Tag: Metzler

Categories
Chicago Exam Questions Suggested Reading Syllabus

Chicago. Theory of Distribution. Readings and exam questions. Metzler, 1961-64

 

In the early 1960s Lloyd A. Metzler taught a course at the University of Chicago that offered a mélange of production, capital, fiscal, growth and international trade theories as a/the “theory of distribution”. It is fascinating to see these very different theoretical streams converging on the topic of distribution. 

_________________________

ECONOMICS 302
Reading List—Spring, 1961

THEORY OF DISTRIBUTION
L. A. Metzler

Principal Topics and Suggested Reading

I. Production Functions and Income Distribution

Paul H. Douglas, “Are There Laws of Production?” American Economic Review, XXXVIII, No. 1, March 1948.

D. Gale Johnson, “The Functional Distribution of Income in the United States, 1850-1952,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, XXXVI, No. 2, May 1954.

Solomon Fabricant, Basic Facts on Productivity Change, Occasional Paper No. 63, National Bureau of Economic Research.

II. Capital and the Concept of Income

Knut Wicksell, Lectures on Political Economy, Vol. I, Part II.

Frank H. Knight, “The Quantity of Capital and the Rate of Interest,” Part 1, Journal of Political Economy, August, 1936, Part 2, Journal of Political Economy, October, 1936.

T. W. Schultz, “Investment in Human Beings Capital,” American Economic Review, March 1961.

Irving Fisher, The Theory of Interest (1906), reprinted by Kelley and Millman, New York, 1954.

III. Investment and Economic Growth

Evsey Domar, Essays in the Theory of Economic Growth, New York, Oxford University Press, 1957, Chapter 1.

Walter W. Rostow, The Process of Economic Growth, New York, 1952.

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

J. M. Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Chapters 11-14.

A. P. Lerner, “On the Marginal Product of Capital and the Marginal Efficiency of Investment,” Journal of Political Economy, February, 1953.

James Tobin, “A Dynamic Aggregative Model,” Journal of Political Economy, April, 1955.

IV. The Economic Consequences of Public Debt

James Buchanan, Public Principles of Public Debt, Irwin, 1958.

Lloyd A. Metzler, “Wealth, Saving and the Rate of Interest,” Journal of Political Economy, April, 1951.

Robert A. Mundell, “The Public Debt, Corporate Income Taxes, and the Rate of Interest,” Journal of Political Economy, December, 1960.

J. R. Hicks, “Mr. Keynes and the ‘Classics’: A Suggested Interpretation,” Econometrica, Vol. V, April 1937.

IV. International Trade and the Distribution of Income

Bertil Ohlin, Interregional and International Trade, Harvard University.

Wolfgang Stolper and Paul Samuelson, “Protection and Real Wages,” Review of Economic Studies, IX (1941), 58-73.

David Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, Chapter 7.

_________________________

ECONOMICS 302
Reading List—Spring, 1963
[same for Spring, 1964]

THEORY OF DISTRIBUTION
L. A. Metzler

I. Production Functions and Income Distribution

Paul H. Douglas, “Are There Laws of Production?” American Economic Review, XXXVIII, No. 1 (March, 1948).

D. Gale Johnson, “The Functional Distribution of Income in the United States, 1850-1952,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, XXXVI, No. 2 (May, 1954).

Solomon Fabricant, Basic Facts on Productivity Change, Occasional Paper No. 63, National Bureau of Economic Research.

Marvin Frankel, “The Production Function: Allocation and Growth,” American Economic Review, LII, No. 5 (December, 1962).

Kenneth Arrow, Hollis B. Chenery, Nigicha Minhas, and Robert M. Solow, “Capital-Labor Substitution and Economic Efficiency,” Review of Economics and Statistics, XLII, No 3 (August, 1961).

R. M. Solow, “A Skeptical Note on the Constancy of Relative Shares,” American Economic Review, XLVIII (1958).

II. Income, Interest, and the Concept of Capital

Knut Wicksell, Lectures on Political Economy, Vol. I, Part II.

Frank H. Knight, “The Quantity of Capital and the Rate of Interest,” Part I, Journal of Political Economy (August, 1936), Part II, Journal of Political Economy (Oct., 1936).

T. W. Schultz, “Investment in Human Capital,” American Economic Review (March, 1961).

Irving Fisher, The Theory of Interest (1906), reprinted by Kelley and Millman, New York, 1954.

David Meiselman, The Term Structure of Interest Rates, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962.

[Handwritten addition:] J. A. G. Grant, “Meiselman on the Structure of Interest Rates: A British Test,” Economica, New Series, Vol. XXXI, No. 121, Feb. 1964.

Friedrich A. Lutz, “The Structure of Interest Rates,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1940-41. Reprinted in American Economic Association, Readings in the Theory of Income Distribution (eds.) William Fellner and Bernard Haley.

J. R. Hicks, Value and Capital, Oxford at the Clarendon Press (2d ed.), Parts III and IV.

Lloyd A. Metzler, “Wealth, Saving and the Rate of Interest,” Journal of Political Economy, LIX, No. 2 (April, 1951).

Robert A. Mundell, “The Public Debt, Corporate Income Taxes, and the Rate of Interest,” Journal of Political Economy, LXVIII (December, 1960).

III. Production Functions, Innovations and Economic Growth

Evsey Domar, Essays in the Theory of Economic Growth, New York: Oxford University Press, 1957, Chapter 1.

Walter W. Rostow, The Process of Economic Growth, New York, 1952.

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

Hirofumi Uzawa, “On a Two-Sector Model of Economic Growth,” Review of Economic Studies, XXIX, No. 1 (1962).

T. W. Swan, “Economic Growth and Capital Accumulation,” Economic Record, XXXII (1956).

James Tobin, “A Dynamic Aggregative Model,” Journal of Political Economy (April, 1955).

IV. International Trade and the Distribution of Income

Wolfgang Stolper and Paul Samuelson, “Protection and Real Wages,” Review of Economic Studies, IX (1941).

Paul Samuelson, “International Trade and the Equalization of Factor Prices,” Economic Journal, LVIII (1948).

Paul Samuelson, “International Factor Price Equalization Once Again,” Economic Journal, LIX (1949).

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Papers of Lloyd A. Metzler, Box 9, Folder “Reading Lists 300A+B—302”.

_________________________

Economics 302
FINAL EXAMINATION
Spring Quarter, 1963

Lloyd A. Metzler
June 4, 1963

Answer all questions:

  1. Give the formula for the Cobb-Douglas production function and prove its implications with respect to the following:
    1. The effects of a uniform increase in capital and labor upon relative and absolute wages and interest rates on the assumption that competitive conditions exist in both the factor markets and the commodities markets.
    2. The effect of a rise in the ratio of capital to labor upon relative and absolute wages, and interest rates again on the assumption of competitive conditions.
  2. Answer the same questions for the C.E.S. production function.
    1. State what is meant by a production function which is homogeneous of the first degree.
    2. Show that if a production function possesses this type of homogeneity, the output per worker depends entirely upon the ratio of capital to labor, and not at all upon the scale of production.
    3. Prove that the Cobb-Douglas production function and the C.E.S. function are both homogeneous of the first degree.
  4. The U. S. Treasury wants to reduce the long-term interest rate so as to encourage investment and at the same time increase the short-term rate so as to prevent short-term capital outflows. For this purpose it has been shortening the term structures of the federal debt. That is, the treasury has been purchasing its long-term bonds and issuing short-term bonds as a substitute.
    1. Show how such an operation might be expected to achieve the desired results.
    2. In view of the expectations hypothesis investigated by David Meiselman, would you expect such an operation to achieve its purpose? Explain carefully.
    1. Distinguish between the expectations hypothesis concerning the term structure of interest rates and the liquidity preference hypothesis and show what each implies with respect to the term structure of interest rates.
    2. Which hypothesis does the historical evidence seem to support?
    3. Is there any way of reconciling the two views?
    1. Given the yield on long-term bonds, R1, R2,…, Rn, show how a series of expected forward rates for one-year bonds r1, r2, r3,…, beginning in years 1, 2, 3, can be derived from the yield table on long term bonds. What operations would a bond holder need to undertake in order to be sure that he would receive these expected forward rates in spite of changes in bond prices?
    2. Derive the formula for the yield of a three-year forward bond, with interest rates applicable at the end of the third year, and show again, how a bondholder can realize this yield through operations in the bond market, regardless of fluctuations in bond prices.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Papers of Lloyd A. Metzler, Box 9, Folder “Exams 302”.

_________________________

ECONOMICS 302
COURSE EXAMINATION — SPRING, 1964

Lloyd A. Metzler
June 9, 1964
1:30—3:30

ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS

  1. In the theory of distribution, it is usual to assume that the production function for output as a whole is homogeneous of the first degree.
    1. What is the meaning of a homogeneous production function?
    2. Show that homogeneity implies that commodities are produced at constant cost.
    3. Show that if the production function is homogeneous of the first degree and all factors of production are paid according to the value of their marginal products, the total amount paid will be exactly equal to the total return.
    4. Is it necessary to have homogeneous production functions to prove this proposition? Why, or why not?
    1. Define “elasticity of substitution” and show what bearing it has on the distribution of income.
    2. The following is a table indicating indexes of units of capital k and the price of capital, pk, as well as the units of workers, w, and the price of workers, pw.
P Price of workers
(pw)		 Units of workers
(w)		 Price of capital
(pk)		 Units of capital
(k)
Period I 1.00 200 2.00 100
Period II 2.00 250 1.00 500

Does this table give any indication as to the elasticity of substitution? Why, or why not?

    1. Define the Cobb-Douglas production function and the C.E.S. production function and show that: Cobb-Douglas production function is homogeneous of the first degree with an elasticity of substitution equal to unity.
    2. Show that the C.E.S. production function is homogeneous of the first degree.
    3. Show that, when \rho approaches zero the C.E.S. production function has an elasticity of substitution equal to unity.
    1. Define and evaluate the capital theories of the following economists:
      (1) T. W. Schultz
      (2) Irving Fisher
      (3) Knut Wicksell
      (4) F. H. Knight
    2. What are Knight’s objections to the notion of a period of production? Why does he believe there are no diminishing returns to the accumulation of capital?
    1. Derive the Harrod-Domar concept of a balanced state of growth, and show why it is inherently unstable.
    2. How is the concept of balanced growth related to Keynes’ theory of employment?
    1. Discuss the following theories of interest, and show how they are related to the term structure of interest rates.
      (1) Liquidity preference.
      (2) Expectations.
      (3) Constitutional weakness in the futures market.
    2. Does a downward-sloping term-to-maturity structure of interest rates conflict with the liquidity-preference theory? Why, or why not?
    3. Assuming that the interest rates for bonds of various maturities are as follows:
      year bonds R1
      2. year bonds R2
      3. year bonds R3
      4. year bonds R4
      5. year bonds R5
      6. year bonds R6
      7. year bonds R7
      8. year bonds R8
      Show how the implicit forward rates for short-term one year bonds r1, r2, r3, r4, r5, r6, r7, r8can be computed from the actual market yields, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8.
    4. Assuming that the market rates are R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, you are asked to derive the rate for a 3 year bond beginning in year 6 and show what market transactions the typical bondholder would have to make to insure that he actually received the interest rate implicit in this formula.

 

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Papers of Lloyd A. Metzler, Box 9, Folder “Exams 302”.

Source Image: Posting by Margie Metzler on the Metzler Family Tree at the genealogical website, ancestry.com.

Categories
Exam Questions Swarthmore Undergraduate

Swarthmore. B.A. Honors Examination in Economic Theory. External Examiner, Lloyd Metzler, 1943-45

 

Wolfgang Stolper taught at Swarthmore College from 1941-1949. In his papers at Duke University’s Economists’ Papers Archive one finds copies of  the following economic theory examination questions prepared by Swarthmore’s external examiners:

Jan/May 1942 (James G. Smith)
Jan 1943 (Paul Samuelson)
May 1943 (Paul Samuelson)
October 1943 (Lloyd Metzler) [transcribed below]
Feb 1944 (Joseph D. Coppock)
June 1944 (Friedrich Lutz)
Oct 1944 (Lloyd Metzler) [transcribed below]
Jun 1945 (Joseph D. Coppock)
Jun 1946 (Richard Musgrave)
Jan 1947 (Joseph D. Coppock)
Undated (Lloyd Metzler) [transcribed below]

The above list has led me to an interpolative guess of either February or October 1945 for the undated Metzler honors examination. Links are provided to the previously posted transcriptions of the examinations by Samuelson and Musgrave.

_________________________

Swarthmore College
Division of the Social Sciences
Department of Economics
October 20, 1943

Economic Theory
Honors Examination
Mr. Metzler

ANSWER ONE QUESTION FROM EACH PART

PART I
Write a one-hour essay on one of the following topics:

  1. The relation between cost curves and supply curves, and the conditions of equilibrium in a purely competitive industry, both in the long run and in the short run.
  2. A comparison of monopolistic competition and pure competition, including a contrast of the equilibrium position of the firm and the number of firms in the “industry” under monopolistic competition, with the equilibrium conditions and number of firms under pure competition.
  3. The marginal productivity theory in its original form, and the changes made necessary by the theory of monopolistic competition.
  4. Determinants of the level of employment and income.
  5. A careful analysis of the population problem in the United States, including both regional distribution problems and the problem of the size of the total population.
  6. Monetary versus “real” theories of the rate of interest.

 

Part II

  1. How was the cost controversy related to the development of the theory of monopolistic competition?
  2. A tax of $1 per unit is imposed upon the production of a certain commodity which is produced under conditions of pure competition. Assuming that the industry is initially in equilibrium, show how this tax affects he price, output, profits, and the number of firms in the industry, both in the short run and in the long run.
  3. Discuss the principles of price discrimination in a monopolized industry.
  4. Suppose there are only two firms producing a standardized product. Describe the determination of price and output in this industry, pointing out the difficulties which arise in such a case.

 

Part III

  1. Suppose a particular industry X produces its commodity with only two factors, labor and land, which may be used in variable proportions. An increased supply of this particular type of labor causes the wage rate to decline. Assuming no change in the demand for the product, analyze the effect of the wage reduction on (a) employment of labor, (b) employment of land, (c) price of the product, (d) output of the product, and (e) labor’s relative share in the total distribution.
  2. Describe Malthus’ theory of population. Can you present a more sophisticated version in the light of modern theories of production and distribution?
  3. “The rate of interest is the result of a race between accumulation and invention.” Discuss.
  4. Discuss the relation of the modern corporation to the theory of profits.

 

Part IV

  1. What types of cyclical fluctuation may be found in statistics of employment, income, production, and prices? How do you explain each type of cycle?
  2. What measures would you suggest for the control of employment after the war? Explain each carefully.
  3. In the period of the twenties, economists believed that business cycles could be controlled by monetary measures (i.e., movement of interest rates, bank reserve ratios, etc.). Account for the failure of such measures to control the depression of the thirties.
  4. Explain carefully the relation between investment and the level of employment, relating the analysis to Schumpeter’s “circular flow”.

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubinstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archives. Wolfgang F. Stolper Papers, Box 22, Folder 1.

_________________________

Swarthmore College
Division of the Social Sciences
Department of Economics
October 16, 1944

Economic Theory
Honors Examination
Dr. Lloyd A. Metzler
Federal Reserve Board
Washington, D.C.

ANSWER FIVE QUESTIONS, INCLUDING AT LEAST ONE FROM EACH PART.
I

  1. “The conditions which determine the prices charged by a local clothing store are quite unlike those which govern the price of wheat or corn.” Explain carefully.
  2. After the war, expenditures of the federal government will be considerably higher than in the pre-war period. To meet part of these expenditures, two kinds of business taxes are proposed: (1) a tax on corporate profits, similar to our present tax, but with lower rates; (2) taxes on the sales of certain luxury items, such as cigarettes, tobacco, and liquor. It is sometimes said that the first type of tax falls upon the corporations themselves, whereas the second falls upon the consumers of the taxed items. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
  3. “Imperfectly competitive markets involve an inevitable waste. Each firm produces less than its optimum output, and charges a higher price than might otherwise be necessary.” Evaluate this statement. If such wastes exist, how can they be eliminated?
  4. Suppose a particular industry produces a standardized product, such as steel, but there are only four or five producers in the whole industry. What determines the price of the product?
  5. Compare the effects of a tax on output in a perfectly competitive industry with those of a similar tax on a monopolistic output, both in the short run in the long run.

 

II

  1. “In a perfectly competitive industry, every worker gets just what he is worth, but in monopoly industries the workers are always exploited.” Present your own opinion on this subject.
  2. Define “elasticity of substitution” and explain type of problem in which the concept is useful.
  3. An industry in which there is only a single producer is unionized, and a standard wage is set which is higher than the prevailing wage. Analyze the effects of this action upon (a) the number of workers employed, (b) the output of the industry, (c) the price of the product, and (d) the total wage bill.
  4. Answer (3), assuming that the industry is perfectly competitive.

 

III

  1. One frequently encounters two statements about the return to land: (a) “Rent is the difference between the productivity of a given plot of land and the productivity of land which it is just worthwhile to cultivate.”(b) “Rents would exist even if all land were uniformly productive; it is a surplus which arises from the fact that additional units of labour applied to a given plot of land have diminishing productivity.” Are these two statements contradictory? Explain your answer.
  2. “The law of diminishing returns is indispensable to the existence of rent. Unless this law were true, the entire world’s supply of wheat could be grown in a flower pot.” Comment.
  3. “Rent, like the reward of any other factor of production, is determined by conditions of supply and demand. From this point of view, rent differs from wages mainly in respective conditions of supply.” Do you regard this is an important difference? Why or why not? Contrast the long-run effects of a tax on rents with the long-run effects of a tax on wages, assuming that wages initially are near the subsistence level.
  4. “The equilibrium rate of interest is the rate which makes the supply of savings equal to demand. The supply of savings is the schedule of amounts which individuals wish to save at various interest rates, while the demand is the schedule of amounts which business men wish to invest. Thus, when the rate of interest is in equilibrium, savings are equal to investment. But if the rate of interest exceeds the equilibrium rate, investment falls short of savings.” Evaluate this statement.
  5. Compare Böhm-Bawerk’s theory of interest with the monetary theory.
  6. “In the long run, profits of the competitive industry tend toward zero.” Does this mean that the accountant’s reports of the small enterprise owned by a single individual will also attend toward zero? Explain your answer.

 

IV

  1. Present a program for maintaining full employment in the United States after the war.
  2. “Since national income is equal to consumption plus net investment, and savings are simply the difference between income and consumption, it follows that savings for any given period are always equal to investment, by definition. For this reason, a business cycle theory which attributes changes in income and employment to a disparity between savings and investment must be fallacious.” Comment.
  3. Explain carefully how income is related to the level of net investment.
  4. During the first world war, a high interest rate was regarded as one of the important means of curbing inflation. In the present war, on the other hand, a conscious attempt has been made to keep interest rates at a very low level. Explain the relation between interest rates and prices in an economy where full employment prevails. Why do you suppose high interest rates were abandoned as an anti-inflation measure in the present war?
  5. It is sometimes said that unemployment exists because workers are unwilling to accept the wage which corresponds to their productivity. According to this view, if workers were willing to accept a reduction of wage rates, business men would find it profitable to hire more workers and unemployment would thereby be reduced. Do you agree or disagree? Explain your answer.

 

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubinstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archives. Wolfgang F. Stolper Papers, Box 22, Folder 1.

_________________________

Swarthmore College
Division of the Social Sciences
Department of Economics
[No date–1945?]

ECONOMIC THEORY
Honors Examination
Dr. Lloyd A. Metzler
Washington, D.C.

ANSWER FOUR QUESTIONS, INCLUDING ONE FROM EACH PART.
I

Write an essay (about one hour) on one of the following topics:

  1. The theory of interest, from Böhm-Bawerk to Keynes.
  2. Monopolistic competition and the theory of distribution.
  3. The theory of discriminating monopoly.
  4. A comparison of perfect competition with monopolistic competition.
  5. Factors which determine the level of employment.
  6. The relation of wage rates to employment.
  7. The theory of the duopoly.
  8. The relation between wates [sic, “wage rates”?] and rent.
  9. The law of variable proportions and theory of distribution.

 

II

  1. As a result of a technological change, the cost of producing a particular commodity, X, is reduced for all firms. Assuming that the industry is perfectly competitive, the effects of this change upon output, price and profits in both the short run in the long run.
  2. Explain the relations between marginal costs, average costs, and supply curves in a perfectly-competitive industry.
  3. “In a perfectly-competitive industry, the tax on sales is always born by consumers, whereas in a monopoly industry, the monopolists bears a part of the added costs.” Evaluate this statement, considering both the short-run in the long-run.
  4. Explain the meaning of “excess capacity” in the theory of monopolistic competition, and show how it is related to other concepts of capacity.

 

III

  1. It is sometimes said that unions can improve the position of workers only to a very limited extent, since wages are governed by productivity, over which unions have little control. Evaluate this statement.
  2. Discuss the relations between inventions, wage rates, and the total wage bill.
  3. Contrast the theory of wages presented by Hicks with that of Ricardo.
  4. Show how Keynes’ monetary theory of interest evolved from Marshall’s “supply and demand” theory.
  5. Economic conditions in a particular country are disturbed by a rise in the propensity to consume. Explain the repercussions upon the rate of interest, assuming that the amount of money remains unchanged.
  6. Compare the theories of profit of Marshall and Schumpeter.

 

IV

  1. Describe the analytical problems which arise in attempting to measure business cycles.
  2. Show how the demand for producers’ goods is related to the demand for consumers’ goods, and explain the relevance of this relationship to business cycle theory.
  3. Present a brief description of the problem of unemployment which will face the United States at the close of the war, and suggest measures for solving this problem.
  4. Compare Schumpeter’s theory of business cycles with the theory of employment developed by Keynes.

 

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubinstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archives. Wolfgang F. Stolper Papers, Box 22, Folder 1.

Image Source: “From family album, taken while Lloyd Metzler was a student at Harvard.”
“Lloyd A. Metzler” by Margiemetz – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons.

Categories
Chicago Economics Programs Economist Market

Chicago. Draft memo of a program to rebuild the department of economics by T.W. Schultz, 1956

 

The following draft memo by T. W. Schultz outlines the serious faculty replacement needs of the University of Chicago department of economics in the mid-1950s. Particularly noteworthy, aside from the impressive list of lost faculty, is the appended table listing the sponsored research/3rd party funders of the economics department at that time. One also sees that the department had been authorized to make offers to Kenneth Arrow, Robert Solow and Arthur F. Burns. So much for the best-laid plans of mice and men. A better historian of economics than I might spin a counterfactual tale of a post-Cowles Chicago with Arrow and Solow on the faculty.

Regarding the ICA Chile Enterprise: Economic Research Center, Schultz wrote “The Chilean enterprise will give us a fine ‘laboratory’ in which to test ourselves in the area of economic development– a major new field in economics.” This reminds me of the old Cold-War Eastern European joke about whether Marx and Engels were scientists (“No, real scientists would have tried their experiments on rats first”). What a “fine ‘laboratory'” for testing oneself!

_________________________

A Program of Rebuilding the Department of Economics
(first draft, private and confidential – T. W. Schultz, May 22, 1956)

Your Department of Economics has been passing through a crisis. Whether it would survive as a first rate department has been seriously in doubt, with one adversity following another as was the case up until last year. It is now clear, however, that we have achieved a turning point in that we can rebuild and attain the objective which is worth striving for – an outstanding faculty in economics.

The crisis came upon us as a consequence of a combination of things: (1) the department, along with others in the University, had been denied access to undergraduate students of the University who might want to become economists; (2) Viner left for Princeton, Lange for Poland, Yntema for Ford and Douglas for the Senate; (3) the Industrial Relations Center drained off some of our talent and when it jammed, Harbison left for Princeton; (4) Mr. Cowles’ arbitrary decision to shift “his” Commission to Yale was a major blow; (5) Nef been transferring his talents to the Committee on Social Thought, and (6) add to all these the retirement of Knight.

Meanwhile, there were several external developments which did not reduce our difficulties: (1) a number of strong (new) economic centers were being established – at Stanford, Johns Hopkins, Yale, Vanderbilt, M.I.T. and with public funds at Michigan and Minnesota; (2) our salaries were falling behind seriously relative to some of the other places, and (3) recruiting of established, highly competent economists became all but impossible given the crisis that was upon us and the (then) low repute of the University neighborhood.

The ever present danger of the past few years has been that we would be in the judgment of competent colleagues elsewhere, in the beliefs of oncoming graduate students and in the eyes of the major foundations – not recover our high standing but instead sing to a second or even a third-rate department and in the process lose the (internal) capacity to recruit and rebuild.

We now have achieved a turning point distinctly in our favor.

The major efforts which have contributed most have been as follows:

  1. We have taken full advantage of our unique organization in combining real research with graduate instruction. Our research and instruction workshops are the result. The Rockefeller Foundation gave us three grants along the way – agricultural economics, money and public finance – to test this approach and advanced graduate work. The Ford Foundation has now financed our workshops with $200,000 (eight 5-year grant) (our proposal of January 1956 to The Ford Foundation states the theory and argues the case for this approach on the basis of the experiences we have already accumulated).
  2. We set out aggressively to recruit outstanding younger economists. The workshops were a big aid to us in doing this; so was the financial support of the University. We had the ability to “spot them”. We now have the best group of talented young economists, age 30 and less, to be found anywhere. This achievement is rapidly becoming known to others in keen “competition” is already upon us as a consequence.
  3. We need urgently to run up a lightning rod, a (rotating) professorship with a salary second to none, to attract talent and make it clear we were in business and would pay for the best. The Ford Foundation took favorably to the idea. (Thought so well of it that they will do the same for 3 other privately supported Universities – Columbia, Harvard and Yale!)
    The $500,000 endowment grant from them for a rotating research professorship is our reward.
  4. The foundations have given us a strong vote of confidence: grants and funds received by the Department of Economics during 1955-56 now total $1,220,000. (A statement listing these is attached).
  5. The marked turn for the better in the number and the quality of students applying for scholarships and fellowships is, also, an affirmative indication.
  6. The Economics Research Center is filling a large gap in providing computing, publishing and related research facilities which was formally a function of the Cowles Commission.
  7. The Chilean enterprise will give us a fine “laboratory” in which to test ourselves in the area of economic development – a major new field in economics.

There remains, however, much to be done. We must, above all, not lose the upward momentum which is now working in our favor.

Faculty and University Financial Support

To have and to hold a first rate faculty in economics now requires between $225,000 and $250,000 of University funds a year.

To have a major faculty means offering instruction and doing research in 8 to 10 fields. Up until two years ago we came close to satisfying the standard in our graduate instruction. We then had 11 (and just prior to that, 12) professors on indefinite tenure.

Then, Koopmans and Marschak were off to Yale, Harbison to Princeton and Knight did reach 70. And, then there were 7. On top of these “woes” came the serious illness of Metzler which greatly curtailed his role; and, Nef having virtually left economics. Thus, only 5 were really active in economics with Wallis carrying many other professional burdens. Meanwhile we added only one – Harberger was given tenured this year.

Accordingly at the indefinite tenure level we are down to about one-half of what is required to have a major faculty. Fortunately, several younger men have entered and have been doing work of very high quality.

It should be said that the Deans and the Chancellor have stood by, prepared to help us rebuild.

Major appointments were authorized – Arrow, Stigler, Solow and others. We still are hoping that Arthur F. Burns will come.

The resignations and the retirement, however, did necessarily reduce sharply the amount of financial support from the University.

In rebuilding, at least five additional tenure positions will be required:

  1. Labor economics (from within)
  2. Trade cycle (we hope it will be Arthur F. Burns, already authorized).
  3. Money
  4. Econometrics and mathematical economics.
  5. Business organization
  6. Consumption economics (when Miss Reid retires; next 3 years we shall have the extra strength of Dr. D. Brady with finances from The Rockefeller Foundation)
  7. International trade (pending Metzler’s recovery)
  8. Economic development.

The faculty and the University financial support recommended is as follows:

Tenured positions (for individuals fully committed to economics).

    1. Now in the harness

6: Friedman, Johnson, Harberger, Hamilton (Metzler), Wallis (Nef), Schultz

    1. To be added

5: Burns pending, (labor), (money), and two other fields, most likely econometrics and business organization

 

Budget:

11 [tenured positions]

  

$165,000
Metzler and Nef $15,000
$180,000
III. Supplementary non-tenure faculty $45,000
Altogether $225,000

 

Outside Financial Support for the Department of Economics

Grants

 Amount of grant Available 1956-57

A. Received during 1955-56.
1.     Sears Roebuck Fellowships

$4,000

$4,000
2.     National Science Foundation (2 years)

$13,000

$6,500
3.     Conservation Foundation (2 years)

$33,000

$16,500
4.     Rockefeller Foundation: consumption economics (3 years)

$45,000

$15,000
5.     American Enterprise (2 years)

$17,250

$8,625
6.     Ford Foundation: research and instructional workshops (5 years)

$200,000

$30,000
7.     Earhart Fellowships.

$6,000

$6,000
8.     S.S.R.C. Student Grants

$5,000

$5,000
9.     Ford Foundation: 3 pre-doctoral grants

$10,200

$10,200
10.  Ford Foundation: faculty research grant (Hamilton)

$12,500

$8,000
11.  ICA Chile Enterprise: Economic Research Center Fellowships, research support (3 yrs)

$375,000

$125,000
12.  Ford Foundation: endowment for rotating research professor

$500,000

$25,000
13.  Rockefeller Foundation: Latin America (Ballesteros)

$5,000

$5,000

Sub-totals

$1,225,950

$264,825

B. Received prior to 1955-56 where funds are available for 1956-57.
1.     Rockefeller Foundation: workshop in money (3 years with one year to go)

$50,000

$20,000
2.     Rockefeller Foundation: workshop in public finance (3 years with one year to go)

$50,000

$20,000
3.     Resources for the Future (3 years with one year to go)

$67,000

$27,000
4.     Russian Agriculture (2 years with one to go)

$47,000

$22,000

B sub-totals

 $214,000 $89,000

A and B totals

$1,439,950

$353,825

 

Source:  University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics Records. Box 42, Folder 8.

Image Source: 1944 photo of T.W. Schultz from University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07479, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library. Cf. Wikimedia Commons, same portrait (dated 1944) from Library of Congress.

Categories
Chicago Exam Questions

Chicago. Graduate Prelim Exam for International Trade, 1970

 

Determining authorship for a committee’s prelim exam is difficult. The fact that this copy of the exam was found in Lloyd Metzler’s papers is a sign that he likely had a hand in composing at least part of the exam. One can see an inconsistency in British/US spelling (labour vs. labor) that leads me to conclude that Harry Johnson was also likely a co-author.

___________________

INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Preliminary Examination for the Ph.D. and A.M. Degrees
Winter 1970

WRITE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON YOUR EXAMINATION PAPER:

Your code number and NOT your name
Name of Examination
Date of Examination

(Write in Black Ink)

Results of the examination will be sent to you by letter.
Answer all questions. Time: 4 yours

  1. Answer question (a) or (b)
    1. Assume a Heckscher-Ohlin model economy in which one of the two products is the capital good, population is constant; and a certain fixed proportion of the existing capital stock wears out each year. The economy devotes a certain proportion of the value of its annual output to gross saving.
      1. Analyse the long-run equilibrium of the economy, in isolation from foreign trade.
      2. Analyse the effects of the opening of trade at fixed terms of trade on the economy’s long-run equilibrium.
      3. Comment on the implications of your analysis for the conflicting views that free trade is the best policy, and that tariffs promote economic development.
    2. Assume, in contrast to the Heckscher-Ohlin model, that while labour is mobile between the two industries capital is specific to its industry (and in the closed economy fixed in quantity in each industry).
      1. What can you conclude about the effects of the opening of free trade on factor prices, assuming factors immobile?
      2. How are these conclusions altered by the assumption that capital in one industry is internationally mobile but remains sector-specific (i.e. a certain stock of capital is confined to the automobile industry, but can locate in either “Canada” or “The United States”?
      3. What would be the effects of the imposition of a tariff on Canadian imports of automobiles, on the location of production and on factor prices?
  1. Answer question (a) or (b)
    1. Keynes argued that in a system of flexible exchange rates involving a forward market, the forward rate has a constitutional weakness of the demand side. Thus, he said that while there are many asset holders with foreign assets who would like to hedge by selling forward exchange, there are few holders of foreign liabilities who would like to hedge by purchasing forward exchange.
      1. Assuming that interest rates are the same at home as abroad, what does this imply with respect to the discount or premium of the forward rate, all rates being measured in terms of the domestic-currency price of the foreign currency?
      2. Discuss the validity of Keynes’ argument, first on the assumption that inter-market arbitrage exists, and second on the assumption that it does not.
    2. A given country produces two commodities, food and manufactures, with two factors, labour and land. Suppose that food is land-intensive in the sense that the optimal ratio between land and labour is higher than in manufactures for all factor price ratios. Suppose further, that the production functions for both commodities are homogeneous of the first degree so that increasing the inputs of labour and land by fifty per cent in any commodity, increases output, also by fifty per cent.
      1. Given fixed amounts of labour and land, prove that the product-substitution schedule has the characteristics of a diminishing returns schedule, despite the fact both food and manufactures are produced at constant cost.
      2. How do you account for this appearance of diminishing returns?
      3. Suppose that Country A has a larger land-labour ratio than Country B. Is it possible that A may nevertheless import food, the land-intensive commodity and export manufactures, the labor-intensive commodity? Indicate graphically how this may occur. Is this result inconsistent with the Heckscher-Ohlin theorem that international trade raises the prices of the low-cost factors and lowers the prices of the high-cost factors? Explain.
      4. Is it a possible explanation of the Leontief paradox, which shows that the United States exports labour-intensive commodities and imports capital-intensive commodities?
  1. Suppose the world is composed of two large blocs and a few other countries. Suppose that the two large blocs do not intervene in the exchange market. Analyze, in the context of the optimum currency area literature, the consideration which would persuade one of the outside countries to peg their currency to one rather than the other currency area.
  2. It has been shown by Mundell that if one factor is internationally mobile and a country imposes a tariff on imports, the result will be the termination of international trade. What happens if the country simultaneously imposes a tax on the earnings of the factor that moves?
  3. “The ‘Keynesian’ theory of devaluation developed by Joan Robinson, James Meade, A. C. Harberger, H. G. Johnson and others depends on the assumption of ‘money illusion’ on the part of the labour force. If that assumption is replaced by the assumption that wages in the long run are determined according to the theory of marginal productivity, a completely new theory of devaluation has to be developed.”
    Discuss this quotation, and if you agree with it sketch the nature of the new theory required.
  4. “The optimum tariff argument for protection is the only valid first-best economic argument for a tariff. All the other arguments are either second-best economic arguments, non-economic arguments, or non-arguments.”
    Discuss, giving examples. How would you describe the infant-industry argument?
  5. Discuss the main arguments for and against the following proposed solutions for the adjustment problem of the international monetary system:

(i) the “wider band”
(ii) the “crawling peg”
(iii) a rise in the price of gold

  1. Answer question (a) or (b)
    1. “The established version of the theory of effective protection is unsatisfactory because it attempts to combine a general equilibrium theory of demand with a partial-equilibrium theory of supply. If the usual Heckscher-Ohlin assumptions about production are made, the theory falls apart.”
      Discuss this quotation.
    2. or
      1. Discuss the controversy between Johnson and Metzler concerning the transfer problem under the conditions postulated by Keynes. (You need not indicate what you regard as the correct result but only what were the main points of the controversy.)
      2. What changes were made by Metzler in the orthodox or prevailing theory, generally but erroneously attributed to Ohlin? Show that these changes are in accord with Johnson’s “Suggestions for Simplifying Balance of Payments Theory.”

 

Source:Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Papers of Lloyd Appelton Metzler, Box 9, Folder “Exams 302”.

Image Source: Tariff reform–Cleveland and Thurman, ca. 1888  from Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA

Categories
Chicago Exam Questions Suggested Reading Syllabus

Chicago. Undergraduate International Monetary Affairs. Metzler, 1962

 

It is interesting to see that University of Chicago economics undergraduates in 1962 were still expected to learn something about mercantilism and classical international economic theory with a dash of Friedrich List as a chaser in Lloyd Metzler’s course on international monetary relations and policies. Oh yes, and Alfred Marshall gets into the act as well! 

_____________________

Lloyd A. Metzler

ECONOMICS 271
Reading List
Winter, 1962

  1. Mercantilism and the Classical Theory of Comparative Advantage.

P. T. Ellsworth, The International Economy, Revised Edition, chapter 2.
Eli Heckscher, “Mercantilism,” in Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. X.
David Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, chapter 7.
John Stuart Mill, Essays on Some Unsettled Questions in Political Economy, Essay 1.

  1. Mechanism of the Foreign Exchange Market.

Alan R. Holmes, The New York Foreign Exchange Market, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, March 1959.
P. T. Ellsworth, The International Economy, Revised Edition, chapter 15.
Frank A. Southard, Jr., Foreign Exchange Practice and Policy.
Peter B. Kenen, Giant among Nations, Harcourt Brace, 1958.

  1. National Income and the Balance of Payments.

J. E. Meade, The Theory of International Economic Policy, Vol. I, The Balance of Payments, Oxford University Press, Part I.
U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Income and Output, 1958.
R. F. Bennett, “Significance of International Transactions in National Income,” in Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. VI, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Alfred Marshall, Money, Credit, and Commerce, Book III, chapters 1-4.

  1. Postwar Monetary Developments.

Randall Hinshaw, “Toward Currency Convertibility,” Princeton University, Essays in International Finance, No. 31, 1958.
Robert Triffin, Europe and the Money Muddle, Yale University Press, 1957.
Alice Bourneuf and E. A. Goldenweiser, “The Bretton Woods Agreements,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, September 1944.

  1. Regional Monetary Arrangements.

Jacob Viner, The Customs Union Issue, Chapter 4.
Committee for Economic Development, The European Common Market and its Meaning to the United States, CED, May, 1959.
James E. Meade, Problems of Economic Union, University of Chicago Press, 1953.

  1. Undeveloped Areas and the Theory of Economic Growth.

Friedrich List, A National System of Political Economy.
Walter W. Rostow, The Process of Economic Growth, chapters 1-4.
Colin Clark, Conditions of Economic Progress, chapters 2, 3, 4, 11.
Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, chapter 1.
A. J. Brown, Introduction to the World Economy, chapters 1-4, chapter 6.

 

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Economists’ Papers Archive. Lloyd Appleton Metzler Papers, Box 9, Folder “271 Class Notes. Win. ‘62”.

_____________________

L. A. Metzler

ECONOMICS 271
COURSE EXAMINATION
Winter, 1962

(1) Outline the principal policies of mercantilist economics and show how these policies were justified as being in the national interest of the country concerned.

(2) How were the mercantilist doctrines refuted by the classical economists, particularly by Ricardo and Mill?

(3) Did the classical economists establish a case for universal free trade? Explain.

(4) What are the main features of an undeveloped or backward country and how can the obstacles to economic development be overcome?

(5) How do you account for the decline in public interest in Malthus’ doctrine of population during the middle of the nineteenth century? What explains the recent revival of interest?

(6) Suppose that England, France and the United States have flexible exchange and that, at a given moment of time, these rates are:

New York—London: $4 = £1.
New York—Paris: $0.25 = F. 1
London—Paris: F12 = £1

If an arbitrageur has bank balances in all these countries, show how he can operate in such a way as to leave all of his foreign balances unchanged and at the same time increase his domestic balances. What effect will these operations have on all three rates?

(7) Demonstrate the conditions under which devaluation will improve a country’s balance of trade. In doing this you should define the balance of trade in both domestic and foreign currencies.

 

Source:  Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Economists’ Papers Archive. Lloyd Appleton Metzler Papers, Box 9, Folder “Course Exams 270-271”.

Source Image: Posting by Margie Metzler on the Metzler Family Tree at the genealogical website, ancestry.com.

Categories
Chicago Economics Programs Fields

Chicago. Memo to Dean from Chair of Economics. Strengths & Weaknesses, 1955

 

What I found particularly striking in the following memo, written by the chairman of the Chicago department of economics in 1955, is the number of fields in which the department saw itself weak or at least in need of support: labor, international, mathematical economics and econometrics, development, and industrial organization. Perhaps this was just a matter of administrative strategy, beg for assistance for five fields and hope to actually get assistance for three. That said, Schultz does not appear to be engaging in three-dimensional chess here. Will be interested in hearing what other people think about the this memo.

_______________________

Carbon Copy of Strengths and Weaknesses Memo
T.W. Schultz to Dean Chancy D. Harris

September 22, 1955

[To:] Dean Chancy D. Harris
[From:] Theodore W. Schultz
[Re:] Department of Economics

 

It may be helpful to have me briefly state the major elements of strength and, also, of weaknesses which I see in economics, in the hope that these notes may serve you as you prepare your presentation for the trustees.

Elements of Strength

  1. A comparatively young faculty strongly committed to research and graduate instruction.
  2. Research and related seminars are effectively organized as small scale enterprises:
    1. Workshop on Money
    2. Workshop on Public Finance
    3. Resources Research Enterprise
    4. Technical Assistance Studies
    5. Studies of Russia Agriculture
    6. Inventory Studies
  3. Satisfactory foundation support for some of the workshops and research enterprises now underway:
    1. Rockefeller Foundation supporting the money and public finance workshops.
    2. Resources for the Future supporting the resources research.
    3. Ford Foundation supporting the technical assistance studies.
    4. Also, for individual research, the Rockefeller Foundation support of economic history of Professor Hamilton.
  4. U. S. Government contracts and grants are proving satisfactory in financing some research:
    1. The inventory studies
    2. Russian agriculture work
  5. Financial support for competent advanced graduate students doing research is available from the several small scale research enterprises and, also, from SSRC (Griliches this year); from Earhart funds (Nerlove); and from corporations (Oi)
  6. Our new Ph.D. theses procedure is proving most effective in bringing student and faculty resources to bear on productive research.
  7. The new Economic Research Center of the Department is now proving important and necessary overhead facilities and services required by faculty and students working in the several small scale research enterprises.
  8. The new arrangements with the University Press to publish our Studies in Economics represents a major advance.
  9. The Journal of Political Economy continues strong as Prof. Rees and Miss Bassett take over.
  10. While we are not satisfied with the “quality” of many of our graduate students, we appear to be holding our own in a period when many averse factors are at work in lowering the quality of students in most branches, and also in economics generally as it appears.

 

Elements of Weakness

  1. Too many of the faculty are now in junior roles and there are too few major staff members on indefinite tenure in view of the fields of specialization in economics, the range and number of advanced graduate students, and the research work that is underway.
  2. With Professor Harbisons’s leaving and the non-functioning of the Industrial Relations Center in economics, our work in labor economics needs to be reorganized and strengthened. This replanning is now underway. Research resources are required: about $20,000 a year would be optimum.
  3. We are not prepared to serve adequately most of the many (representing about 30% of our graduate students) foreign students working in economics:
    1. Many of them should be in a modified Master’s program.
    2. Relevant research should concentrate on “developmental” problems.
    3. More effort is required to guide their work.
  4. The Department is now weak in International Economics because of the illness of Professor Metzler.
  5. The work in consumption economics has not been made as effective as it should be in bringing major graduate students into play in research.
  6. The reorganization and staffing of work in Mathematical Economics and Econometrics, with the Cowles Commission leaving, is unfinished business:
    1. Professor Hans [a.k.a., “Henri”] Theil is here this year as visiting Professor.
    2. Plans beyond this year await action.
    3. No research support at present for advanced students or for complementary staff in this important area.
  7. The broad area of Economic Development requires major attention and it should be placed high on our agenda as we develop plans and staff during the next few years:
    1. This area is needed to serve especially graduate students from foreign countries.
    2. The economic problems are important to the U.S. scene also.
    3. The Research Center for Economic Development and Cultural Change and importantly the “Journal” it has established need to be drawn into this new effort.
    4. Major new research resources are required.
  8. The long neglected field of Industrial Organization.

 

Some Concrete Steps

  1. To establish the work in Mathematical Economics about $20,000 a year will be required for a “professor” to head this work, for complementary staff, and related research.
  2. To establish the new enterprise now contemplated in Economic Development about $50,000 a year appears essential.
    In this area, a professorship, a visiting professor for each of the next several years, complementary staff, student research in a workshop and support for the Journal “Economic Development and Cultural Change.”
  3. Also in Labor Economics we need to move to a professorship and research support of about $20,000 a year.
  4. How to strengthen the work in International Economics must await developments affecting Professor Metzler’s recovery.
  5. There remains then the long neglected area usually referred to as Industrial Organization. Since no major individual has emerged here or elsewhere, we are compelled to “invest” in a younger person in breaking into this area.

 

Source:   University of Chicago Archives. Department of Economics Records. Box 42, Folder 8.

Image Source:  T. W. Schultz, University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07484, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Chicago Economists

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

 

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

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

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

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

_________________________

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

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

[…]

II. Appointments

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

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

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

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

_________________________

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

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

Appointments

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

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

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

The poll showed that of those present

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

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

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

_________________________

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

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

Appointments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Categories
Harvard Seminar Speakers

Harvard. International Economic Relations Seminar. Haberler and Harris, 1940-45

 

The most famous economics seminar at Harvard University in the history of economics is undoubtedly the fiscal policy seminar run by John Williams and Alvin Hansen. A list of that seminar’s speakers and their topics was included in an earlier post. Below I provide the reported speaker’s and topics for the “younger” international economic relations seminar jointly organized by Gottfried Haberler and Seymour Harris during the War years.

___________________________________

EXPANSION OF THE SEMINAR PROGRAM

Several additions have been made in the seminar program of the School [of Public Administration] for the year 1940-1941. Professors Haberler and Harris are presenting a seminar on international economic relations. We planned our seminar program in 1937 on the assumption that it was wise to begin with domestic problems despite the fact that a number of the Faculty had special interests in the international field. In view of the events of the last few years, it seems highly important to develop these interests. The seminar given by Professors Haberler and Harris deals with the application of the principles of international trade to current problems…

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1939-40, p. 306.

___________________________________

1940-41
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS SEMINAR
[partial list]

[Seven of the meetings of the Fiscal Policy Seminar were held jointly with other seminars – four with the International Economic Relations Seminar and three with the Agricultural, Forestry, and Land Policy Seminar.]

 

October 11. SVEND LAURSEN, Student, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University.

Subject: International Trade and the Multiplier. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy Seminar.)

February 21. HARRY D. WHITE, Director, Division of Monetary Research, United States Treasury Department.

Subject: Blocked Balances. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy Seminar.)

March 21. RICHARD V. GILBERT, National Defense Advisory Commission.

Subject: The American Defense Program. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy Seminar.)

May 2. GUSTAV STOLPER, Financial Adviser.

Subject: Financing the American Defense Program. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy Seminar.)

 

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1940-41, p. 323 ff.

___________________________________

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS SEMINAR:
1941-1942. Professor Haberler and Associate Professor Harris

In 1941-42 the seminar devoted its attention to war and post-war problems in the field of International Economic Relations. A few meetings were spent on the discussion of fundamental theoretical problems. During the first semester all meetings were taken up by papers of outside consultants and their discussion. In the second semester student reports were presented and discussed, and a few extra meetings were arranged for outside speakers. The consultants and their topics were as follows:

 

October 1. EUGENE STALEY, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Economic Warfare.

October 8.[**] CHARLES P. KINDLEBERGER, Federal Reserve Board. Canadian-American Economic Relations in the War and Post-War Period.

October 15.[**] A. F. W. PLUMPTRE, University of Toronto. International Economic Position of Canada in the Present Emergency.

October 22. HEINRICH HEUSER, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Exchange Control.

October 29. FRITZ MACHLUP, University of Buffalo. The Foreign Trade Multiplier.

November 5. HENRY CHALMERS, United States Department of Commerce. Trade Restrictions in Wartime.

November 12. ARTHUR R. UPGREN, United States Department of Commerce. International Economic Interest of the United States and the Post-War Situation.

November 19. OSKAR MORGENSTERN, Princeton University. International Aspects of the Business Cycle.

November 28.[*] NOEL F. HALL, British Embassy. Economic Warfare.

December 5.[*] ROBERT BRYCE, Department of Finance, Canada. International Economic Relations with Special Reference to the Post-War Situation.

January 26.[*] PER JACOBSSEN, Bank for International Settlements. The Problem of Post-War Reconstruction.

February 13.[*] JACOB VINER, University of Chicago. Monopolistic Trading and International Relations.

February 18. H. D. FONG, Director, Nankai Institute of Economics, Chungking, China. Industrialization of China.

February 25. MICHAEL HEILPERIN, Hamilton College. International Aspects of the Present and Future Economic Situation.

March 11. JACOB MARSCHAK, New School for Social Research. The Theory of International Disequilibria.

March 14.[*] RICHARD M. BISSELL, JR., Yale University and the United States Department of Commerce. Post-War Domestic and International Investment.

March 18. ANTONIN BASCH, Brown University. International Economic Problems of Central and Southeastern Europe.

March 20.[*] ALBERT G. HART, University of Iowa. The Present Fiscal Situation.

April 10. ABBA P. LERNER, University of Kansas City. Post-War Problems.

May 8. HORST MENDERSHAUSEN, Bennington College. International Trade and Trade Policy in the Post-War Period.

 

Six of these were joint meetings with the Fiscal Policy Seminar [*] and two were joint meetings with the Government Control of Industry Seminar[**].

Student reports were presented on the following subjects:

Argentine International Trade.
Exchange Control in Argentina.
Some Aspects of Sino-Japanese Trade.
International Effects of Price Ceilings.
Location Theory and the Reconstruction of World Trade.
Some Post-War Politico-Economic Problems of the Western Hemisphere.
Economic Problems and Possibilities of a Pan Europe, Pan America and Similar Schemes.
The Balance of Payments of China.

 

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1941-42, pp. 344-346.

___________________________________

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS SEMINAR
1942-43. Professor Haberler

A larger portion of the time of the seminar than usual was devoted to the discussion of fundamental principles of international trade and finance. This was due to the fact that the graduate course on international trade (Economics 143) was not offered, and the seminar had to take over to some extent the functions of the graduate course.

There were eleven meetings with outside consultants, of which eight were joint meetings with the Fiscal Policy seminar. The smaller number of students made it advisable to combine the two seminars more frequently than usual. The consultants and the topics discussed with them were as follows:

 

November 13. Professor FRITZ MACHLUP, University of Buffalo. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy seminar.)

Subject: National Income, Employment and International Relations; the Foreign Multiplier.

November 18. Dr. THEODORE KREPS, Economic Adviser, Board of Economic Warfare, Office of Imports.

Subject: Some Problems of Economic Warfare.

November 27. Hon. GRAHAM F. TOWERS, Governor, Bank of Canada. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy seminar.)

Subject: Canadian War Economic Measures.

December 4. LYNN R. EDMINSTER, Vice-Chairman, U. S. Tariff Commission. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy seminar.)

Subject: Post-War Reconstruction of International Trade.

December 11. Professor SEYMOUR E. HARRIS, Director, Office of Export-Import Price Control, Office of Price Administration. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy seminar.)

Subject: Trade Policy in Wartimes.

February 12. THOMAS MCKITTRICK, President, Bank for International Settlements. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy seminar.)

Subject: The Bank for International Settlements.

February 24. Dr. LEO PASVOLSKY, State Department. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy seminar.)

Subject: Post-War Problems in International Trade.

March 3. P. T. ELLSWORTH, War Trade Staff, Board of Economic Warfare.

Subject: The Administration of Export Control.

April 12. EMILE DESPRES, Office of Strategic Services, Washington, D. C. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy seminar.)

Subject: The Transfer Problem and the Over-Saving Problem in the Pre-War and Post-War Worlds.

April 16. Dr. ALBERT HAHN. (Joint meeting with Fiscal Policy seminar.)

Subject: Planned or Adjusted Post-War Economy.

April 20. Dr. ALEXANDER LOVEDAY, League of Nations.

Subject: European Post-War Reconstruction.

 

Student reports were presented on the following subjects among others: practice and theory of an international bank; post-war industrialization of China; coordination of fiscal policy in different countries; international position of the Brazilian economy; international commodity agreements; international implications for fiscal policy; British exchange equalization account; and Argentine exchange control.

Twelve students were enrolled in the seminar of which four were Littauer fellows, seven graduate students from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, and one from the College.

 

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1942-43, pp. 246-247.

 

___________________________________

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS SEMINAR
1943-44. Associate Professor Harris

A new approach was tried in the International Economic Relations Seminar this year. We paid particular attention to the international economic problems of Latin America and especially to the problems raised by the great demand for Latin American products for war, the expansion of exports and of money, and the resulting inflation. Attention was also given to the transitional problems in the postwar period, particularly to the adjustments that will be required in exports, imports, capital movements, exchange rates, and the allocation of economic factors. In the course of the year leading government authorities on Latin American economic problems were invited to address meetings of the seminar, which were frequently joint meetings with the Fiscal Policy Seminar or the students of the graduate course in international organization.

The schedule of meetings for 1943-44 was as follows:

 

November 12. Professor HARRIS.

Subject: Inflation in Latin America.

December 9. Dr. CORWIN EDWARDS, Chairman, Policy Board of the Anti-Trust Division of the Department of Justice and Chief of Staff of the Presidential Cooke Commission to Brazil.

Subject: Brazilian Economy.

December 17. Dr. HARRY WHITE, Director of Monetary Research, Treasury Department.

Subject: Problems of International Monetary Stabilization.

January 6. Professor HARRIS.

Subject: International Economic Problems of the War and Postwar Period.

January 10. Professor HABERLER.

Subject: Reparations.

January 14. Dr. N. NESS, Member, Mexican-U. S. Economic Commission.

Subject: Mexico.

January 17. Dr. BEARDSLEY RUML, Chairman, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Subject: Economic Budget and Fiscal Budget.

January 21. Dr. P. T. ELLSWORTH, Economic Studies Division, Department of State.

Subject: Chile.

January 24. Dr. DON HUMPHREY, Special Advisor on Price Control to Haitian Government; Chief, Price Section, O.P.A.

Subject: Haiti.

January 31. Dr. ROBERT TRIFFIN, Member, U. S. Economic Commission to Paraguay.

Subject: Money, Banking, and Foreign Exchanges in Latin America.

February 4. Dr. MIRON BURGIN, Office of Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs.

Subject: Argentina.

February 9. Dr. FRANK WARING, Director, Research Division, Office of Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs.

Subject: Broad Aspects of Latin-American Economics.

February 10. Dr. BEN LEWIS, Head of Price Control Mission to Colombia, Special Assistant to the Price Administrator.

Subject: Colombia.

March 9. Dr. HENRY CHALMERS, Department of Commerce.

Subject: Inter-American Trade Practices.

March 31. Mr. HENRY WALLICH.

Subject: Fiscal Policy and International Equilibrium.

 

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1943-44, pp. 271-2.

___________________________________

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS SEMINAR
Professor Haberler and Associate Professor Harris

The seminar meetings in the year 1944-1945 may be arranged under the following headings:

  1. Exchanges, Controls, and International Trade (8 meetings)
  2. Regional Problems (8 meetings).
  3. Regional and International Aspects of Domestic Problems (8 meetings).
  4. Lectures and Discussions on International Trade by Professors Haberler and Harris (8 meetings).

Four of the papers presented at these meetings were subsequently published in economic journals.

The schedule of meetings for 1944-1945 was as follows:

November 16. Dr. RANDALL HINSHAW, Federal Reserve Board.

Subject: American Prosperity and the British Balance-of-Payments Problem. (Published in the Review of Economic Statistics, February 1945.)

December 11. EDWARD M. BERNSTEIN, Assistant Director, Division of Monetary Research, Treasury Department.

Subject: The Scarcity of Dollars. (Published in The Journal of Political Economy, March 1945.)

December 15. Dr. FRANCIS MCINTYRE, Representative of the Foreign Economic Exchange on Requirements Board of the War Production Board.

Subject: International Distribution of Supplies in Wartime.

December 21. Dr. ALEXANDER GERSCHENKRON, Federal Reserve Board.

Subject: Some Problems of the Economic Collaboration with Russia.

January 11. Dr. WOLFGANG STOLPER, Swarthmore College.

Subject: British Balance-of-Payments Problem After World War I.

January 22. Dr. WALTER GARDNER, Federal Reserve Board.

Subject: Some Aspects of the Bretton Woods Program.

January 26. Dr. WILLIAM FELLNER, University of California.

Subject: Types of Expansionary Policies and the Rate of Interest.

January 29. Professor WALTER F. BOGNER, Dr. CHARLES R. CHERINGTON, Professors CARL J. FRIEDRICH, SEYMOUR E. HARRIS, TALCOTT PARSONS, ALFRED D. SIMPSON, and Mr. GEORGE B. WALKER.

Subject: The Boston Urban Development Plan.

March 5. Dr. ROBERT TRIFFIN, Federal Reserve Board.

Subject: International Economic Problems of South America.

March 19. Dr. LOUIS RASMINSKY, Foreign Exchange Control Board, Ottawa, Canada.

Subject: British-American Trade Problems from the Canadian Point of View. (Published in the British Economic Journal, September I945.)

March 22. Dr. ROBERT A. GORDON, War Production Board.

Subject: International Raw Materials Control: War and Postwar.

March 26. Dr. HERBERT FURTH, Federal Reserve Board.

Subject: Monetary and Financial Problems in the Liberated Countries.

April 2. Dr. LLOYD METZLER, Federal Reserve Board.

Subject: Postwar Economic Policies of the United Kingdom. (An article based on this paper and written in collaboration with Dr. RANDALL HINSHAW was published in The Review of Economic Statistics, November 1945.)

April 16. Professor EDWARD S. MASON, State Department, Washington.

Subject: Commodity Agreements.

April 23. Dr. ABBA P. LERNER, New School for Social Research, N. Y.

Subject: Postwar Policies.

April 27. Professor JOHN VAN SICKLE, Vanderbilt University.

Subject: Wages and Employment: A Regional Approach.

May 14. Dr. E. M. H. LLOYD, United Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, British Treasury.

Subject: Inflation in Europe.

May 28. Professor LEON DUPRIEZ, University of Louvain, Belgium.

Subject: Problem of Full Employment in View of Recent European Experience.

May 29. Professor SEYMOUR E. HARRIS, Professor WASSILY W. LEONTIEF, Professor GOTTFRIED HABERLER, Professor ALVIN H. HANSEN.

Subject: The Shorter Work Week and Full Employment.

 

Source:   Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College and Reports of Departments for 1944-45, pp. 285-6.

 

Categories
Chicago Economist Market Economists

Chicago. Marschak on potential hires for department, 1946

 

In his magnificent article about the departmental politics behind the appointment of Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago in 1946, David Mitch refers in passing to a February 1946 memo written to the Chancellor and President of the University by Vice-President Rueben G. Gustavson in which the Vice-President reports on a discussion he had with Jacob Marschak about various economists being considered for appointment.

Mitch’s online Appendix to his article provides an excellent selection of archival artifacts to which the transcription of the Gustavson memo below may be added. In this memo it looks like we are observing active lobbying (at least providing his “spin”) on Marschak’s part rather than a senior faculty member summoned by an administrator to provide deep background on prospective hires.

It is worth noting that the names of five future Nobel prize winners in economics can be found in a single 1946 memo. It is also interesting that the last two candidates mentioned in the memo, namely Lloyd Metzler and Milton Friedman, were the only two to turn out to become permanent acquisitions of the department.

 

See: David Mitch, “A Year of Transition: Faculty Recruiting at Chicago in 1946,” Journal of Political Economy 124, no. 6 (December 2016): 1714-1734. [working paper version (ungated)]

__________________________________

Biographical Note of Rueben Gilbert Gustavson

Rueben Gilbert Gustavson was born (April 6, 1892-February 24, 1974) to Swedish immigrants James and Hildegard Gustavson. As a young man Gustavson developed a strong belief in moral responsibility to others. After a childhood injury made following in his father’s footsteps as a carpenter impossible he attended high school where he excelled in his studies. In deference to his father’s wish he learn practical skills Gustavson took courses in typing and stenography. These classes enabled Reuben to gain employment with Colorado and Southern Railroad where he became secretary to the auditor. The monies Gustavson earned working at the railroad enabled him to enroll in at the University of Denver, DU. After obtaining his bachelor’s degree DU Gustavson decided to pursue a master’s degree in chemistry. He received his MS in chemistry in 1917 and briefly became a chemist at the Great Western Sugar Company. He accepted an offer to teach at the Colorado Agricultural College in Fort Collins but became disillusioned when told that as a professor he could not teach and conduct research. Gustavson returned to DU where he remained for the next seventeen years. During that time he spent summer breaks working toward his PhD at the University of Chicago. Initially, specializing in radioactivity the loss of his advisor enabled him to change to biochemistry. Gustavson received his PhD in 1925 and taught at the University of Chicago during the 1929-30 academic year. A disagreement over what Gustavson felt were unethical practices involving student athletes led to him leaving DU. University of Colorado President, George Norlin, invited Gustavson to join the faculty as a professor of chemistry. He was appointed chairman of the chemistry department and remained in that position from 1937-42. In 1942 the Dean of the Graduate School became ill and Gustavson was chosen as a temporary replacement but when the dean died the position became permanent. Now involved in the academic administration of the university Gustavson was chosen to substitute for the new president of the University of Colorado, Robert L. Stearns, during World War II. Stearns was commissioned as an officer in the Army Air Corps. Gustavson accepted the position with the understanding that Stearns would resume the presidency when he returned. After the war Gustavson became the Vice President and Dean of Faculties at the University of Chicago for a short time in 1945-46. During Gustavson’s time at the University of Chicago he worked with Enrico Fermi and Edward Teller on the atomic bomb project. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki convinced Gustavson the only hope for human survival was the promotion of peace through education that taught appreciation of other peoples and cultures. In 1946 Gustavson moved to the University of Nebraska where he remained as Chancellor until 1953. After leaving the University of Nebraska Gustavson became the first president of Resources for the Future where he served from 1953-1959. An outgrowth of his work on the atomic bomb project this organization conducted economic research and analysis to help craft better policies on the use and preservation of natural resources. Gustavson then resumed teaching at the University of Arizona and was a member of the chemistry department from 1960 until his death in 1974.

Source: John Patrick McSweeney. The Chancellorship of Reuben G. Gustavson at the University of Nebraska, 1946-1953. Lincoln: Digital Commons @ University of Nebraska, 1971.

__________________________________

Gustavson Memorandum of Discussion with Jacob Marshak

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Date February 19, 1946

To:     RMH [Robert Maynard Hutchins, President of the University of Chicago (1929-45); Chancellor (1945-51)]; ECC [Ernest Cadman Colwell, President of the University of Chicago (1945-51)]
From: RGG [Reuben G. Gustavson, Vice-President of the University of Chicago (1945-1946)]

Professor Marschak came in to talk to me about possible recommendations for men in the Department of Economics. He discussed the following:

  1. John Hicks of London. He is now at Oxford but is coming to this country. He is about forty years of age. He is quite well known, especially for his book called the “Brainwork of Social Economy.” [sic, The Social Framework: An Introduction to Economics] This book is now being used in the College.
  2. Paul Samuelson is a much younger man than Hicks. He is now an associate professor at M.I.T. He is known for his work in the general theory of disequilibrium.
  3. Arthur Smithies is professor at the University of Michigan. He is now in the Bureau of the Budget at Washington. Marschak describes him as a man who is concerned with economic policies. He takes the empirical approach to the study of economics.

Marschak states that Mr. Hicks is also a good man in local finance [Hicks’ wife, Ursula Hicks, probably mentioned by Marschak]. He says also that T. Koopmans, Research Associate with the Cowles Commission, who has been recommended for an associate professorship, is a very fine man. He is in mathematical statistics. He speaks highly of Lionel Robbins of the London School. Marschak says he is an all-around personality. He has been of great service to the English government during the war.

He thinks very highly of Lloyd Metzler. He was an instructor at Harvard. He as applied the modern methods of Samuelson to international trade.

Professor Marschak also thinks very highly of Milton Friedman, who is a graduate of the University of Chicago.

I shall discuss all these men with Schultz.

 

Source: University of Chicago Library, Department of Special Collections. Office of the President. Hutchins Administration. Records. Box 284, Folder “Economics, 1943-1947”.

 

Image Source: Reuben G. Gustavson from University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-06588, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Chicago Suggested Reading Syllabus

Chicago. Price and distribution theory. Metzler, 1952

 

 

 

Today’s reading lists for the core Chicago course in price and distribution theory as taught by Harvard’s man in Chicago, Lloyd A. Metzler, in 1952 is virtually identical to that of his reading lists for 1948-49 posted earlier. There were only a few additions and few deletions. More interesting are comparisons with the reading lists for the same course as taught by Milton Friedman in ca. 1947, Arnold Harberger in 1955, or Gary Becker in 1956.

 

____________________________

Economics 300A
Winter Quarter, 1952
Lloyd A. Metzler

  1. The Theory of Consumer’s Choice

A. Marshall, Principles of Economics, Book III.
J. R. Hicks, Value and Capital, Chapters I – V, and appendices to these chapters.
W. S. Jevons, Theory of Political Economy, Chapters I – IV.
P. A. Samuelson, Foundations of Economic Analysis, Chapters III, V, VII.
M. Friedman and L. J. Savage, “The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk,” Journal of Political Economy, LVI (August, 1948) 279-304.
I. Fisher, “Measuring Marginal Utility,” in Economic Essays in Honor of John B. Clark (1927).
G. J. Stigler, “The Development of Utility Theory, I,” Journal of Political Economy, LVIII (August, 1950) pp. 307-327.
M. Friedman, “The Marshallian Demand Curve,” Journal of Political Economy, LVII (December, 1949), pp. 463-495.

  1. Production Functions and Cost Schedules

J. M. Cassels, “On the Law of Variable Proportions,” in Explorations in Economics (1936).
J. R. Hicks, Value and Capital, Chapter VI, VII, VIII, and appendices to those chapters.
J. Robinson, The Economics of Imperfect Competition, Chapter II.
P. A. Samuelson, Foundations, Chapter IV.
G. J. Stigler, The Theory of Price, Chapters VII, VIII.

  1. Market Price under Perfect Competition.

J. Robinson, Economics of Imperfect Competition, Book III.
A. Marshall, Principles, Book V.
G. J. Stigler, The Theory of Price, Chapters IX, X.

  1. Monopoly and Monopolistic Competition.

J. Robinson, Economics of Imperfect Competition, Books II, IV, V, and X.
E. Chamberlin, Theory of Monopolistic Competition, IV, V, VI, VII.

  1. Duopoly, Oligopoly, Bilateral Monopoly.

J. Marschak, “Neumann’s and Morgenstern’s New Approach to Static Economics,” Journal of Political Economy, LIV, (April 1946).
E. Chamberlin, Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Chapter III.
H. G. Lewis, “Some Observations on Duopoly Theory.” American Economic Review, XXXVIII (May 1948, supplement) 1-9.
O. Morgenstern, “Oligopoly, Monopolistic Competition, and the Theory of Games,” American Economic Review, XXXVIII (May 1948, supplement) 10-18.
W. Fellner, Competition Among the Few, New York, 1949.

  1. Modern Price Theory and Welfare Economics.

A. Burk (Bergson), “A Reformulation of Certain Aspects of Welfare Economics,” Quarterly Journal of Economics (1937-38).
A. C. Pigou, The Economics of Welfare (4th Edition), Part II, Chapters I – XI.
A. P. Lerner, The Economics of Control, Chapters I – XIX.
P. A. Samuelson, Foundations, Chapter VIII.
J. R. Hicks, “The Foundations of Welfare Economics,” Economic Journal XLIX (1939).
G. J. Stigler, “The New Welfare Economics,” American Economic Review, XXXIII (1943), 355-359.
T. de Scitovszky, “A Note of Welfare Propositions in Economics,” Review of Economic Studies, IX (1941-42) pp. 77-88.
P. A. Samuelson, “Evaluation of Real National Income,” Oxford Economic Papers, II, new series (January 1950) pp. 1-29.

 

Required purchases:

A. Marshall, Principles of Economics.
J. R. Hicks, Value and Capital.
E. Chamberlin, Theory of Monopolistic Competition.

 

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book, Manuscript and Special Collections Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Lloyd Appleton Metzler Papers, Box 9, Folder: “Reading Lists 300 A & B — 302”.

 

____________________________

Economics 300B
Major Topics and Selected Readings
Spring Quarter, 1952
Lloyd A. Metzler

The principal books to be used are as follows:

A. Marshall, Principles of Economics, eighth edition, reprinted 1947.
J. R. Hicks, Value and Capital, second edition, 1946.
B. Haley and W. Fellner, editors, Readings in the Theory of Income Distribution, reprinted 1947.
G. J. Stigler, Production and Distribution Theories, 1941.
J. R. Hicks, The Theory of Wages.

  1. Production Functions and the Doctrine of Marginal Productivity

B. Haley and W. Fellner, Readings, Chapters 5, 6, 7, 11.
Stigler, Production and Distribution Theories.
P. H. Douglas, “Are There Laws of Production?”, American Economic Review, XXXVIII (1948) 1-41.
E. Chamberlin, The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Chapter 8.

  1. The Theory of Wages

B. Haley and W. Fellner, Readings, Chapters 13, 14, 16, 17, 19.
J. R. Hicks, The Theory of Wages, 1932.
R. A. Lester, “Shortcomings of Marginal Analysis for Wage-Employment Problems”, American Economic Review, 1946.
F. Machlup, “Marginal Analysis and Empirical Research”, American Economic Review, 1946.

  1. Capital and Interest

E. Böhm-Bawerk, The Positive Theory of Capital, 1891.
I. Fisher, The Theory of Interest, 1930.
W. Fellner and B. Haley, Readings, Chapters 20, 21, 22, 23,24, 26.
J. M. Keynes, General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Book IV.
A. Marshall, Principles, the relevant chapters in Books IV and VI.
J. R. Hicks, Value and Capital, Parts III and IV.

  1. Inter-relations of Wages, Interest, and Profits.

F. H. Knight, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit.
J. A. Schumpeter, The Theory of Economic Development.
K. Wicksell, Interest and Prices.
________, Lectures on Political Economy, Vol. I, Part 2.
J. S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy, Book IV.

 

Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book, Manuscript and Special Collections Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Lloyd Appleton Metzler Papers, Box 9, Folder: “Reading Lists 300 A & B — 302”.

Source Image: “From family album, taken while Lloyd Metzler was a student at Harvard.”
“Lloyd A. Metzler” by Margiemetz – Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons.