Research,
51 Madison Avenue,
New York City.

Dear Mr. Stahl:

            I have met Mr. Arthur F. Burns two or three times but do not know very much about his record. One thing, however, stands out strongly in his favor. He recently published in the AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW a very fine piece of work on the equation of exchange. This indicates to me that he is competent to do research work of high quality.

Cordially yours,
Willford I. King.

WIK:RW

_____________________

Reference Letter: F. W. Taussig

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Cambridge, Massachusetts
February 28, 1930

Dear Mr. Stahl:

            I have a high opinion of A. F. Burns. I have watched his published work, and some I have examined with care. As will be noted, he has an article in the current issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics which I consider first-rate. He is a keen critic, and handles figures well. He writes more than acceptably, and in my judgment gives promise of very good work in the future. You will have to go far to find a man clearly better.

Very truly yours,
[signed] F. W. Taussig

Mr. G. R. Stahl
National Bureau of Economic Research
51 Madison Avenue
New York City

_____________________

Reference Letter:  E. E. Agger

Rutgers University
New Brunswick, New Jersey
Department of Economics

March 5, 1930

Mr. G. R. Stahl,
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
51 Madison Avenue,
New York City

Dear Mr. Stahl:

            Replying to your letter of February 26th I may say that I have known Mr. Arthur F. Burns ever since his undergraduate days. He was one of my honor students when I was at Columbia and when he finished his graduate work I brought him to Rutgers as an Instructor. I think that he will be promoted to an Assistant Professorship next year.

            He has been a specialist in the field of Statistics and Economic Theory and would therefore, in my judgment, be ideally equipped for the post of Research Associate. He is meticulously careful and most painstaking. You are doubtless familiar with some of his writings during the past year or so. They have seemed to me excellent pieces of work. We shall sorely miss him should he ask for leave to accept possible appointment under you, but on the other hand, I believe that in the end it will add to his value to us, at the same time that you are getting the use of his services. In short, I recommend him without qualification.

Sincerely yours,
[Signed] E.E. Agger

EEA:H

_____________________

Reference Letter:  Carl Snyder

COPY
Thirty Three Liberty Street
New York

March 5, 1930

Dear Mr. Stahl:

            I have followed the work of Arthur F. Burns, of whom you wrote, with a great deal of interest. It seems to me careful, conscientious, well-planned work. He has the inquisitive mind, and that is the great thing. His ideas seem to me sound and his statistical methods well grounded.

            The problem in which he is interested is one in which we have done a great deal of work here, and I know of nothing of greater importance. I wish very cordially to endorse the recommendation for his appointment as a Research Associate.

Please believe me, with very best regards,

Sincerely yours,
Carl Snyder

Gustav R. Stahl, Esq.,
National Bureau of Economic Research
51 Madison Avenue, New York City

_____________________

Reference Letter:  Simon Kuznets

NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH
51 Madison Avenue, New York

March 3, 1930

Committee on Selection,
National Bureau of Economic Research
51 Madison Avenue,
New York City

Gentlemen:

            Arthur F. Burns who is applying for appointment as a Research Associate is my former classmate from Columbia University, and has always impressed me by his keen powers of observation and analysis. His work speaks for itself, for he has had opportunity to publish some of the by-products of his doctor’s thesis in the form of articles.

            He has a thorough statistical training, both in theory and in technique, for he has studied statistics, taught it, and applied its principles. He is also thoroughly versed in economic theory, having studied it under Professors W. C. Mitchell and H. L. Moore.

            On the whole, Mr. Burns is a candidate of high promise. He is still quite young in years, but is quite experienced in research work. He ought to prove equal to the opportunities which an appointment as a research associate will provide for him.

Yours respectfully
[signed] Simon Kuznets
[Research Staff member, NBER]

_____________________

Reference Letter:  Robert E. Chaddock

Columbia University
in the City of New York
Faculty of Political Science

March 3, 1930.

Mr. G. R. Stahl, Executive Secretary
National Bureau of Economic Research
51 Madison Avenue, New York City

Dear Mr. Stahl,

            I have expressed my opinion as to the qualifications of Cowden, Gayzer and Leong as candidates for Research Associate. Mr. Arthur F. Burns is superior to any of these in qualifications for research, in my opinion. All his inclinations and his critical attitude toward his own and the results of others point to research as his field. He has unusual technical preparation in Statistics and does not lose sight of the logical tests of his knowledge. He has been publishing articles constantly since entering upon his teaching at Rutgers University where he is successful as a teacher so far as I know. I would not rate him ahead of the candidates I have described before in matters of personality and personal contact, but I do regard him as a very superior candidate in respect to qualifications for research and scholarly productivity.

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Robert E. Chaddock

REC:CT

_____________________

Letter:  Edwin F. Gay to Arthur F. Burns

NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH
51 Madison Avenue, New York

June 25, 1930

Mr. A. F. Burns
34 Bethune Street
New York City

My dear Mr. Burns:

            At a recent meeting of the Executive Committee of the National Bureau it was decided that since all the members of the regular staff are not available until the end of September, the Research Associates should be asked to report here on October 1, 1930, instead of September 15. You may, of course, come earlier but full provision for your work cannot conveniently be made before the date indicated. The stipends of the Research Associates are to run from October 1, and also the salaries of such statistical assistants as are designated for the service of the Research Associates.

            Upon your arrival you are to report to Dr. Frederick C. Mills, who will have direct responsibility as your adviser. You will be free, of course, to consult with any of the members of the staff.

            In regard to arrangements for statistical and other assistance, you will consult with Mr. Pierce Williams, the Executive Director.

            It gives me great pleasure, in behalf of the directors and staff of the National Bureau, to welcome you as a research associate. We trust that you will find the eleven months with us not only scientifically profitable but personally enjoyable.

Sincerely yours,
[signed] Edwin F. Gay]
Director of Research

RD

[handwritten note] P.S In looking over your application, I [word illegible] certain [items?] which I think should be filled out. These are: the date of arrival in this country, precise date of naturalization; pre-college education.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Arthur F. Burns Papers, Box 2, Folder “Correspondence/NBER, 1930”.  IMG_8329.JPG

Image Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Arthur F. Burns Papers, Box 6. Folder “Photographs, B&W I”. Note: “1930s” written on back of photograph.

 

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. Economics Department on Possible Candidate for Permanent Employment, 1950

 

How big was the split within the department of economics in 1950 at the University of Chicago? Judging from the decision by chairman T. W. Schultz to essentially table the matter of approaching the central university administration with a candidate for a permanent position, there was a departmental deadlock.

The half-dozen economists discussed were: George Stigler, Abba Lerner, Kenneth Boulding, Leonid Hurwicz, Kenneth Arrow, and Lawrence Klein. Contemplate those names for a moment and then read aloud the following two sentences:

Several members of the Department stated that none of these men had all of the qualities sought: a good mind reaching out fruitfully in new directions in economics. It was agreed, however, that there were no likely candidates possessing these qualities in a high degree.   

We can only speculate which alpha economists happened to lock horns in those three meetings.

_________________________

From the MINUTES, Meeting of the Department,
May 24, 1950.

Present: T. W. Schultz, T. Koopmans, A. Rees, H. G. Lewis, D. G. Johnson, E. J. Hamilton, R. Burns, J. Marschak, F. H. Harbinson, F. H. Knight, M. Friedman, B. Hoselitz, L. Metzler

[…]

II. Appointments

Schultz informed the Department that Hildreth’s position has been renegotiated for a term of three years. The Department approved a motion authorizing for Hildreth the courtesy rank of Associate Professor for a three year term.

The Department then considered the appointment problem raised by the leaving of Blough (probably initially on a one year leave of absence) and Brownlee. Schultz suggested that the Department had two alternatives open to it: a temporary replacement (construed broadly) and a permanent appointment of a top ranking person.

The Department considered first possible candidates for permanent appointment. Attention centered on George Stigler, Abba Lerner, Kenneth Boulding, Leonid Hurwicz, Kenneth Arrow, and Lawrence Klein. For a temporary appointment Schultz suggested Gunnar Myrdal.

[Meeting began at 3:30 pm and ended 5:45 p.m.]

_________________________

From the MINUTES, Meeting of the Department,
May 30, 1950.

Present: T. W. Schultz, R. Burns, D. G. Johnson, E. J. Hamilton, F. H. Knight, L. Metzler, R. Blough, F. H. Harbinson, A. Rees, H. G. Lewis, T. Koopmans, J. Marschak, M. Friedman.

Appointments

The discussion of appointments continued from the previous meeting. Schultz expressed the conviction that the time was propitious for a new permanent appointment. On Metzler’s suggestion, the Department returned to discussion of the following candidates for a permanent appointment: Stigler, Hurwicz, Boulding, Klein, Lerner, Arrow.

Several members of the Department stated that none of these men had all of the qualities sought: a good mind reaching out fruitfully in new directions in economics. It was agreed, however, that there were no likely candidates possessing these qualities in a high degree.

The chairman then polled those present with respect to their first choice (or ties for first) for a permanent appointment. As a result of the poll the list of candidates was narrowed to Hurwicz, Stigler, and Lerner. The chairman then polled those present on their position toward permanent appointment of each of these men.

The poll showed that of those present

4 would favor and 5 oppose the permanent appointment of Hurwicz
4 would favor and 5 oppose the permanent appointment of Lerner
6 would favor and 6 oppose the permanent appointment of Stigler

A motion was passed instructing the chairman to poll the absent members of the Department in the same way on the appointment of Hurwicz, Lerner, and Stigler and to report back to the Department for further discussion.

[Meeting began at 3:30 pm and ended 6:15 p.m.]

_________________________

From the MINUTES, Meeting of the Department,
June 8, 1950.

Present: T. W. Schultz, H. G. Lewis, D. G. Johnson, J. Marschak, H. Kyrk, P. Thomson, M. Friedman, T. Koopmans, A. Rees, E. J. Hamilton, F. H. Knight, R. Blough.

Appointments

Schultz reported that he had polled Kyrk, Thomson, Mints, and Nef (but had not heard from Goode) on the matter of a permanent appointment for Stigler or Hurwicz or Lerner. The upshot of the poll was that the Department, the Chairman not voting, was evidently divided in its rating of Stigler for a permanent appointment; both permanent members and temporary members of the faculty showed an even division. The Chairman explained that he would abstain from voting on the belief that the Department was not now prepared to advance, with a strong meeting of minds, a strong case to the Central Administration for a permanent appointment. Schultz proposed that we investigate a slate of names for a one-year appointment.

A motion was passed authorizing the Chairman to put Gunnar Myrdal in the first position on the slate for a one-year appointment.

Successive motions passed by the Department added the following names to the slate:

Nicholas Kaldor   Simon Kuznets
Arthur F. Burns
H. M. Henderson
W. Vickrey
A. Hart
H. Stein

The Department then, following the system of ranking used in fellowship appointments, ranked these seven persons. The rank order follows:

1. Kaldor
2. Burns
3. Henderson
4. Kuznets
5½. Vickrey
5½. Hart
7. Stein

[Meeting began at 3:30 pm and ended 6:00 p.m.]

Source: University of Chicago Archives, Department of Economics Records, Box 41, Folder 12.

Image Source: Social Science Research Building.  University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf2-07466, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

 

Categories
Funny Business Harvard M.I.T.

Harvard or MIT. Economics graduate student skit, ca. 1963.

 

Because of the reference to Jaroslav Vanek’s leaving Harvard, we are able to date the following script to 1962-63 since Vanek left Harvard to work at the State Department in 1963. Almost everything about this script would lead me to conclude that it was used in a Harvard graduate student skit that somehow wound up in the folder for the Graduate Student Association at the Department of Economics of M.I.T. The folder is otherwise filled with clearly M.I.T. skit material from the 1960s. One of the students is identified as “David” another “Bob” and the third looks like “Les”.  

Lester Thurow did get his Ph.D. from Harvard in 1964 and came to M.I.T. in 1968 so it is not inconceivable that the following transcription is indeed based upon his personal typed script copy with original pencil stage directions that made its way into the folder. 

One thing that I find rather surprising about the text is just how many Harvard professors’ names have been misspelled.

__________________________

D—This is a review with a message—a message no economist can afford to ignore. The year is 2000 A.D. 16 years have now passed since 1984, that Armageddon of the economics profession when Professor Wassily Leontief finally established that the world really was homogeneous of degree one. The then President of the United States, Mr. Norman Mailer, immediately issued the great Marginal Product Proclamation. Everyone was to receive their marginal product.

B— But there was nothing left over for the economists. Economists became the hand-loom weavers of the 20th. century.

L—Arthur Schlesinger Jr. vividly described their position in a 17-volume work entitled “The Coming of the Raw Deal.” Economists everywhere, after the first shock, set out upon new careers. Tonight we shall discover what happened to some of those whom we know and love.

D—Several of them went into the movie industry and we will now let you hear the soundtrack of the preview of one of their movies.

(Epic Music—Bruckner?)

[Insert: Stand]

L—Ladies and Gentlemen, 21st Century Fox are proud to present Arthur Smithies and Joan Robinson in….The Big Push, the story of the unbalanced growth of an economist….

B—Production by Karl [sic] Kaysen

D—Copyright by Edward Hastings Chamberlain [sic]

L—All labor disputes on location and with Elizabeth Taylor arbitrated by John Dunlop.

B—Continuity by Simon Kuznets

L—Editing by Seymour Harris, of course.

D—Costumes by Robert Dorfman.

B—This is the story of Ragnar Maynard von Eckstein (his parents had always wanted him to be an economist). After many struggles at last he got to Harvard Graduate School.

L—It is a tale of |horror. See him now at a seminar on the economics of Medical Care…..

D—This after-noon I am going to discuss the economics of Blood-banking. One of the crucial problems in this field is what proportion to maintain of liquid assets. In this category we have blood [Insert:   L. What about near blood] near-blood. We also have non-liquid assets—bonds in the form of pounds of flesh. Another problem is the current shortage of tellers, for we can only employ vampires with a strong liquidity preference. If we cannot get more it will clot up the flow of funds and reduce the velocity of circulation.

L—It is a tale of |ambition…..

B—Coming from a family whose marginal product was zero, Ragnar Maynard realized that to get on quickly he must publish something. But what? He had not written anything. But our resourceful hero saw a way out: he would publish his first book before it was written. It was called First Draft, a revised tentative, preliminary, provisional text. It was based on Photostat copies of his blackboard notes.

L—It is a tale of |love….

D—Ragnar Manyrd fell passionately in love with a beautiful capital theorist, played in the movie by ravishing Joan Robinson. His demand for her love was infinitely elastic; her supply could not meet him—at least not at his price. The price was to join him in his exhausting search over peaks and through troughs for the elusive U-shaped cost curve.

L—It is a tale of |excitement

B—See Ragnar Maynard trying to free himself from the dreaded liquidity trap.

Insert: D—It’s true, it really is thicker than water

L—All this and more you can see in this movie—The Big Push is a take-off point in the development of the motion-picture.

B—See the exciting attempt on Professor Leontief’s life (with a 202 rifle) to try to prevent him revealing his startling discovery of a constant returns world.

D—See the world’s largest input-output table which proved it—drawn by the Economic Research project in the sand of the New Mexican desert.

L—You cannot afford to miss this motion picture. Filmed in wonderful new—Solocolor. An introducing revolutionary—Rostowscope.

(concluding epic music)

[Insert: Sit]

D—But the movies could not accommodate everybody…

[Insert: Bob in middle]

[Insert: one illegible word]

L—Professor Leontief, having escaped with his life, and using his input-output table from Scientific American as a testimonial, got into the business of designing bathroom tiles.

B—Professor Duesenbery [sic] was well qualified to go into the demonstration business. He drove Cadillacs around low-income districts to stimulate demand. And changed his name to Jones so that it would be him that everyone was keeping up with.

D—In England many economists went to work for the government where they produced a remarkable effect. Before 1984 political speeches had sounded something like this.

B—Good evening; I’m the Prime Minister. My name is….. [insert: ad lib] etc.

D—But now all this has changed…

B—Good evening…[insert: ad lib] etc.

L—Professor Tom Schelling took up a career in Madison avenue. It was he who was responsible for some of the following products…

D—Ladies, now you can wear the most powerful and alluring perfume in the world—First Strike—the only perfume with complete credibility. It also contains the only deodorant with overkill.

B—Now at last there is a product to take away the smell of deodorant—it is called Counterforce. Only Counterforce gives you 24-hour protection against odorlessness. [Insert: 5120 or S120]

[Insert: STAND]

L—For years girls have been searching for a perfume which will attract the men and yet prevent them from taking liberties—now they have it in the form of Deterrence—the perfume which is effective [Insert: only] if you don’t use it.

D—He also introduced a city wide deodorant campaign under the title of Civil defence.

L—And the only really safe method of birth control—Early Warning.

B—Meanwhile Professor Dunlop had become a truck driver and a shop steward for Jimmy Hoffa.

D—And Professor Kuznets took to selling abacuses.

[Insert: Some economists, not from Harvard opened a cafeteria.]

[Insert: Bob-Les—come forward]

L—Professor Galbraith first thought of becoming a rice farmer. But he soon saw that since there was no more need for economists he could now come into his own. After a coup d’etat he took over the Littauer building and changed it into the department of Affluent Studies. The idea was the ultra-popularization of economics; the main qualification for admission was to be a good phrase-monger. The new department published books like…

B—The Economics of Sex, with an appendix on the second derivatives of Jayne Mansfield. A geometric interpretation with diagrams.

D—The department became identified with a new theory of economic decline, published as a non-Rostovian manifesto. All countries, it said, tend to decline, and their speed of decline is determined by their relative degree of economic advancement. Its five stages of decline started with the age of mass consumption, through the age of preconditions for decline, coming then to the crucial landing stage.

B—Other books appeared like ‘The Naked Truth about Public Squalor, and so on.

[Insert: Pause—back to audience]

L—Only one of the redundant economists took the highest calling of all. Let us now eavesdrop on a sermon by [Insert: his eminence] Archbishop Gerschenkron…

[Insert: seated]

B—You know, when I was an economist one of my graduate students wrote a very good paper for my course. Matthew, [Insert: I said] why don’t you publish this paper, no, really why don’t you publish. But you know youll have to change the title. What journal is going to publish a paper called ‘the First Gospel’? But you know it really was a very good paper. There was a lot of interesting material about the farm problem in Egypt and about the almost miraculous elasticity of supply of loaves and small fishes in Gallillee [sic]. Then there was a very good section about Christ throwing the money-changers from the temple. Well, you see, the rate of interest was very high then. Don’t you think that the real reason why Christ did this was to reduce the rate of interest and to stimulate investment. You see, I wanted Matthew to rewrite his paper for the Quarterly Journal and call it ‘Christ as a proto-Keynsian’ [sic] But no, he was a very strong-willed boy and he brought it out in a syposium [sic] edited by Seymour Harris, called the Bible, essays in honor of God. But, you know, it was still required reading for my course.

D—Professor Harberler [sic] took to song writing, and here is a sample…

[Insert: stand behind table]

(tune: God bless America)

[Insert: All:] God bless free enterprise,
[Insert: MOC or HOC or NOC] System divine,
Stand beside her and guide her,
Just as long as the profits are mine.
[Insert: Salute]
Corporations may they prosper
Big business, may it grow!
[Insert: MOC or HOC or NOC] God bless Free Enterprise,
The Status quo!

L—Well, David, I guess that’s it. Do you think they’ll throw us out?

D—I dont know. But I dont suppose we’ll ever be allowed to pass generals. There are still some jobs you can get without a Ph.D.

B—No chance at all is there? I mean about generals….

D—Well they were all in it weren’t they—all the generals board.

L—What about Professor Vanek? He emerged unscathed.

D—That’s true but he’s leaving.

B—That’s fair, of course.

L—Yes, he hasn’t done much since he’s been here really.

D—Half a dozen good articles…

B—4 books, or is it 5?

L—He’s become an acknowledged expert on at least two major fields of economics…

D—A clear and stimulating teacher…
And a nice guy…

L—Not much really. [Insert: Clearly not a Harvard type]

B—Not surprised they’re letting him go

D—Well, that’s it then.

B—One more thing actually…The perpetrators of this entertainment would like it to be known that any resemblance of characters in this review to any person or persons living or half-dead is purely intentional.

L—So be it.

All—In the name of the Holy Trinity:

D—Dorfman,

L—Samuelson,

B—and Solow.

All—Amen

 

Source:   MIT Archives. Department of Economics Records, Box 2, Folder “GEA 1961-67”.

 

Categories
Amherst Chicago Columbia Economists

Columbia. John Maurice Clark. Autobiographical notes, 1949

 

The following recollections of John Maurice Clark of his earliest contacts with economic problems is found in a folder of his papers containing notes about his father, John Bates Clark. The hand-written notes are fairly clear until we come to a clear addition on the final page. Abbreviations are used there and the handwriting is not always clear. Still the pages together provide a few nice stories and short lists of J.M. Clark’s teachers and students.

______________________

June 8, 1949

J.M.C.’s recollections of his earliest contacts with economic problems.

I think my earliest contact with an economic problem came on learning that the carpenter who sometimes came to do odd jobs for us at 23 Round Hill got $2.00 a day. I had a special interest in that carpenter. He was a tall man, with a full, dark beard; and it had been my imprudent interest in his operation with the kitchen double-windows (putting on? taking off?) that led me to lean out of a hammock and over the low rail of our second-story porch, to watch him (I was between two and three at the time). Mechanical consequences—I descended rapidly, landing on my head, but apparently suffering no injury except biting my tongue. Subjective consequences – maybe it pounded a little caution into me at an early age; but the present point is that it fixed that carpenter in my memory as “the man who picked me up.” It was some time later I learned that he got $2.00 a day.

I don’t remember whether I took the initiative and asked, or not. The cost of things was often discussed in our house, and my mother often talked of the difficulty of making both ends meet. I knew my father’s salary, though I can’t be sure now whether it was $3,500 or less. Anyhow, it was maybe eight or ten times the carpenter’s pay; and I began wondering how he made both ends meet, and remarked to my father that $2.00 a day wasn’t much to live on. He answered that it was pretty good pay for that kind of work. So I learned there were two ways of looking at a daily stipend—as income to live on and as the price of the service you gave your employer. Or perhaps simply the standpoints of the recipient and the payer. But especially I learned there were people who had to adjust their ideas of what they could live on, to a fraction of the income we found skimpy for the things we thought of as necessary. In short, I had a lesson in classes and their multiple standards to ponder over; without reaching any very enlightening conclusions.

I don’t think I connected this with our friends the Willistons (of the family connected with Williston seminary in Easthampton) who lived in the big house above us and from whom we rented ours. They were evidently much richer than we. They had gone to Europe (and been shipwrecked on the way, and had to transfer at sea to a lumber-schooner, which threw its deckload of lumber overboard to enable it to take on the people from the helpless steamship. — but that’s another story.)

To return to the carpenter. I suppose today he’d get perhaps $16, more?, and a Smith College salary, for a full professor, might be $7,000 or $8,000. The discrepancy has shrunk to maybe 2/5—certainly less than half—of what it was then. That puzzling discrepancy was my first lesson in economics—the first I remember.

There was another lesson—if you could call it that—the summer we spent a while at the Stanley House (now gone) in Southwest Harbor, on Mt. Desert. The rich people went to Bar Harbor. At Southwest, there was Mr. Brierly who had a yacht. We took our outings in a rowboat, sometimes with the help of a spritsail. One time we were going up Somes Sound, and were passed by one of the biggest ocean-going steam yachts—the “Sultana”. It was a very impressive sight, in those narrow waters, and looked about as big as the “Queen Mary” would to me now. I don’t remember anybody doing any moralizing; but if they did, the impression it left was that we, in our fashion, were doing the same kind of thing they were.

My first contact with economic literature (not counting the subversive economics of Robin Hood, which we boys knew by heart, in the Howard Pyle version) was at 23 Round Hill, so I must have been less than nine. I found a little book on my father’s shelves that had pictures in it – queer pictures done in pen and ink, which puzzled me. There was a boy not much bigger than I was, in queer little knee-britches, acting as a teacher to a class of grown men (including I think a Professor Laughlin, under whom I later taught at the University of Chicago.) And there were classical females being maltreated by brutal men, and other queer things. I was curious enough to read some of the text, to find out about the pictures. It was “Coin’s Financial School,” the famous free-silver tract.

I read enough to become a convinced free-silverite. And then I had the shock of discovering that my beloved and respected father was on the wrong side of that question. I decided there must be more to it than I’d gotten out of the queer picture-book. I suppose that was my first lesson in the need of preserving an open mind and holding economic ideas subject to possible reconsideration. Davenport and Veblen gave me more extensive lessons, fifteen or twenty years later, only this second time it was my father’s ideas I had to rethink, after reluctantly admitting that these opposing ideas represented something real, that needed to be reckoned with. One had to do something about it, though the something didn’t mean substituting Veblen for my father. It was a more difficult and discriminating adjustment that was called for.

To return to my boyhood. It may have been about this time that I learned something about mechanical techniques, when my father took me to see the Springfield Arsenal. They had a museum, with broadswords that had been used in battle—one was so nicked up that its edge had disappeared in a continuous series of surprisingly deep nicks—but the mechanical process that impressed me was a pattern-lathe, rough-shaping the stocks of Krags. On one side was a metal model of the finished stock revolving, with a wheel revolving against it. On the other side was the wooden blank revolving, and a wheel like the one on the model, and linked to it so as to copy its movements, and armed with knives. So the machine could make complicated shapes following any model you put into it, and do it faster and more accurately that a hand worker.

Incidentally (and as a digression) that was our first military rifle with smokeless powder, more powerful than black; our first regular military magazine rifle of the modern kind with a bolt action and a box magazine. The regulars were just getting them. The militia still had the black-powder 45-70 Springfields at the time of the Spanish War, and a Massachusetts regiment had to be ordered off the firing-line at El Caney because their smoke made too good a target. Teddy Roosevelt had pull enough to get Krag carbines for his Rough Riders plus the privilege of using their own Winchesters if individuals preferred, and, if they had the 30-40-220, which took the Krag cartridge.

But my regular education in economic theory began at the age of 9 or 10, in our first year at Amherst, when we lived on Amity Street, opposite Sunset Ave. My father had in mind James Mill’s training of his son, John Stuart Mill, and he copied the techniques of explaining something during a walk, but he didn’t follow James Mill’s example by making me submit a written report for criticism and revision. All he did was to explain about diminishing utility and marginal utility—using the illustration of the oranges. And he was satisfied that I understood it, and concluded that the simple fundamentals of economics could be taught to secondary school or “grammar-school” students. Later, my friend and former graduate student, Leverett Lyon, pithily remarked that I probably understood it better then than I ever had since. Maybe he was right. I know when I met Professor Fetter, the year the Ec. Ass. met in Princeton, he told me I didn’t understand the theory, because I had said (in print, I think) that there were some dangers about the concept of “psychic income.” I didn’t say it was wrong, but I did think it was likely to be misleading to use a term that was associated with accountants’ arithmetic. So I did probably understand the theory “better” at the age of 9 or 10. Twenty ears later, it didn’t look so simple. This was long before I disagreed with Fetter about basing-point pricing and the rightness of the uniform FOB mill price, as the price “true” competition would bring about.

______________________

J.M.C. later history.

Amherst, C in Ec tho 85 on exam, & written work not credited. (cf French A from Wilkins, C from [William Stuart] Symington (father of present (1951) W. Stuart Symington, head of nat security Resources Board). Symie sized my attitude up as that of a gentleman & gave me a gentleman’s mark) Crook said he “didn’t get hold” of me. He was correct.

 

Columbia: Giddings, A. S. Johnson, H.L. Moore, Seligman, Seager, Hawkins [?], Chaddock, Agger, Jacobstein. indoctrinated: J. B. C. orthodoxy modified by overhead costs (catalogued as “dynamics”) Dynamics (defined as) everything statics leaves out. & much induction. Take “Essentials” on slow dictation.

Veblen: slow infiltration of its logical & progre[?] rel. to the abstractions of J.B.C.: reverse normalizing might make[?] an arguable claim to equal legitimacy.

1912 ed. of Control of Trusts

“Contribution to theory of competive price” [QJE, August 1914] forerunner of “mon-comp”, largely empirical basis.

Germs of social & inst. ec. Rich-poor, Freedom as val in ec.[??] B. M. Anderson cf. Cooley

Revs of Hobson?, Pigou, Davenport Economics of Enterprise [Political Science Quarterly, Vol 29, no. 2]

 

To Chi. 1915 Changing basis of economic responsibility [JPE, March 1916] on moving to Chi. open declar[ation] of non-Laughlinism: backfire to an Atlantic article of Laughlin’s.

Modern Psych.

1917-18. War-ec. (“basis of war-time collectivism.”)

Students: Garver oral. Slichter, Lyon, Innis, Martin [?], Goodrich, Copeland, O’Grady [John O’Grady ?]

Ayres, Knight on faculty.

Ov. C. [Studies in the Economics of Overhead Costs]

Social Control [of Business]

 

Columbia. Students, Friedman, Ginzberg, Salera, Kuznets’ oral

 

Source: Columbia University Archives. John M. Clark Collection. History of Economic Thought. Box 37, Folder “J. B. Clark, 1847-1938”.

Image Source: John Maurice Clark. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-0171.  Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.