Tag: Leontief

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

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

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

Gottfried Haberler
Alvin Hansen
Wassily Leontief
Edward Mason.

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

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

_______________________________

Backstory of the O’Connor Peace Bill

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

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

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

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

_______________________________

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

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

(Special to the Daily Worker)

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

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

Professors:

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

Speaks on Fascist Danger

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

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

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

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

Image Source: Harvard Class Album, 1942.

Tags Haberler, Hansen, Leontief, Mason

Economists Harvard

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

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

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

___________________________

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

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

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

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

___________________________

Previously posted departmental reports

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

___________________________

June 26, 1962

Report
Department of Economics, 1961-1962

1. Staff

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

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

2. New Appointments

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

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

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

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

3. Chair in Modern China Studies and Economics

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

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

4. Undergraduate Program

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

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

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

5. Graduate Instruction

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

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

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

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

6. Organization of the Department

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

7. Research

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

Among these research projects with financial support are the following:

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

8. Public and Professional Activities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Visiting Committee

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

___________________
John T. Dunlop
Chairman

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

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

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

Economists Harvard Teaching Undergraduate

Harvard. Annual Economics Newsletter. 1 June 1960

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2025-05-09

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:

More Resources for Education (John Dewey Lecture), Harpers, 1960
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.
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.

Tags BlackJD, CooperRichard, DorfmanR, Duesenberry, Dunlop, Eckstein, Galbraith, Gerschenkron, Harris, Houthakker, Kaysen, Kuznets, Leontief, Mason, McKie, Slichter, Theil, WilliamsJH

Economist Market Economists Harvard

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________

All three were eventually given
Harvard professorships anyway

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

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

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

____________________

Haberler’s Protest:
Preface to his Colleagues

To the Senior Members of the Department:

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

December 13, 1961

____________________

Haberler’s Protest in Full

CONFIDENTIAL.

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

FROM: Gottfried Haberler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 13, 1961

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

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

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

Fields Harvard

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

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

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

_____________________________

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

December 22, 1947

Dear Mr. Burbank:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Professor H. H. Burbank
Littauer Center

_____________________________

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

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

February 25, 1948

The Task of the Committee

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

The questions posed by the Provost were as follows:

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

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

The Prospective Situation in the Department

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Place of the Department in the Faculty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Urgent Needs of the Department

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) Both positions could be filled at once;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exam Questions Harvard Theory Uncategorized

Harvard. Graduate Economic Theory Exam. April 1963

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2024-12-09

Edward Chamberlin was a member of the graduate examination committee of the Harvard economics department in the early 1960s and in his files I have found copies of the theory exams from 1961, 1962, and 1963 along with a few memos that circulated among members of the committee that together provide a description of the procedures used for grading.

Of related interest is the following report that was transcribed and posted earlier:

Report on the General Examination for an Economics PhD, 1970

_________________________________

Other Written Exams
in Economic Theory

April 11, 1961
November 13, 1962

_________________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Written Economic Theory Examination
April 8, 1963

You are to answer a total of 6 questions.

All three questions in Part A.
One question each in Parts B, C, and D.

Use a separate book for each question.

PART A: Answer all THREE

Explain the phenomena of “external economies” and “external diseconomies.” Describe how they affect the efficiency of the competitive pricing mechanism, and discuss measures which have been proposed to improve welfare when external economies or diseconomies are present.
State and explain several leading principles from the field of “non-price competition.” Comment on the problems that arise in combining this type of theory with the more orthodox “price competition.”
Interpret the Marshallian concept of Consumers’ Surplus in terms of a theory of utility based solely on Indifference Lines.

PART B: Answer ONE of the two.

Contrast the “liquidity preference” and the “loanable-funds” theories of interest. Discuss the implications of these two theories for monetary policies intended to maintain full employment.
Discuss the purely theoretical proposition that if all prices everywhere were sufficiently responsive in both directions to supply and demand there would, in a free market economy, be no persistent unemployment. Be equally interested in pointing out what may be right and what may be wrong about the statement. State what assumptions you would want explicitly stated if you had to support the proposition.

PART C: Answer ONE of the two.

Compare the main ideas of Adam Smith and David Ricardo about economic growth — its mechanism and its consequences.
Formulate a simple, highly aggregated model of economic growth. Incorporate technological change in it by including an industry called Research with a production function of a specified shape. Its inputs are capital (stock) and labor (flow). It is up to you to give a definition of its output that is appropriate to your model.

PART D: Answer ONE of the two.

Explain and compare some of the conclusions that economists have reached about the interest rate in a static or stationary state.
Discuss the similarities and differences among the principles of economic choice that are applicable to the three following:
1. an individual consumer;
2. a trade union, producers’ cartel, or other interest group;
3. society as a whole.

You may keep this question sheet when you hand in your exam books.

_________________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Robert R. Bowie, Director
Alex Inkeles
Henry A. Kissinger
Edward S. Mason
Thomas C. Schelling
Raymond Vernon

6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge 38
Massachusetts

April 23, 1963

From: T. C. Schelling
To: Messrs. Chamberlin, Leontief, Vanek

I enclose a sheet with the names and grades for your information.

The outcome of our regrading was as follows. You will recall that there were five students for whom we were rereading one or more books. You will also recall that we were to count the third reading as equal in weight to the other two. The results were:

Book 3, down from 1.4 to 1.2, Fail
Book 5, down from 1.4 to 1.1, Fail
Book 6, up from 1.5 to 1.6, Fair
Book 7, up from 1.25 to 1.4, Fair –
Book 10, down from 1.5 to 1.0, Fail

To recapitulate, three of these failed, and we had five clean failures, making a total of eight failures. On the rereading, three Fair minuses went down to Fail, one Fail went up to Fair -, one Fair – went up to Fair. I think this is about what we could have expected, and I am glad we did the rereading. Incidentally, two of the three who failed after the rereading had three books reread with two different readers involved, so I think we can feel they got fair treatment.

Next week I shall circulate to you my thoughts about a report to the Department and, if you wish, we can get together or alternatively you can add your comments. If it is convenient I should prefer to get together, but not until I have given you at least my thoughts on what we should report.

TCS: ac

_________________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Robert R. Bowie, Director
Alex Inkeles
Henry A. Kissinger
Edward S. Mason
Thomas C. Schelling
Raymond Vernon

6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge 38
Massachusetts

June 4, 1963

From: T. C. Schelling
To: Messrs. Chamberlin, Leontief, Vanek
Subject: Report to the Department on the Graduate Theory Examination

We promised the Department a report. And we had some things we wanted to report.

Some of our experiences we can communicate to next year’s committee over the lunch table. Some really require the Department’s cognizance. I am listing below some of the points I think we should like to report. This is not a draft, but just a chance to check with you. If you agree, disagree, or want to add anything, I suggest you do so in writing with copies to each other. There is no great hurry, but next year’s committee will want some Departmental instruction by the time of the second Department meeting next fall. I would like to get this done before my memory fades, and submit it if possible to the Department as soon as everybody is back from the summer.

I would propose that individual questions be graded not Excellent, Good, Fair, and Fail, but either numerically on the base one-hundred or with letter grades A, B, C, with the committee to decide — subject to any advice the Department wishes to make explicit — what kind of average or combination of grades should qualify a person as a “pass.” The Department should either make clear that the committee may do as it pleases or express itself on such things as how many failures on individual questions make a failing exam in spite of the average. The Department might also express itself on how large or how small the failing fraction might be without being considered “abnormal.” Just to get a proposal in the works, I would propose that questions be graded A, B, C, and Fail, with a B- required for passing, but with the committee empowered to make individual exceptions in either direction on the basis of the whole exam, and that the committee expect to fail somewhere from one-tenth to one-fourth without considering a “policy issue” being involved.
I would strongly recommend that we experiment next fall with typewritten examinations. This raises a number of technical questions, ranging from who provides the typewriter to how noisy the room is, and it surely discriminates somewhat according to typing skill. The present scheme also discriminates according to longhand skill. Students who cannot type, or choose not to type, should have their examinations transcribed, either at their own expense or at the Department’s expense. This seems to me the one exam that, because it is for graduates and because it interferes with no individual’s course, lends itself to the experiment. I feel quite sure that the reading of examinations will be much more reliable if the material is typed, and that disputed grades could be discussed more readily if the exams can be easily and quickly read. The number of students taking the exam in the fall is usually small, and that is therefore a good time to try it out.
I am surely persuaded that anonymous examination books make a real difference and the difference is a good one. I think the committee should avoid as far as possible putting students in special categories like the few who this year were offered the option of presenting to the oral exam with a re-examination in theory. At the same time, the committee cannot avoid having an opinion (or opinions) about the success of its own examinations; and the committee may, as I think we did, have some doubts after the examination about its reliability. If these are strong doubts, they should, as we did, consider special treatment of a few individual cases.
Especially if we go in for typed exams, the Department should consider making this a six-hour exam rather than a three-hour exam, just to increase its reliability. Reading time, I believe, would be sufficiently cut by having a typed examination to make the six-hour exam feasible for the committee.
The questions are also up to the committee but I would pass along the advice that the questions be as concrete and as problem-oriented as possible in contrast to general essay or discussions of what economists have said, proposed, etc. I think I say this not out of a priori prejudice but because I have felt more confident of the grade I gave when the student was responding to a very direct question or problem with little scope for inadvertent or deliberate evasion and with the obligation to give his own answer and not to repeat [what]others have [said]. This kind of advice surely is not suitable for Departmental action, but, if we share some experience we might try to articulate it for the next committee.

TCS: ac

_________________________________

Schelling’s Memo to Dunlop
and the Exam Committee

TO: CHAIRMAN [John Dunlop], DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

FROM: THOMAS C. SCHELLING, CHAIRMAN

DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON THE GRADUATE THEORY EXAMINATION

RE: WRITTEN THEORY EXAMINATION

DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 1963

Last year’s committee, consisting of Chamberlin, Leontief, Vanek, and me, reached several conclusions we would like to report for the benefit of the new committee that follows us. Most of the observations we want to pass along arose out of our dissatisfaction, not our contentment, with the examination process. We would like this report to go to the whole Department, or the Executive Committee, or whatever part of the Department is appropriate; if you want to postpone this a month while your new committee decides what it would like to do, if anything, about these recommendations, that is agreeable to us.

Our grading scheme, which we accepted without much thought, was to grade each question excellent, good, fair, or fail, with plus and minus, then to convert these to a numerical scale to facilitate averaging, and then to grade the whole examination. This procedure led to an anomaly that in turn produced some real misunderstanding among the graders. The anomaly was that, after collecting all of the books together and looking at the distribution of grades, the committee might wish to fail people whose average grade was “fair” or to give an “excellent” to a man whose average grade was “good.” This can lead to disputed interpretations of what the grades meant as well as what the grading standards should be. I doubt whether any committee would want, either in principle or in practice, to rely on a straight forward averaging to determine good, fair, fail, etc. I strongly recommend — and this may sound trivial but it is not — that the initial grading be on some arbitrary numerical scale with the final determination of over-all grades from fair to excellent being determined afterward. My committee agrees with this. I personally do not see that a matter of principle is involved here that ought to go to the Department, but I foresee that some eventual controversy may be forestalled if the Department is apprised of this problem and of the new committee’s intentions.
The committee is bound to have some notion of what proportion of those taking the examination might normally be expected to fail it. Different members of the committee may have very different notions. I believe this is meant to be a hard examination, and that the fraction failing it might be comparable to Written Theory Examination the fraction of students who fail their Generals. It is, I believe, also meant to weed out students who would likely fail their Generals. And it is an examination in which the committee ought to feel that anywhere from one-tenth to one-quarter of the candidates might be failed without the result seeming to be abnormal. It might be helpful if the Department would at least discuss the matter briefly so the committee would have a pretty good idea how much leeway it had in grading. It is not quite enough to say that this is completely within the committee’s competence; the philosophy of the examination derives somewhat from the Department’s notion of how strict this examination ought to be and how great a variation in outcomes needs to be expected.
We recommend that the committee experiment in the fall term with typewritten examinations. There are some practical questions here, such as who provides the typewriter, how noisy the room will be, and so forth. Typewritten exams will discriminate according to typing skill; but the present exam discriminates according to long-hand skill. Students who cannot type, or who choose not to type, should have their examinations transcribed, either at their expense or at the Department’s expense. Because this exam is for graduates, and because it interferes with no individual course, it lends itself to experiment; in particular, the small group in the fall term presents an opportunity on a small scale. All of us on the committee believe that the grading will be more reliable if the material is typed, and that disputed grades can be discussed better, and reread more easily, if they are typed. We, therefore, strongly urge that the experiment be made this year.
We are quite persuaded that anonymous examination books (books from which student names have been removed) make a real difference and that the difference is a good one. In case of borderline grades, it is hard to resist the temptation, after the exam has been graded, to get out the student’s record and see whether or not he deserves the benefit of the doubt. We did this, and we believed it was right to do so, but maybe as a matter of principle it should not be done. Let me point out that an awful lot hinges on a single examination if one does not fall back on the student’s theory record in borderline cases. In the oral examination I think it is fair to say that the student’s course background does count in the examiner’s evaluation of him. If the Department really does not want the written theory exam to be anything but an anonymous exam graded solely on its merits, a flat rule would relieve the committee of a philosophical problem that can be quite a nuisance. If the Department wishes the committee to use its own judgment, it will probably help the committee to have it understood in advance that the committee may decide this one. We recommend that the committee be free to use the additional information after the books have once been graded but that the committee avoid this expedient if possible.
If the typed examination is adopted, there is much to be said for making this a six-hour examination to increase its reliability. Reading time will be cut by the typing enough to compensate the greater number of books read.
Our final recommendation involves something that cannot be legislated. It is that the questions be as concrete and as problem-oriented as possible, in contrast to general essays or discussions of what economists have written about a subject. Our impression was that grading was much more reliable on the more direct questions and problems. There was both deliberate and inadvertent evasion on the more general questions, as well as more ambiguity on the committee itself as to what the question called for. The common occurrence of a bluebook that was a decent essay on a question that wasn’t asked might be averted by using questions that are fairly direct and unambiguous. Another common occurrence was the bluebook that indiscriminately gave the positions of various writers without the student’s accepting responsibility for his own analysis or evaluation. Our feeling was that these rather indirect questions provided quite unreliable evidence on which to grade students.

_________________________________

Chamberlin’s Memo
to the Exam Committee

This letter was “in the works” when Tom’s report to John Dunlop of September 18, 1963, came in the mail. It is now sent as a supplement to Tom’s report.

FROM: E. H. CHAMBERLIN
TO: MESSERS. SCHELLING, LEONTIEF, VANEK

SUBJECT: REPORT TO THE DEPARTMENT ON THE GRADUATE THEORY EXAMINATION (letter from Tom Schelling, June 4)

First I should admit that I was against the written theory examination when it was first proposed, but without any question the experience this year has made me more opposed than ever. In my letter to the other members of this committee on April twenty-fourth (?), I urged that the attempt to shake some more failures out of the group of eight between the figures of 1.2 and 1.5 had been a “fiasco” and that we should simply allow all of them (i.e., everyone excepting [name deleted], [name deleted], and [name deleted]) to take the orals, with the decision whether to pass or fail to be made at that time. As a compromise, we finally settled on three students: [name deleted], [name deleted], and [name deleted], and offered them the opportunity of taking the oral examination, in which they might do well enough to pass, even though they had “failed” theory. (The fact that no one of them accepted was certainly not surprising, since they had all been told already that they had failed theory and therefore had two strikes against them if they risked the orals.)

Although we all concurred in the decisions, I feel that I was mainly responsible for the matter coming up at all. As certainly evident in my letter of April twenty-fourth, I was extremely critical of the attempt to fail people who had already been graded at or near the good- to fair+ line merely because we “needed” more failures. In this respect especially I think the policy worked badly this year. The whole matter is probably one for the Executive Committee, rather than for this one. I hope it is understood that from many years of examining in economic theory I have the matter very much at heart. Certainly the treatment of our graduate students at the end of the second year is of the first importance, and I think the Executive Committee should devote some time to reconsidering the whole problem.

I still hope that this group may issue a unanimous report to the Department although as will be seen from the following comments there are son important differences between Tom and me. Perhaps we ought to have a meeting. Comments:

Questions of grading.
1. The approach of failing a certain percentage of those who take the exam (“one-tenth” to “one fourth”) must absolutely be dropped. It is contrary to the practice , both of this Department and of Harvard University, for as far back as I can remember. One only needs to recall the recent principle that “all (undergraduate) students are potential honors candidates” and to consider the grading processes with respect to these latter, to realise how far astray the concept of “failing or passing a certain percentage” is from the general practice at Harvard, and, in the past, in this Department. In any event, it is clearly unjustifiable with a group as small as we normally expect in the written theory examination — this year 37, of whom we failed, by a great effort, 8, or more than 20 per cent. I think it was the obsession that 3 was not enough failures and that we ought to increase the number, that led to a compounding of arbitrary decisions at the “margin”, and to results which, as I think I demonstrated in my earlier letter, made passing or failure for the group of 8 to which it was applied, almost a matter of pure chance. It was a witch’s brew if there ever was one. However, it was described in some detail in my earlier letter, and I refrain from another lengthy demonstration here.

Only one example from later developments: there were three books at the same grade of 1.25, (a Fair+ by the first reading). Two of them, having no questions eligible for re-reading by our rules, were below the new line of 1.4, and left as “failures”; a third, however, qualified for having two questions re-read (the intervals of discrepancy being 4 and 5 in the two cases), was converted into a pass and finished with a “Good” in the Generals. Why should he have had the opportunity to take Generals while two at the same grade had to wait six months? The conclusions: 1. I think we should admit that the methods we used to make distinctions within this “marginal” group were at fault (to put it mildly) and were future committees against them. 2. We should revert to an “absolute”, not a “relative”” or percentage, standard of quality for passing, and for the several grades of Excellent, Good and Fair, rather than trying to fail a particular number or percentage of people. 3. We should recommend to the Executive Committee that they reconsider whether we really want to “raise standards” in the Economic Theory part of the General examination as much as we appear to have done.

As for the second point, my own conviction is that only those conspicuously deficient in Theory should be failed. It should be not only possible, but a goal of the Department that all who take the examination should be well enough prepared to pass. After all, this only means that the Admissions Committee has done its work well, that the student has been well-advised as to courses, and that he has not outrageously neglected his work. Realistically, of course, there will usually be a few failures, either in the Theory exam or in the Generals. But in my opinion, failures should be voted by the Executive Committee upon recommendation of the Committee on the examination. In all cases of recommended failures, the members of this latter committee should each read the entire book with full knowledge of the identity of the persons involved and decide upon the fate of the student only in consultation, (as at present after the general oral examination).

1. As for grading terminology, this year it was Excellent, Good, Fair, and Fail, as we all know, and when numerical values were given to these categories later, the space between then was assumed to be equal: 6, 3, 0 (=Fair!) and -3. Tom has made another proposal in his letter (of June fourth). The important thing, it seems to me, is to put more space between Fair, which has always been a passing grade, and Failure. Indeed, one could easily explain the fact that 23 out of 37 books, approximately two-thirds, received a good- (2) in the first reading by the fact that 2 is mid-point between 6 and -3! Although these (good-) books were later broken down and distributed between the levels of “good” and “fair-”, this merely disguises the fact that the grades given actually had very little difference between them. In fact, with the exception of only four books, 33 of the 37 lay between the limits of 2.8 and 1.2, the former .2 below the good average, and the latter .2 above the fair+ average. Clearly the method of grading used this year, in spite of later adjustments, did a poor job of revealing the differences which must exist among the candidates who took the examination.

However, using the same figures, I experimented with breaking up the concentration at good- by introducing mechanically several considerations which ought to enter in anyway. Since this was actually done (out of the sheer fascination of the problem) I attach copies of the result for what they may be worth, perhaps only in suggesting the other ways in which the objective might be achieved. The 6, 3, 0, were kept for Excellent, Good, and Fair, but Fail became -9 (i.e., -6 more in every case of a -3). A more normal scale would evidently be: six questions with a value of 15 each; highest possible total grade a 90. Each question graded 15 = Excellent, 12 = Good, 9 = Fair, 0 a total failure. Also +3 whenever two different readers agreedthat an answer was a Good or better, and -3 whenever two readers both gave 0 (=Fair) or less. These several devices spread out the grades, [name deleted] actually got his Excellent, [name deleted] and [name deleted] showed up as clear failures instead of getting fairs, with [name deleted] such a low Fair that he might easily be added in, the number of Good’s was reduced to 15, etc., etc. (The applause is accepted). No re-readings, either.

To return to Tom’s letter:

I do not think it is fair to require students to type-write their examinations or pay to have it done (I think it is optional now). But they should be warned to write legibly and told that if they do not, they will have to pay to have their written examinations transcribed.
I agree that anonymous examination books are desirable up to a point. But no one should ever be failed without knowing the candidate’s identity and all we can about him.
A three hour examination seems to me long enough, or four at the very most. We should not forget that each student has already been examined for three hours per semester in his courses.
I think the questions should be of all kinds. Just as I refuse assent to the proposition that the scope of Economic theory should be limited to what can be treated in mathematical symbols, as I should not want an examination in theory to be cast in one particular mold.

_________________________________

Leontief Letter to Schelling

September 23, 1963

TO: T. C. Schelling

FROM: W. Leontief.

cc: B. H. Chamberlin, J. Vanek

I heartily approve of all recommendations contained in your memorandum on Written Theory Examinations dated September 18th.

The typing of all examinations — which, incidentally, I proposed at the very beginning before we started them — might not be easy to arrange since the secretaries in the Department offices have no less difficulty in reading the handwritten bluebooks than we do.

A six-hour examination might be rather hard on the students unless it is made quite clear that the additional two hours are allotted for preparing a clear typescript or readable long-hand.

WL: kd

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Edward H. Chamberlin Papers, Box 18, Folder “Written Theory Committee, 1963-64”.

Tags Chamberlin, Dunlop, Leontief, Schelling, Vanek

Exam Questions Harvard Theory

Harvard. Graduate Economic Theory Exam. November 1962

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2024-12-09

Of related interest is the following report that was transcribed and posted earlier:

Report on the General Examination for an Economics PhD, 1970

_________________________________

Other Written Exams
in Economic Theory

April 11, 1961
April 8, 1963

_________________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Written Exam in Economic Theory
November 13, 1962

ANSWER ANY 7 (AND ONLY 7)
AMONG THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.

Questions are all of equal weight.

Use a separate book for each question.

(Please write legibly. Please write, on your first exam book, a phone number or address where you can be reached quickly in the event your exam book, because of handwriting, has to be transcribed and the typist cannot decipher some of your writing.)

Compare the views and arguments of Ricardo, the Austrians, and Marshall, on the question of the roles of utility and demand, and of cost of production and supply, in determining the prices of the goods produced in a competitive economy.
Construct a simple (static) general equilibrium model of a closed national economy, and show how it can be used to explain employment, prices, wage rates and the distribution of national income between capital and labor.
Indifference surfaces of an individual’s ordinal utility function are defined by

U = x^1/3 y^1/3 z^1/3

where U is utility and x, y, and z express quantities of three different products consumed. The individual himself produces 1 unit of x, 2 units of y, and 3 units of z.

1. Derive the equilibrium levels of consumption of the three products as a function of relative prices;
2. Derive the demand (supply) curves for the three products, and show as an application the quantities of x, y, and z demanded or supplied in the case where all money prices are equal;
3. Derive the relative prices that would have to prevail in a competitive market to keep the individual at autarky.
Compare and evaluate critically the solutions of duopoly proposed by at least 3 of the following: Cournot, Bertrand, Stackelberg, and Fellner.
Keynes maintained that an economy could be in equilibrium with a substantial amount of involuntary unemployment, but many other economists feel that an equilibrium in which an important market is not cleared is a contradiction in terms. Explain the concept of macro-economic equilibrium and in the light of this explanation sketch Keynes’ justification of his position and the Pigou-Patinkin refutation of it.
Present the argument according to which indirect taxes reduce the efficiency of the economic system, while a direct income tax does not, and show how the validity of this argument is affected by the existence of consumers’ choice between work and leisure.
Write on “increasing returns” with respect to (a) the firm; (b) the industry; and (c) the whole economy. In each case you should discuss at least: explanations of the phenomenon, how it affects the efficiency of the competitive pricing mechanism, and the question of stability or instability of equilibrium.
Point out and discuss what seem to you the most important similarities and difference between (a) Marx’s, and Schumpeter’s, theories of economic development under capitalism.
Discuss the problem of excess capacity in firms or in groups of firms. What different meanings may the phrase have? To what extent and way would you expect to find excess capacity in (a) static equilibrium; (b) a fluctuating economy; (c) a growing economy.
“Comparative advantage” is typically elaborated in the context of international or interregional trade. Generalize the concept as an economic principle and discuss the reasons you think account for its conspicuous association with international economics.
Discuss the theoretical significance of the distinction between net and gross investment in models of economic growth incorporating technological change.

You may keep this question sheet when you hand in your exam books.

_________________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Robert R. Bowie, Director
Alex Inkeles
Henry A. Kissinger
Edward S. Mason
Thomas C. Schelling

6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge 38
Massachusetts

November 19, 1962

From: T. C. Schelling

To: Messrs. E. H. Chamberlin, W. W. Leontief, and J. Vanek

Subject: Written Examination in Economic Theory

Seven students took the exam, and we have a total of forty-two questions, each in a separate book. I had managed to allot the questions so that each of us grades either ten or eleven books. I am asking Chamberlin to grade questions 1 and 9, Leontief 2, 7, and 11, Vanek questions 3, 4, 8, and 10, Schelling questions 5 and 6. Wassily and I get eleven a-piece, Ed and Jaroslav get ten a-piece.

If you are interested in what the students chose, it is follows:

Question 1 — 6	7 — 5
2 — 4	8 — 5
3 — 1	9 — 4
4 — 4	10 — 1
5 — 5	11 — 2
6 — 6

Enclosed, for each of you, are the books you should grade.

Each book will have a second reader. I will redistribute them as they come back. Some may need a third reader.

As we agreed, let’s grade them “excellent,” “good,” “fair,” and “fail,” with plus and minus as appropriate, and for averaging we will treat the intervals between grades as numerically equivalent. For borderlines between pass and fail, if any, we can reconsider the scaling system.

The immediate urgency is only in letting students know whether they are still preparing for orals. When I asked, none were scheduled for before Christmas. But I would like to finish the grading by the middle of next week if we can. If you can read your books before Thanksgiving, so I can redistribute them next Monday, it would help.

[After a] quick check I did not notice any with an impossible handwriting, [and] if you wish you may ask Joyce to get your books transcribed. That will slow us down, but I believe it is worthwhile. If you lose any books, we all hang together.

P.S. I suggest you not write your grade on the book. Each of us is then free to do a second reading unconstrained. Instead, turn in a sheet for each question with a grade corresponding to each student number; the number in red pencil is the code for the individual student. Please return your books and grade sheets to Joyce.

TCS: ac

Enc.

_________________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Robert R. Bowie, Director
Alex Inkeles
Henry A. Kissinger
Edward S. Mason
Thomas C. Schelling

6 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge 38
Massachusetts

December 7, 1962

From: T. C. Schelling

To: Messrs. Chamberlin, Leontief, and Vanek

Subject: Theory Exam Grades

I have communicated to the Departmental office that all six who took the exam have passed. Wassily and I agreed on the phone that we should add to the dosier of the two poorest ones our scepticism that they are qualified for a Ph.D, and urging the oral examining committee to take very seriously the unsatisfactory quality of their theory exam. I shall set up a meeting this week at which we can settle on the grades for these students and work out language to meet Wassily’s point.

In preparing some statistics for you I discovered some minor errors in my tabulation; these raised the lowest grades by about one point in total, or 1/14th of a point for the grade average.

Attached is a tabulation that gives the two grades by student, by question, and by grader — the capital letters are the initials of the four graders.

I will call you to set up a meeting. At that time we can also discuss what we want to report to the Department, if anything.

The names of the students, with their scores, are as follows:

Book	Student	Score
6	[name deleted]	30.0
3	[name deleted]	23.3
5	[name deleted]	22.0
1	[name deleted]	18.0
2	[name deleted]	16.3
4	[name deleted]	14.3

TCS:ac

Theory Exam Grades*

Question		Student
Question		1	2	3	4	5	6
1	C	2-	1	2-	1	2+	2
1	V	2+	2	2+	2-	3-	2+
2	S			2-	2-		2+
2	L			0	0		0+
3	V					2+
3	L					0+
4	C		2	1		2	3
4	V		2	2+		3-	3-
5	S	2-	1	3		2	1
5	V	2-	1+	3-		2	3-
6	S	0+	0	2-	1	1	2-
6	L	1-	0	2	0	1-	3
7	C	2	1	2-	1-	0+
7	L	2	1	1	0	1
8	S	2-	1	1-	2-		3
8	V	2-	2-	2-	2		3-
9	C	1	1+		1+		1+
9	L	1	1		1		2
10	S	0-
10	V	1-
11	V				1+	2-
11	L				1	1
Total points**		18.0	16.3	23.3	14.3	22.0	30.0
Average		1.28	1.17	1.66	1.02	1.57	2.15
No. of excellents**		0	0	2	0	2	6
No. of fails**		2	2	1	3	2	1

*Scoring: Excellent = 3, Good = 2, Fair = 1, Fail = 0, with 1/3 point for (+) and (-).

**For fourteen grades, two on each question.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Edward H. Chamberlin Papers, Box 18, Folder “Written Theory Committee, 1963-64”.

Tags Chamberlin, Leontief, Schelling, Vanke

Economist Market Economists Harvard Michigan

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

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

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

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

_____________________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CAMBRIDGE 38, MASSACHUSETTS

Office of the Provost

April 4, 1952

Confidential

Professor Milton Friedman
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Dear Professor Friedman:

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

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

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

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

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

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

COPY

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Office of the Chairman

M-8 Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts

February 18, 1952

Provost Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall

Dear Provost Buck:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours Sincerely,
/s/ Arthur Smithies
Chairman

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

JAMES STEMBLE DUESENBERRY

Born July 18, 1918

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

Publications

Books:

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

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

Articles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Papers Read but not Published:

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

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

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

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

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

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

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Gottfried Haberler
Professor of Economics

325 Littauer Center
Cambridge 38, Massachusetts
March 20, 1952

Provost Paul H. Buck
Harvard University
Cambridge, Mass.

Dear Mr. Buck:

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

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

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

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

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

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Cambridge 38, Massachusetts
March 24, 1952

Provost Paul Buck
University Hall
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Provost Buck:

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

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

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

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

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

With best regards.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Wassily Leontief
Wassily Leontief

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

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CAMBRIDGE 38, MASSACHUSETTS

Office of the President

April 19, 1952

Dear Professor Friedman:

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

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

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

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

Image Source: Harvard College. Classbook 1957.

Tags Duesenberry, Friedman, Haberler, Leontief, Smithies

Exam Questions Harvard Theory

Harvard. Second year economic theory. Readings and exams. Leontief, 1960-1961

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2023-09-25

The following Harvard course outline with reading assignments and semester final exams are from the year 1960-61. Wassily Leontief taught the second graduate course in economic theory.

I have highlighted in blue boldface additions to the reading assignments in the 1960-61 course when compared to the 1956-57 version of the same course. Items omitted are listed at the end of the post.

Comparing the structure of the mid-year and year-end exams, I would conjecture that one or more of Koopmans’ Three Essays on the State of Economic Science was assigned for the first term’s reading period, though the title does not appear on the printed reading list for the course.

__________________________

Wassily Leontief

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Ec. 202a
ECONOMIC THEORY
Fall Term 1960-61

The following outline covers the first semester of the two semester course.

I. Analysis of Production and the Theory of a Firm:

Costs; total, average, marginal.
Theory of the multiple plant firm.
Revenue; total, average, marginal.
Long and short run analysis
Supply under competitive and monopolistic conditions.
Production function, marginal productivity, increasing and decreasing returns.
Stocks and flows.
Joint products.
Demand for factors of production.
Discontinuous relationships and non-marginal analysis (Linear Programming).
Internal and external economies.

Reading assignments:

Oscar Lange, “The Scope and Method of Economics,” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. XIII, (1), 1945-46, pp. 19-32.

H. Simon, “Theories of Decision Making in Economics,” American Economic Review, June 1959.

E. A. G. Robinson, Structure of Competitive Industry, Chs. II, VII, VIII, pp. 14-35, 107-133.

R. C. Heimer, Management for Engineers, Chs. 3-17.

K. E. Boulding, Economic Analysis, (revised edition, 1948) Chapters 20-26, 31, and 32; or (3^rded., 1955) Chapters 23-29, 34, and 35.

E. H. Chamberlin, “Proportionality, Divisibility, and Economies of Scale,”Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, 1948, pp. 229-262.

K. E. Boulding, “The Theory of the Firm in the Last Ten Years,” The American Economic Review, Vol. XXXII, No. 4, December 1942, pp. 791-802.

A. Lerner, Economics of Control, Chs. 15, 16, 17, pp. 174-211.

W. W. Cooper, “A Proposal for Extending the Theory of the Firm,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 1951, pp. 87-109.

R. Solow, “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function,” Review of Economics and Statistics, August 1957.

Robert Dorfman, “Mathematical or ‘Linear’ Programming,” American Economic Review, December 1953, pp. 797-825.

Dorfman, Samuelson and Solow, Linear Programming and Economic Analysis, Ch. 2.

H. M. Wagner, “The Simplex Method for Beginners,” Operations Research, March-April 1958.

R. Dorfman, “Operations Research,” American Economic Review, September 1960, pp. 575-623.

G. Katona, “Business Expectations in the Framework of Psychological Economics,” in M. J. Bowman, ed., Expectations, Uncertainty and Business Behavior.

II. Theory of the Household:

Theory of utility and indifference lines analysis.
Individual demand, prices and income.
Dependent and independent, competing and complementary, superior and inferior goods.
Measurability of utility.
“Marginal utility of money,” Consumer surplus.
Interpersonal interdependence in consumers’ behavior.
Economic theory of index numbers.
Choices involving risk.

Reading assignments:

J. Hicks, Value and Capital, Part I, Chs. I-III, pp. 1-54.

K. E. Boulding, Economic Analysis, (Revised edition, 1948) Chapters 33, 34; or (3^rded., 1955), Chapter 36 and 37.

Duesenberry, Income, Saving and the Theory of Consumer Behavior, Chapters I-III, pp. 1-46.

Modigliania and Brumberg, “Utility analysis and the Consumption Function,” in Kurihara, Post Keynesian Economics.

S. S. Stevens, “Measurement, Psychophysics and Utility,” in Churchman and Ratoosh (ed.) Measurement: Definitions and Theories, pp. 18-63.

A. A. Alchian, “The Meaning of Utility Measurement,” American Economic Review, March 1953, pp. 26-50.

D. Ellsberg, “Classic and Current Notions of ‘Measurable Utility’,” Economic Journal, September 1954.

H. Simon, Models of Man, Part IV, pp. 196-206.

III. Theory of Market Relationships:

Pure competition; individual and market supply and demand curves.
Stability of market equilibrium, statics and dynamics.
Monopoly and price discrimination.
Monopolistic competition.
Duopoly, oligopoly, bilateral monopoly, etc.
“Theory of games.”

Reading assignments:

A. Marshall, Principles of Economics, Book V, Chs. III, V.

E. H. Chamberlin, The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Chs. II, III, IV, and V.

Joan Robinson, The Economics of Imperfect Competition, Chs. 15 and 16.

Robert Triffin, Monopolistic Competition and the General Equilibrium Theory, Chs. I and II.

William Fellner, Competition Among the Few, Chs. II-V.

W. H. Nicholls, Imperfect Competition within Agricultural Industries, Ch. 18.

F. Modigliani, “New Developments on the Oligopoly Front,” JPE, June 1958.

Leonid Hurwicz, “The Theory of Economic Behavior,” American Economic Review, December, 1945, pp. 909-925.

D. Ellsberg, “The Theory of the Reluctant Duelist,” American Economic Review, December 1956.

T. C. Schelling, “An Essay on Bargaining,” American Economic Review, June 1956.

IV. General equilibrium theory:

Basic Concepts of a General Equilibrium Theory.
Data and variables. Price system and general interdependence. Linear model of a general equilibrium system.
Theory of Rent and Factor Prices

Reading assignments:

O. Lange, The Economic Theory of Socialism, pp. 65-72.

Cassel, The Theory of Social Economy, Vol. I, Ch. IV, pp. 134-155.

R. G. D. Allen, Mathematical Economics, pp. 314-325.

E. H. Phelps Brown, Framework of the Pricing System, in particular chapters dealing with general equilibrium theory.

T. W. Schultz, Agriculture in an Unstable Economy, Ch. I, pp. 60-70; Ch. IV, pp. 128-137.

R. S. Eckaus, “The Factor Proportion Problem in Underdeveloped Areas,” The American Economic Review, September 1955, pp. 539-565.

N. Georgescu-Roegen, “Economic Theory and Agrarian Economics,” Oxford Economic Papers, February 1960, pp. 1-40.

___________________________

Mid-year Examination
1960-1961 (Jan. 1961)

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
1960-1961
ECONOMICS 202

PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY

Answer one question from each group, four questions in all.

GROUP I

Demonstrate that the assumption that the marginal utility of one of the goods purchased by a consumer is constant is more restrictive than the assumption that its utility is independent of the quantity of any other good.
How could the knowledge of the constancy of its marginal utility help to assess the effect of an income tax on the demand for the good in question?

GROUP II

	Amount Needed Per Unit of Activity			Factor Supply
	Activity 1	Activity 2	Activity 3
Factor 1	6	1	2	12
Factor 2	2	2	1	10
Factor 3	1	5	20	200

Market Value Per Unit of Output	15	3	8

A firm with a fixed supply of three factors has three possible activities, each of which produces a different product selling for a different price. The factor requirements, factor supplies and the product prices are given in the table above. Find the level of activities, including disposal activities, which maximize the firm’s revenue.
Supplemental information which can be used to shorten computation: In the solution of the “dual”, only factor 1 turns out to have a positive imputed price.

A farmer has fixed amounts of two different kinds of land. He can grow two kinds of product, the prices of which are given. The only other input is labor. Its total available amount is also fixed. The amount of land and of labor required per bushel of each one of the two crops on each type of land is known.
Set up the linear programming problem which the farmer would have to solve to maximize the value of his output.

GROUP III

4. (a) Discuss the differences and similarities of the following types of analysis:

1. 1. The derivation of a household’s demand curve for a commodity.
  2. The derivation of a firm’s demand curve for a factor of production.

4. (b) Demonstrate that,

1. 1. 1. A household can have a positively sloping demand curve for the commodities it buys.
    2. A firm cannot have a positively sloping demand curve for any of the factors of production it buys, if it sells its product in a perfectly competitive market.

A self-sufficient farmer lives on produce that he grows himself under conditions of decreasing average returns. The length of his working time can be explained in terms of a utility maximizing choice between agricultural produce and leisure.
Among the (real) wage rates which could induce him to quit farming and become a hired worker, one necessarily must be lower than any other. If this minimum wage rate were actually offered to him, and he became a hired worker would the length of his working time a) remain the same b) become shorter or c) become longer than it was when he gained his livelihood as a self-sufficient farmer?

GROUP IV

What is the principal contribution of the theoretical approach described in Koopman’s State of Economic Science?
Write a critical essay on methodology, rather than substance, except where a discussion of the latter is necessary to a discussion of the former.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Social Sciences. Final Examinations, January 1961. (HUC 7000.28), Vol. 131 of 284.

___________________________

Wassily Leontief

ECONOMICS 202b
ECONOMIC THEORY
Spring Term, 1960-61

V. Economics of Welfare

Individual maximum and social welfare.
Efficiency and distributive justice.
Efficiency of the purely competitive system.
Monopoly and economic welfare.
External economies.
Pricing and allocation for public enterprise.

READING ASSIGNMENTS:

J. Hicks, “The Foundation of Welfare Economics,” Economic Journal, December 1939, pp. 696-712.

Meade and Hitch, An Introduction to Economic Analysis and Policy, Part II, Chs. VI-VII, pp. 159-220.

Francis Bator, “The Anatomy of Market Failure,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. LXXII, August, 1958, pp. 351-379.

T. Scitovsky, “The State of Welfare Economics,” The American Economic Review, Vol. XLI, June 1951, pp. 303-315.

J. De Graaf, Theoretical Welfare Economics.

Mishan, E. J., “A Survey of Welfare Economics, 1939-1959,” The Economic Journal, Vol. LXX, No. 278, June, 1960, pp. 197-265.

VI. Capital and Interest

Stock and Flow Concepts.
Productivity of Capital.
Period of production and “turnover” of capital.
Theory of saving.
Risk and uncertainty.
Partial equilibrium theory of interest.

READING ASSIGNMENTS:

Robert Eisner, “Interview and Other Survey Techniques and the Study of Investment,” in Problems of Capital Formation, Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 19, National Bureau of Economic Research 1957, pp. 513-583.

Irving Fisher, The Theory of Interest, Chs. VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XVI, XVII, and XVIII. 1930.

Hirschleifer, “On the Theory of Optimal Investment Decision,” Journal of Political Economy, August, 1958.

Readings in the Theory of Income Distribution (Blakiston, 1946)

F. Knight, “Capital and Interest,” pp. 384-417.
Keynes, “The Theory of the Rate of Interest,” pp. 418-424.
D. H. Robertson, “Mr. Keynes and the Rate of Interest,” pp. 425-460.

Friedrich & Vera Lutz, The Theory of Investment of the Firm, 1951.

Joel Dean, Capital Budgeting, 1951, Chs. VI, VII.

Eckstein, “Investment Criteria for Economic development and Intertemporal Welfare Economics,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Feb., 1957.

VII: Principles of Dynamics

Change over time.
Period analysis.
Continuous change
Dynamic stability and instability.

READING ASSIGNMENTS:

W. Baumol, Economic Dynamics, Chs. I-VII, pp. 1-136.

P. Samuelson, “Dynamics, Statics and Stationary State,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, February 1943, pp. 58-68 (also reprinted in Readings in Economic Analysis, Vol. 1, edited by N. V. Clemens).

K. J. Arrow, “Toward a Theory of Price Adjustment,” in The Allocation of Economic Resources, pp. 41-51, Stanford, California, 1959.

Erik Lindahl, Introduction to the Study of Dynamic Theory, pp. 21-73 in Studies in the Theory of Money and Capital.

Dorfman, Samuelson, Solow, Linear Programming and Economic Analysis, pp. 265-281.

VIII: Economic Development and Accumulation of Capital

Dynamic interrelation of income, investment and the rate of interest.
Linear theory of economic development.
Non-linear theory of economic development.

READING ASSIGNMENTS:

Bresciani-Turoni, “The Theory of Saving,” Economica; Part I, Feb. 1936, pp. 1-23; Part II, May 1936, pp. 162-181.

Schelling, “Capital Growth and Equilibrium,” American Economic Review, Dec. 1947, pp. 864-876.

Harrod, “An Essay in Dynamic Theory,” Economic Journal, March 1939, pp. 14-33.

Stern, “Capital Requirements in Progressive Economies,” Economica, August 1945, pp. 163-171.

Robert M. Solow, “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. LXX, February, 1956, pp. 65-94.

Arthur Smithies, “Productivity, Real Wages and Economic Growth,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May, 1960, pp. 189-205.

Also, Baumol, see above under VII.

IX: Keynesian Theory and Problems

Over-all outlines of the General Theory.
Wage and price “stickiness.”
Demand for money.
Saving and “oversaving.”
Multiplier principle.

READING ASSIGNMENTS:

A. P. Lerner, The Economics of Control, Chs. 21, 22, and 25.

A. P. Lerner, “The Essential Properties of Interest and Money,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1952, pp. 172-93.

J. M. Keynes, General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Chs. 1, 2, 8, and 18.

G. Haberler, Prosperity and Depression, Ch. 8.

Modigliani, “Liquidity Preference and the Theory of Interest and Money,” Readings in Monetary Theory.

Hicks, “A Rehabilitation of ‘Classical’ Economics?” Economic Journal, June, 1957.

Reading Period Assignment (spring):

Trygve Haavelmo, A Study in the Theory of Investment, Chicago, 1960.

F. and V. Lutz, The Theory of Investment of the Firm, Princeton, 1951.

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

___________________________

Year-end Examination
1960-1961 (June 1961)

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
1960-1961
ECONOMICS 202

PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY

Answer one question from each of the four groups, four questions all together.

GROUP I

Consider a two commodity, two consumer group economy run along socialist principles. The government fixes the quantities of A and B produced in any one year, fixes ruble incomes going to consumer groups I and II and also fixes ruble prices so that the total income distributed can exactly buy the amounts produced.
Assume that the collective behavior of a consumer group can be described as one of reaching the highest of a set of group indifference curves under collective income and market constraints.
(a) Using the box diagram technique, show what additional
conditions prices must satisfy if the market is to be cleared.
(b) assume that equilibrium is not established at official prices and that the State decides to ration the available amount of the short commodity between the two groups.The rationing is done in such a way that both groups get less than they wish to buy at official prices. Show how one can explain the resulting equilibrium.
(c) Starting from this equilibrium, will the two groups necessarily find some advantage in exchanging commodities on the black market? Will the black market equilibrium be better or worse (in terms of conventional welfare criteria) than that obtained when prices fixed by the government are chosen so as to clear the market?
It has been established that the annual cost of distributing electricity in an Indian city would be 100,000 rupees in capital charges plus one rupee per kilowatt consumed. The following proposal is put to a vote in a city referendum: “To build the system, charge a price of one rupee per kilowatt and tax the public 100,000 rupees to cover capital charges. The proposal is unanimously rejected. The city fathers then undertake a market survey and find that the tax could be reduced to 50,000 rupees, the price increased to 1.5 rupee and all costs still be exactly covered. They adopt this second proposal without further consultation.
Assuming a homogeneous population and equal taxation, can you derive from the above information a preferential ordering of the following alternatives in terms of social welfare:

(a) Charging 1 rupee and raising 100,000 in taxes.
(b) Charging 1.5 rupee and raising 50,000 in taxes.
(c) Not building the system at all.

GROUP II

A profit maximizing enterprise possesses a fixed plant and uses as its variable inputs a raw material (fixed amount per unit of output) and labor. Its finished product is sold and the raw material is purchased on perfectly competitive markets. On the labor market, however, the enterprise is the only employer; the workers are not organized and thus compete with each other.
What factual information would you require and what theoretical construction would you use to explain the level of that enterprise’s output if,

(a) labor is hired on the basis of straight hourly wages.
(b) labor is hired at a flat hourly wage for the first eight, and a 50% higher overtime hourly rate for two additional hours, the workers being free to choose whether they want to work eight or ten daily hours.
(c) labor is paid flat piecework rates.

To simplify the problem, you are permitted to assume that the preference functions (real income vs. leisure) of all workers are identical.

The growth of a certain kind of tree requires λ man-hours for planting and entails no other costs. The volume of wood represented by a tree increases at a constant growth rate:
V = EXP(rt). Two alternative assumptions are made with respect to the tree market:

(A) Trees are sold by volume at a price p per volumetric unit.
(B) Trees are sold by volume at a price p’ now depending on the length of the tree. Observing that length is related to age, traders use the formula
p’= α SQRT(t), where α is a constant and t the age of the tree.

(a) Given the amount L of man-hours available per year, describe a “full employment” production process that guarantees constant profits, year after year.
(b) Under each market assumption, discuss the empirical possibility and operational usefulness of measuring the capital stock and its marginal productivity.
(c) Money can be lent and borrowed without limits at an interest rate i, which is larger than r. At what age should the trees be cut under assumption (B) if the grower wishes to establish a stationary production process that maximizes his utility over time?

GROUP III

A conventional partial equilibrium theory explains the prices and the quantities — produced and consumed — of all goods on the assumption that a supply and a demand curve is given for each market.
In what sense can it be said that, from the point of view of a general equilibrium theory, at least some of such given demand and supply curves must be either incompatible with each other or redundant? In answering this question, please use equations, graphs, or both.

GROUP IV

To what extent does Haavelmo or the Lutz’s — whomever you have chosen to read — rely on purely technological specifications and considerations in describing and analyzing the role of capital in the operations of an individual enterprise and of the economy as a whole? And to what extent do they use definitions and measurements which “engineers” would not employ in their professional work?
Illustrate your answer by specific examples.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Social Sciences, Final Examinations, June 1961 (HUC 7000.28, Vol. 134 of 284).

___________________________

Reading assignments in the 1956-57 reading list that were dropped from the 1960-61 reading list:

I. Analysis of Production and the Theory of a Firm:

E. H. MacNiece, Production, Forecasting, Planning and Control, 292 pp.

R. Frisch, “Alfred Marshall’s Theory of Value,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. LXIV, No. 4, November 1950, pp. 495-524.

National Bureau of Economic Research, Cost Behavior and Price Policy, Ch. VII, pp. 142-169; Appendix C, pp. 321-329.

A. G. Hart, Anticipations, Uncertainty and Dynamic Planning, reprinted 1951, 98 pp.

II. Theory of the Household:

J. R. Hicks, A Revision of Demand Theory, Parts I and II, also the summary and conclusion.

G. Katona, Psychological Analysis of Economic Behavior, Part II, #1-7, pp. 63-149.

III. Theory of Market Relationships:

No titles dropped.

IV. General Equilibrium Theory:

No titles dropped.

V. Economics of Welfare

Coase, “Note on Price and Output Policy,” Economic Journal, Vol. LV, April 1945, pp. 112-113.

Samuelson, “Evaluation of Real National Income,” Oxford Economic papers, Jan. 1950.

VI. Capital and Interest

Edward F. Denison, “Theoretical Aspects of Quality Change, Capital Consumption, and Net Capital Formation,” in Problems of Capital Formation, Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 19, National Bureau of Economic Research 1957, pp. 215-260.

John Rae, John, New Principles of Political Economy, 1834, Chs. I-V.

Irving Fisher, Nature of Capital and Income, Chs. I, IV, V, XIV, XVII, Macmillan, 1906.

VII: Principles of Dynamics

K. E. Boulding, A Reconstruction of Economics, Ch. I, pp. 3-26.

VIII: Economic Development and Accumulation of Capital

Pigou, Economic Progress in a Stable Economy,” Economica, August 1947, pp. 180-188.

A. Sweezy, “Secular Stagnation?” in Harris, Postwar Economic Problems, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1943, pp. 67-82.

Hansen, “Economic Progress and Declining Population Growth,” American Economic Review, March 1939, pp. 1-15.

IX: Keynesian Theory and Problems

No titles dropped.

cf. The earlier post for Economics 202 in 1956-57.

___________________________

Image Source: Wassily Leontief in Radcliffe Yearbook 1964, p. 98. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Tags Leontief

Economist Market Economists Fields

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

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

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

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

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

_______________________________________

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

VERY CONFIDENTIAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Backstory of the O’Connor Peace Bill

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

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

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

Previously posted departmental reports

Report Department of Economics, 1961-1962

ECONOMICS NEWSLETTER Fifth Annual Issue, June 1, 1960

UNDERGRADUATE INSTRUCTION:

MATHEMATICS- LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT:

THE ECONOMICS OF HIGHER EDUCATION:

PERSONNEL:

All three were eventually given Harvard professorships anyway

Haberler’s Protest: Preface to his Colleagues

Haberler’s Protest in Full

CONFIDENTIAL.

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

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

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

February 25, 1948

Other Written Exams in Economic Theory

HARVARD UNIVERSITY Department of Economics

Written Economic Theory Examination April 8, 1963

HARVARD UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

HARVARD UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Schelling’s Memo to Dunlop and the Exam Committee

Chamberlin’s Memo to the Exam Committee

Leontief Letter to Schelling

Other Written Exams in Economic Theory

HARVARD UNIVERSITY Department of Economics

Written Exam in Economic Theory November 13, 1962

HARVARD UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

HARVARD UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Wassily Leontief

HARVARD UNIVERSITY Ec. 202a ECONOMIC THEORY Fall Term 1960-61

I. Analysis of Production and the Theory of a Firm:

II. Theory of the Household:

III. Theory of Market Relationships:

IV. General equilibrium theory:

Mid-year Examination 1960-1961 (Jan. 1961)

HARVARD UNIVERSITY 1960-1961 ECONOMICS 202

Wassily Leontief

ECONOMICS 202b ECONOMIC THEORY Spring Term, 1960-61

V. Economics of Welfare

VI. Capital and Interest

VII: Principles of Dynamics

VIII: Economic Development and Accumulation of Capital

IX: Keynesian Theory and Problems

Reading Period Assignment (spring):

Year-end Examination 1960-1961 (June 1961)

HARVARD UNIVERSITY 1960-1961 ECONOMICS 202

Reading assignments in the 1956-57 reading list that were dropped from the 1960-61 reading list:

I. Analysis of Production and the Theory of a Firm:

II. Theory of the Household:

III. Theory of Market Relationships:

IV. General Equilibrium Theory:

V. Economics of Welfare

VI. Capital and Interest

VII: Principles of Dynamics

VIII: Economic Development and Accumulation of Capital

IX: Keynesian Theory and Problems

VERY CONFIDENTIAL

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

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

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

Report
Department of Economics, 1961-1962

ECONOMICS NEWSLETTER
Fifth Annual Issue, June 1, 1960

All three were eventually given
Harvard professorships anyway

Haberler’s Protest:
Preface to his Colleagues

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

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

Other Written Exams
in Economic Theory

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Written Economic Theory Examination
April 8, 1963

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Schelling’s Memo to Dunlop
and the Exam Committee

Chamberlin’s Memo
to the Exam Committee

Other Written Exams
in Economic Theory

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Written Exam in Economic Theory
November 13, 1962

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Ec. 202a
ECONOMIC THEORY
Fall Term 1960-61

Mid-year Examination
1960-1961 (Jan. 1961)

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
1960-1961
ECONOMICS 202

ECONOMICS 202b
ECONOMIC THEORY
Spring Term, 1960-61

Year-end Examination
1960-1961 (June 1961)

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
1960-1961
ECONOMICS 202