Categories
Bibliography Fields Suggested Reading

Industrial Organization, Myron Watkins’ Bibliographic Essay, 1927.

I stumbled across the following excellent bibliographic essay in preparing the previous posting for Dewing and Opie’s 1929 Harvard course, “Economics of Corporations”. The essay provides coverage of the American literature, as well as that of the English, German and French, on the subjects of trusts and cartels, the economic theory of monopoly and regulation and it appears reasonably complete  for its time.

I have not found all too much information about the author:

Myron Webster Watkins was born April 2, 1893 in Milford, Michigan and died in Stamford Connecticut December 4, 1979.

A.B. from the University of Michigan, 1914; Ph.D. from Cornell 1917. Faculty member at the University of Missouri (19??-1926), then professor of economics at New York University (1927-1946).

Some information found in Watkins’ New York Times obituary, December 6, 1979. See also: University of Michigan, Catalogue of Graduates, Non-Graduates, Officers, and Members of the Faculties 1837-1921. Ann Arbor: 1923. Page 210.

The leading economist in the deregulation of the airline industry under President Jimmy Carter, Alfred Kahn, was an assistant to the antitrust experts George W. Stocking and Myron W. Watkins during World War II. [Burton Ira Kaufman, The Carter Years, New York: Facts on File, 2006, p. 244].

________________________

Myron Webster Watkins. Industrial Combinations and Public Policy: A Study of Combination, Competition and the Common Welfare. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1927.

APPENDIX I
A GUIDE TO FURTHER STUDY

[pp. 297-314]

            The literature upon the broad problem of the organization of industry is too extensive to be brought under survey within the limits of this bibliographical note. But, attending simply to the material relating to the trust problem, so-called, the whole field may be conveniently divided into three sections. First, there is a mass of documentary and descriptive material reporting and analyzing actual experience with industrial concentration in different forms and in different spheres. In the second place, there is a considerable body of commentaries upon and criticisms of public policy toward the unified control of industry, including legal treatises and court decisions. Finally, there is the literature which deals with the theory of monopoly. These three divisions might be called the historical, the legal, and the economic literature relating to the trust problem. They do not, however, precisely correspond with the contributions of historians, lawyers, and economists, respectively. The major part of the more useful published material has been provided by economists — evidence that they are no longer a sect of theorists, cultivating in secluded cloisters a “dark and dismal science,” but have become a body of investigators of the practical administration of the business mechanism.

These three subdivisions of the field correspond, in the order given, to the aspects of the problem of industrial combination which appeal to students of different degrees of advancement. At once the most interesting and the most appropriate introduction to this branch of study is through the literature which sets forth, classifies, and interprets the actual phenomena which give rise both to political controversy and to economic speculation. Official publications of original source material, general in scope, are not numerous. Most comprehensive and exhaustive at the time of its first appearance, and still an illuminating collection of data of a type rarely made public authentically, is the Report of the United States Industrial Commission (Washington, in 18 volumes, 1900-01). The Commission, in investigating the general causes of social and industrial unrest, had occasion to call upon business leaders from every important branch of industry which had been affected by the consolidation movement to testify regarding the causes, specific circumstances, and effects of the formation of trusts. Most of this material appears in Volumes I, II, XIII and XVIII of the final report submitted to Congress. Comparable collections of source material are those describing the formation of cartels in Germany, and, more recently, the official survey of the industrial situation in Great Britain. In the report of an Imperial Commission of Inquiry appointed in 1902 (Kontradiktorische Verhandlungen über Deutsche Kartelle, 1903-06) and a survey subsequently made under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior (Denkschrift der Reichsregierung über das Kartellwesen, 1906-09) a number of copies of cartel agreements covering various branches of German industry are reproduced, together with the results of an investigation of their operation. The Report of the Committee on Trusts, of the Reconstruction Ministry, in England (Cd. 9236) London, 1919, evinces a complacent attitude toward the problem of industrial monopoly; but an intensive investigation of post-war trade conditions has subsequently been carried through under the direction of the Standing Committee on Prices and Trusts, a special subdivision of the Board of Trade. Sub-committees appointed for a great number of separate industries and groups of industries have, in their reports, brought to light a mass of information respecting the organization of British industry. No such comprehensive and official inquiry into the extent and character of industrial combination has been made in France.

Reports of more limited scope, setting forth the extent and character of market domination within specific industries, are more numerous. After the establishment of the Bureau of Corporations in 1903, a series of studies was published from time to time each of which treated of separate industries in which consolidations had been formed or control of the market attempted. The reports completed prior to the assumption by the Federal Trade Commission in 1915 of the functions of the Bureau include: the Report on the Beef Industry (1905); the Report on the Petroleum Industry, in three parts (1906,1907,1909); the Report on the Tobacco Industry, in three parts (1909, 1911, 1915); the Report on the Steel Industry, in three parts (1911, 1912, 1913); the Report on the International Harvester Company (1913); and the Report on the Lumber Industry, in four parts (1913,1914). This group of reports, while not entirely free from bias or even innuendo, represents the most exhaustive analysis of the causes and effects of industrial combination in specific spheres anywhere available. The method of procedure was both historical and statistical, and the data upon costs, prices, profits, and capital investment supply a wealth of material for analytical study which the Bureau itself only partially and, it must be added, imperfectly developed.

When the Federal Trade Commission succeeded the Bureau of Corporations as an investigating agency, it was also endowed with certain regulatory functions which seem to have impaired somewhat the performance of its research work. The reports of investigations conducted by the Commission during the first decade of its existence have, with minor exceptions, been fragmentary and of little more than ephemeral interest. There are, for example, a number of reports on costs of production in different industries made during the war or during the post-war boom to facilitate government price fixation or to frustrate “profiteering.” Among these may be mentioned the Report on the Book-Paper Industry (1917); the Report on the Baking Business (1917); the Report on Flour Milling and Jobbing (1918); revised (1920); the Report on Canned Foods (1918); the Report on the Leather and Shoe Industry, 1914-18 (1919); the Report on Copper (1919); the Report on Sugar Supply and Prices (1920); and the series of Coal Cost Reports (1920) dealing with conditions in different production districts. More pretentious investigations reported by the Commission are: the Report on the Meat Packing Industry, in five parts (1918); the Report on the Grain Trade, in five volumes (1920); and the Report on Household Furnishings Industries, in three volumes (1923, 1924). If the industries subject to these investigations were made the object of periodic inquiry the shortcomings of the method of “sampling” the current situation might be largely eliminated. It is possible that this course may eventually be consciously adopted, but at present the only illustrations of it appear to have come about casually, to wit, the Report on Pipe Line Transportation of Petroleum (1916); the Report on the Price of Gasoline in 1915 (1917); the Report on the Pacific Coast Petroleum Industry (1921); and the Report on the Petroleum Industry in Wyoming (1921); the Report on the Fertilizer Industry (1916), ibid. (1923); and the Report on the Tobacco Industry (1921), followed by the Report on the Prices of Tobacco Products (1922). There are obvious positive advantages to commend the policy of recurrent inquiries into industrial and market conditions in the more prominent branches of trade.

Two recent reports by special government commissions may be noted as supplementary to this list of Federal Trade Commission Reports. The Report of the United States Coal Commission and the Hearings before the Joint Commission of Agricultural Inquiry, 67th Congress, 1st Session (volumes I, II, and III) (Washington, 1924), the latter assembling a mass of information on costs of different systems of market distribution, are similar in comprehensiveness to the investigations made by the Bureau of Corporations.

In the numerous unofficial studies of the growth of combinations in various industries the beginner will find some of the most absorbing chapters which the literature upon the trust movement affords. Collections of material covering several industries have been made by Ripley, W. Z., Trusts, Pools and Corporations (Boston, 1916); Dewing, A. S., Corporate Promotions and Reorganizations (Cambridge, 1914); and Stevens, W. H. S., Industrial Combinations and Trusts (New York, 1913). The latter is a compendium of original documents and other source material drawn mostly from court records. Less reliable, but utilizing a mass of information drawn from journalistic sources, is The Truth About the Trusts, by John Moody (New York, 1904). It is, of course, confined primarily to the circumstances surrounding the formation of the early combines, including the financial features of their promotion. Laying emphasis on deeper forces, but proceeding nevertheless on a faulty hypothesis, the late President C. R. Van Hise in Concentration and Control (New York, 1912), brought together a great body of data on the growth of large-scale operations in various industries, and endeavored to connect this tendency directly with the consolidation movement as exhibited in a number of branches of industry.

Similar descriptions of monopolistic organization in England may be found in Macrosty, J. W., The Trust Movement in British Industry (London, 1907), and in Rees, J. M., Trusts in British Industry (London, 1922). The latter work, which is not carefully done, is based almost entirely upon the series of reports on conditions in different industries prepared by the Standing Committees on Prices and Trusts of the Board of Trade, already alluded to. For the development of combinations in France no work of general scope is available, though interesting descriptions and comment upon certain pools and corners will be found in Rousiers, P. de, Les Syndicats Industriels de Producteurs (Paris, 1912), and in Dolleans, Edouard, De L’Accaparement (Paris, 1902). Neither of these is essentially a compendium of information, however. The former is in its way a classic. After recounting the development of the trust movement in the United States, Germany, and France, the author with true Latin clarity presents his general conclusions, which are not unfavorable to industrial concentration. In a subsequent survey and in a more journalistic manner, the broad problem of industrial concentration is treated by Payen, E., Les Monopoles (Paris, 1920). Incorporated in Part 2 is an instructive sketch of French state, or fiscal, monopolies. The best work upon the concentration of industrial organization in Belgium is by Georges de Leener, L’Organization Syndicale de Chefs d’Industrie (Brussels, 1911). In this scholarly treatise covering the entire trend of modern industrialism toward concentration, over half of the first volume is given to a description of the cartel organization in various Belgian industries. No inclusive review of German experience with industrial monopolies has ever been attempted, but there is available a current month to month account of the operations and policies of cartels in all branches of German industry which provides a fund of information incomparably superior to any secondary sources upon the combination movement in other countries. The Kartell-Rundschau has been published regularly since 1903 under the continuous editorship of Dr. Siegfried Tschierschky. It need hardly be explained that the publication is devoted to the interests of the cartels, from which it derives its chief support.

For the review of the general historical development of monopolistic forms of industrial organization the outstand ing work to consult is that of J. Strieder, Studien zur Geschichte kapitalistischer Organisationsformen (Leipzig, 1914). Hardly less authoritative, but less comprehensive, is the illuminating monograph by Herman Levy, Monopoly and Competition (London, 1911), tracing monopolistic tendencies in English industrial evolution from the sixteenth century, and pointing out in the final chapter some interesting parallels and contrasts between the experience of England and Germany and the United States. Monopolies Past and Present, by J. E. Le Rossignol (New York, 1901) covers much the same field.

Special studies in separate fields treating of American experience are by no means as numerous as the rich prospects revealed by occasional short articles in the economic journals might lead one to expect.1 However, they include the detailed narrative of the History of the Standard Oil Company, by Ida M. Tarbell (1904); the more or less legalistic treatment, emphasizing financial aspects of the organization of The United States Steel Corporation, by Abraham Berglund (New York, 1907); and the judicious and scholarly work of Eliot R. Jones on The Anthracite Coal Combinations (Cambridge, 1914). Not primarily devoted to the study of the trusts within the given industries, but exhibiting clearly some of the causes and consequences of their formation, are: The Tin Plate Industry, by D. E. Dunbar (Boston, 1915); The Wool Industry, by P. T. Cherington (Chicago, 1916); and The American Wool Manufacture, Vol. II, by A. H. Cole (Cambridge, 1926). Without attempting to give a complete list of the intensive studies which have been made of the operations and policies of particular German cartels, we may indicate the wealth and range of this type of economic literature in Germany by reference to some of the more prominent studies of two or three important industries. The coal syndicates, the most conspicuous cartels in Germany, historically, have been the subject of much research as well as much controversy. Francis Walker’s Monopolistic Combinations in the German Coal Industry (New York, 1904) makes available in English a critical account of the early period, while W. Goetzke’s Das Rheinischwestfalische Kohlen Syndikate (Essen, 1904) covers the same ground from a more sympathetic angle. Under the same title Kurt Wiedenfeld (Bonn, 1912) published the results of a later study, which includes an account of the crucial controversy of 1910-11 over the question of “Imperial Participation,” or control, in this leading syndicate. The political controversy over the organization of the coal industry in 1911 was the forerunner of the warm debate during the war and the reconstruction period over the issue of nationalization of syndicated industries. Merely as casual examples of the mass of brochures on this subject which have helped to enliven the German political scene in recent years may be mentioned, Monopolfrage und Arbeiterklasse (4 essays), Wm. Jansson, editor (Berlin, 1917); and, on the opposite side, Für Reform der Industriekartelle (Berlin, 1920), and Das Problem der Staatlichen Kartellaufsichte (Mannheim, 1923), by Siegfried Tschierschky. How this sharpening of the issue and the inauguration of the new government policy of compulsory organization, or Zwangswirtschaft (for a few basic industries), have affected the cartells in the coal industry is shown in Die Zwangssyndikate in Kohlenbergbau, by Walter Thoenes (Jena, 1921). A recent addition to the list of scientific studies of the German coal cartels by an American author, A. H. Stockder, under the misleading title, German Trade Associations (New York, 1924), also reviews this later experience and analyzes the results of the new cartel policy. Special works of some merit treating of the experience with cartels in the potash industry, which was, so to speak, their original home, include: Die Deutsche Kaliindustrie und das Kalisyndikat, by Theodore Stoepel (Halle, 1904); Die Deutsche Kaliindustrie und das Kali Gesetze, by J. Schonemann (Hanover, 1911); Die Finanzierung das Kaliindustrie, by H. A. Giebel (Karlsruhe, 1912); and Das Kali, by Paul Kirche (Stuttgart, 1923). The latter work is partly technical. For the iron and steel industry, selection of but three or four outstanding studies from the considerable number which have appeared, without overlooking the historical significance of earlier researches, is even more difficult. The following, however, may be recommended for the present-day student, in preference to the largely superseded work of Mannstaedt and Zoellner: Beckman’s Der Zusammenschluss in der westdeutschen Grossindustrie (Cologne, 1921); H. Bruhn’s Der Eisenwirtschaftsbund (Jena, 1922); and A. Tross’s Der Aufbau der Eisen-und eisenverarbeitenden Industrie-Konzerne Deutschlands (Berlin, 1923). The latter contains a store of information on the present distribution of control in the industry.

The second main division of our classification of trust literature comprises, in addition to monographs of restricted compass surveying alternative public policies and the treatises still more limited in scope discussing current legal rules, a considerable number of textbooks providing a broad approach to, and usually a generalized “solution” of, the problem of industrial monopoly. To refer to the latter type of works first, it seems best to discuss them in the order of their relative emphasis upon the inductive or deductive method. Perhaps most noteworthy, because of its adherence to concrete facts and its empirical outlook, is J. W. Jenks’s The Trust Problem (New York, 1900). This standard text, after passing through a number of editions, was extensively revised in 1917 and published with W. E. Clark as co-author. It reflects throughout the exceptional opportunities for observation and statistical research of its original author, who was Secretary of the Industrial Commission. The digestive function here scarcely keeps pace with the foraging disposition, however. Business Organization and Combination, by Lewis H. Haney (New York, 1913), likewise is developed inductively, and the distinctive feature of the book is the attempt to connect the growth and special characteristics of monopolistic combinations with peculiarities of the corporate structure and the exigencies of corporation finance. The text by Eliot R. Jones under the title, The Trust Problem in the United States (New York, 1921), is the most comprehensive in scope, cautious in method, and sane in judgment of the general works in this field. Its prevailing conservatism is manifested not only in its substance, but in its form; none of the stock classifications, distinctions, or examples has been omitted. Besides intensive studies of six representative industrial combinations, there is an excellent survey in a short compass of the legal history of “the anti-trust movement.” For the reader who wishes an encyclopedic book of reference on the trust problem, either this text or that by Jenks and Clark should answer the purpose. A simple primer covering the more prominent aspects of the consolidation movement in America is J. F. Crowell’s Trusts and Competition (Chicago, 1915).

Two introductory studies of the trust movement in its initial stages, similar in general viewpoint and style, but different in respect of sharpness of perception and breadth of conception, are: Trusts, by E. L. Von Halle, (New York, 1895), and The Trusts and the Public, by George Gunton, (New York, 1899). These supply essentially journalistic descriptions of events and conditions surrounding the formation of trusts, and an explanation of their causes according to prevalent theories. Both were written from a strongly sympathetic point of view, the former primarily for foreign (German) consumption, the latter as a series of essays in apologetics. This “reporting” angle makes Von Halle’s book lucid and readable, while Gunton’s turn for anecdotes assured a wide audience for his articles. Neither possesses any permanent value as a contribution to the solution of the problem of industrial control. In the same category with these two volumes, except that it is developed from an opposite point of view is: The Plain Facts as to the Trusts and the Tariff, by G. L. Bolen (New York, 1902.)

The same verdict does not hold for E. S. Mead’s Trust Finance (New York, 1903), though it reflects a not unsympathetic attitude toward industrial combinations. The problem is interpreted almost exclusively in terms of the speculative evils of corporate promotion and capitalization. Data are assembled bearing upon fraud and chicanery in trust formation. Notwithstanding its one-sidedness, this text has its value in focusing attention on a sometimes neglected factor in the trust movement.

One of the earliest attempts at a circumspect analysis of the many phases of the monopoly problem is R. T. Ely’s Monopolies and Trusts (New York, 1900; ibid., 1906). In this pioneer work Professor Ely provided a sound background for more intensive studies of particular issues of social policy to which the growth of industrial monopolies has given rise. The historical perspective, the comparison and classification of different types of monopolistic organization, and the scientific method of approach distinguish this early classic. Of a not dissimilar stamp is J. B. Clark’s The Control of Trusts (New York, 1901), republished in 1912 with J. M. Clark as co-author. This excellent little text presents a closely reasoned analysis of the economic tendencies and legal situation responsible for the growth of trusts, and of the economic tendencies and legal reforms for which the growth of trusts is responsible. The clear statement of the limitations of competition, its advantages, and its necessary safeguards still bears critical examination, and for the reader who does not care for a more detailed treatment of the basic issues in public policy toward industrial organization this book should prove not only serviceable, but stimulating. A conservative, sane, and judicious book is E. D. Durand’s The Trust Problem (Cambridge, 1915).

For a concise and readable account of the socialist interpretation of the tendency toward industrial concentration, Herman Cahn’s Capital Today (New York, 1918) may be recommended. But the interested reader with two hours of spare time will not forego the opportunity to judge for himself the validity of the familiar predictions made by Karl Marx in Part VII of the first volume of his Das Kapital (Hamburg, 1885), American edition (Chicago, 1907), concerning the course of development of ever more inclusive forms of control in capitalistic industry.

Of foreign literature of the general type of the foregoing, it must suffice merely to mention a few outstanding works. The English contributions are meager, in any case. They include: D. H. MacGregor, Industrial Combination (London, 1906) (a deductive analysis, the abstract terms of which permit suggestive references and applications to trade unions and cooperative societies, as well as to different types of capitalistic groupings); G. R. Carter, Tendency Towards Industrial Combination (London, 1913) (a less scholarly but more pointed criticism of the consolidation movement); John Hilton, A Study of Trade Organizations and Combinations in the United Kingdom (London, 1919) (prepared for the Committee on Trusts of the Ministry of Reconstruction). Of the German treatises surveying and criticizing public policy toward industrial monopoly there must be mentioned before the many others Professor R. L. Liefmann’s Kartelle und Trusts (Stuttgart, 1910). This popular treatise has recently been revised and enlarged to cover post-war experience. It provides a useful classification of capitalistic unions, and an instructive analysis of the relation of the several forms to the special characteristics of different industries. In discussing the causes of the formation of capitalistic combinations and their consequences for the primary economic classes, stress is laid upon the tendencies to excess in free competition, on the one hand, and upon the efficacy of potential competition, on the other. This attitude is common among the majority of the German writers, and no doubt reflects in part the leniency of the established legal policy toward trade combinations. But the chief fault of the analysis is the failure to distinguish between the influence of prospective economies and of monopolistic opportunities in fostering industrial amalgamations. This failing, again, is shared by numerous German writers, who exhibit quite generally a certain disregard of the interests of consumers. Professor Liefmann’s article on Kartelle, in the Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, 4th ed., Vol. V (Jena, 1923), provides a useful short survey of the subject, together with a fairly full bibliography of the German literature. Other significant German treatises, illustrating in varying degrees the characteristics that have just been noted are: H. Mannstaedt, Ursachen und Ziele des Zusammenschlusses in Gewerbe (Jena, 1916); von Beckerath, Kräfte, Ziele und Gestaltungen in der Deutschen Industriewirtschaft (Jena, 1921); and R. Isay, Studien im privaten und öffentlichen Kartellrecht (Mannheim, 1922). The latter is more than the mere legal treatise its title might suggest.

Less concerned with the formulation of an ultimately and abstractly sound policy, and treating more particularly of the scope, meaning, and significance of actual public policy are a number of critical works written from the legal point of view, but not intended exclusively for a professional audience. Foremost among the monographs of this type stands Bruce Wyman’s The Control of the Market (Boston, 1911). Here is the most instructive and suggestive treatment within two covers of the legal doctrines developed in the common law for the regulation of trade and industry. There is also a searching criticism of the course of judicial interpretation of the Sherman Act. Incisive in analysis, circumspect in judgment, charming in style, this is a classic which no discerning reader can lay down without a regret that its scope should not have been broader.

Even narrower in compass, as is indicated by its title, is ex-President (now Chief Justice) Taft’s The Anti-Trust Act and the Supreme Court (New York, 1914). This little book might almost be described as a tract, for it was written in defense of its author’s record in the enforcement of the Sherman Act, as well as of the policy which that Act embodies. But it evinces a ripe familiarity with every step in the evolution of federal regulation of trade relations, a process in which the author as a judge has borne a distinguished part, bringing to the interpretation of the law both erudition and insight.

Business Competition and the Law, by G. H. Montague (New York, 1917), has more of an instructive purpose, and is therefore less critical. This collected series of articles is little more than a handbook for use in steering business men clear of the meshes of the anti-trust laws. An earlier exposition of the legal doctrines which govern industrial organization and commercial methods, and one written with a better grasp of the significance of their historical origin and development is T. C. Spelling’s Trusts and Monopolies (Boston, 1893). But for a purely legal compendium the reader will do better to refer to W. W. Thornton’s A Treatise on the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (Cincinnati, 1913), and to the encyclopaedic Trust Laws and Unfair Competition (United States Bureau of Corporations, Washington, 1916). Perhaps the most satisfactory treatment of the general law upon trade combinations, however, is A. M. Kales’s Contracts and Combinations in Restraint of Trade (Chicago, 1918). Here the traditional legal doctrines are expounded with rare force and insight.

More academic in tone than any of the foregoing, but exhibiting nevertheless a tenacious adherence to concreteness in method, is The Policy of the United States towards Industrial Monopoly, by O. W. Knauth (New York, 1914). The discussion of the development of the federal law upon trade regulation and the attitude of successive administrations toward its enforcement is characterized by sobriety of judgment and statement. The conflicts of opinion provoked by the anti-trust law and its interpretation are also carefully reviewed. The reader with a bent for historical inquiry will find an inviting problem presented respecting the origin of the Sherman Act, by a comparison of the Autobiography of George F. Hoar (New York, 1903), and the History of the Sherman Law, by A. H. Walker (New York, 1910).

The legal policies prevailing in foreign countries are so divergent that it is impracticable here to refer to works treating of the special features of each of these distinctive systems. One exception must be made, however. Not only because it has to do primarily with the legal principles governing industrial organization and trade relations in Australia, where the Government’s policy has been modeled on the American anti-trust policy, but also because of its own special qualities, mention must be made of W. Jethro Brown’s Prevention and Control of Monopoly (London, 1914). The author of this book is a distinguished jurist and an independent and clear-headed thinker. The book is an important contribution to the understanding of any anti-trust policy established upon common-law traditions.

In surveying the third principal division of the literature upon trusts or industrial monopolies, it is necessary to restrict attention to such works upon economic theory as deal primarily with the problem of monopoly. There is, of course, in most of the systematic treatises upon economic science some discussion of the nature and effects of monopoly. But as the antithesis of that perfect competition which is the foundation stone upon which the structure of classical economic theory has been reared, monopoly has, as a rule, come in for but scanty analysis in these texts. For example, in J. B. Clark’s The Distribution of Wealth (New York, 1900), there are but two casual references to monopoly, and one of these is in a footnote. Even Mill in the theoretical part of his Principles of Political Economy (5th edition, New York, 1894) devotes but a single page to the explanation of the determination of monopoly price and another page to the discussion of the influence of monopoly upon distribution. At best, in most of the well-known economics texts no more than one chapter is given to the treatment of monopoly problems, and that is usually limited to an exposition of the principle of monopoly value.

It is to the mathematical economists that one must go to collect the fragments of a comprehensive theory of value and distribution under monopolistic conditions.2 The mathematical method appears to lend itself readily to the analysis of market processes under the assumption of artificial manipulation. At any rate, the most significant contributions to this branch of economic theory have come from the mathematical school. The pioneer work of A. A. Cournot, Recherches sur les Principes Mathématiques de la Théorie des Richesses, first published in 1838 and translated for the “Economic Classics” series in 1897, remains an excellent introduction to the study of monopoly value. The employment of the methods of calculus brought a new technique into economic science, and by the device of superimposing demand and supply curves upon a single graph, Cournot opened the gateway to a fruitful field of scientific exploration. But he was not content with pointing the way, and except from the historical point of view these contributions are not what make the study of the Recherches most worth while to the present-day student.

Cournot employed his rigid mathematical methods in a lucid exposition of the effects of monopoly, under varying conditions as to costs, upon prices. He also analyzed, but not with so full a measure of success, the tendencies set up by partial monopoly, or limited competition,— an aspect of the general problem peculiarly significant for one interested in trusts and industrial combinations.3

Not all the mathematical economists have followed Cournot’s lead in setting out to construct a complete theory of value by proceeding from conditions of monopoly and working toward the purely competitive market by a gradual modification of hypotheses. The Lausanne school, so-called, developed the theory of exchanges, after the classical manner, under assumptions of free competition; but this approach has not prevented them from making some acute observations regarding the effects upon economic equilibria of monopolistic influences. Leon Walras, the founder of this group, in his Éléments d’Économie Politique Pure (Lausanne, 1889), developed the theory of general economic equilibrium. The study of monopoly has also been significantly advanced by Professor Pareto, the successor of Professor Walras, in his systematic treatises, Cours d’Économie politique (Lausanne, 1897), and Manuel d’Economie politique, (Paris, 1909). For a clear summary and a just appreciation of the contributions of the Lausanne school to economic theory, one should consult E. Antonelli, Principes d’Économie pure (Paris, 1914). A more critical review of the work of this school, as well as of the mathematical method in economics in general, will be found in W. E. Zawadski, Les Mathématiques appliquées à l’Économie politique (Paris, 1914). Outside of the Lausanne school, which is more than half French itself, the leading French representative of the mathematical method has been Professor E. Colson, and his comprehensive Cours d’Économie politique, in six volumes (Paris, 1901-07), will be found to contain some of the most precise and ingenious demonstrations of the consequences of monopolistic price-making under varying conditions. In particular Volume I, pp. 141-201, and Volume VI, pp. 11- 54, may be recommended.

Probably, however, the most searching analyses of the problems surrounding monopolistic price determination, including its relation to wealth distribution and social welfare, in the last two generations have been made by English mathematical economists. The work of two of the three most prominent of these contributors to an economic theory of monopoly is well summed up in their books, but the contributions of the third found expression almost exclusively in journal articles. Professor Edgeworth’s prefatory Mathematical Physics (London, 1881) called attention to the interesting possibilities in an economic analysis of the operation of combinations in various spheres: the determinateness of the transactions in which they participated, the significance of the reduction in the number of exchange relationships, and the advantages and limitations of concert of action in the market. These questions and similar ones have been minutely examined in subsequent writings, more especially with reference to ordinary commercial transactions in a series of three articles on La Teoria Pura del Monopolio in the Giornali degli Economisti, 1897 (Volume XV, 2d Series, pp. 13, 307, 405), and with reference to the particular case of diminishing cost industries and the attendant power of discrimination, in Contributions to the Theory of Railway Rates, four articles in the Economic Journal (1911-13, Volume XXI, p. 346, p. 55; Volume XXII, p. 198; Volume XXIII, p. 206). It is fortunate that these and other scattered papers of Professor Edgeworth have now been brought together and the articles on the “Pure Theory of Monopoly” retranslated into English. In his complete economic writings, Papers Relating to Political Economy (London, 1925), the articles referred to above will be found, respectively, in Volume I, pp. 111-42, and in the same volume, pp. 61-99 and pp. 172- 91.

The second of the triumvirate referred to has accomplished, better perhaps than any of the other mathematical economists, the difficult task of interpreting clearly and untechnically the results and significance of analyses that necessarily involved types of reasoning that are essentially mathematical. Alfred Marshall, in his Principles of Economics (8th edition, New York, 1920), has done far more than to interpret the contributions of other minds, however, and not less than elsewhere in the sections dealing with monopoly and its incidents. The fifth Book of his Principles, Chapters 8, 9, 12, 13, and 14, cannot be overlooked by any student desiring the minimum essentials of an acquaintance with the literature of trusts and monopolies. The scrupulous faithfulness of the late dean of English-speaking economists in adhering to the rigid premises of his argument when treating of the theoretical implications of monopoly, no less than in other parts of his work, combined with his extraordinary grasp of the limitations of those premises and their relation to the complexities of actual affairs, enabled him to penetrate many obscure compartments and fissures in the economic structure without losing his way. And the reader, if he watches all the sign-posts, can follow him without difficulty. In particular, Marshall explains the relation of various cost tendencies to the development of monopoly, and studies the effects upon the general welfare of the operation of monopoly under varying conditions, natural and imposed.

Finally, the successor of Professor Marshall, both academically and professionally, Professor A. C. Pigou, has given us, in The Economics of Welfare (2d ed., London, 1924), the best all-around account anywhere obtainable of the economic significance of monopoly and of the feasibility of the different means of its regulation in the public interest. The present writer’s indebtedness to this source and to Professor Pigou’s previous volume, Wealth and Welfare (London, 1912), which may be taken as a preliminary edition of The Economics of Welfare, is so patent in the sixth chapter of this monograph that it will not need more than formal acknowledgment here. The relationship is cited here mainly that the reader may gauge better the importance attached to Professor Pigou’s notable achievements in this branch of economic theory.

A compact but rather difficult mathematical summary of some of the more important results reached by Edgeworth, Marshall, Pigou, Pareto, and others is given by Professor A. L. Bowley in his Mathematical Groundwork of Economics (Oxford, 1924).

The contributions of American economists in this difficult field of economic analysis have not been especially conspicuous. For a cautious but very elementary treatment of the problem of monopoly value, the student will find helpful the exposition of the authors of Outlines of Economics, R. T. Ely and associates (New York, revised edition, 1920).

At the moment of going to press, there has just appeared an important series of monographs on cartels and combines, prepared under the direction of the Economic and Financial Section of the League of Nations (Geneva, 1927) for submission to the International Economic Conference of May, 1927. Only the briefest mention of these documents is possible in the circumstances. The one presenting the most acute analysis and the most realistic interpretation of the movement toward comprehensive industrial control is Professor Kurt Wiedenfeld’s Cartels and Combines. A healthy skepticism is evinced by Professor D. H. MacGregor in his very brief treatment of International Cartels. Professor Gustav Cassel takes advantage of the opportunity in a tract upon Recent Monopolistic Tendencies in Industry and Trade, not only to point out the similarities between trade unions and business confederations and amalgamations, but also to exhibit a personal bias, as it appears, by magnifying the economic evils set in train by the former and minimizing even the potentialities of abuse in the latter. The thesis taken by Professor Paul de Rousiers in his Cartels and Trusts and Their Development is that “Industrial agreements between producers are the outcome of economic necessity, bound up with existing conditions of production and distribution.” But as the author does not himself maintain this standpoint throughout the essay, his readers are not likely to be convinced. Still less convincing are a number of the other papers in which logic has been thrown overboard altogether and dissimulation given the job of pilot. These need not be cited. It is enough to note that under the euphemistic slogan of “Economic Rationalization,” which to some means a prudent direction of affairs and to others rationing, or plain division of the spoils, a movement is under way in Europe to smooth the way for supernational industrial control. In some cases this might mean the extension of monopolistic influences over wider spheres, but more frequently probably only the entrenchment of existing privileges within particular national spheres. Several of the documents under review appear to have been designed to lend impetus to this movement.

Notes

1 Vide, on the paper industry, articles by H.R. Hess, 25 Quarterly Journal of Economics, 650 (1911), E. O. Merchant, 32 Quarterly Journal of Economics, 238 (1918), and 34 Quarterly Journal of Economics, 313 (1920), Constance Southworth, 30 Journal of Political Economy, 681 (1922); on the gunpowder industry, an article by W. H. S. Stevens, 26 Quarterly Journal of Economics, 444 (1912); on the iron and steel industry, articles by E. S. Mead, 22 Quarterly Journal of Economics, 452 (1908); A. Berglund, 38 Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1, and 607 (1923-24); on the woolen industry, articles by L. D. H. Weld, 27 Quarterly Journal of Economics, 67 (1912), A. H. Cole, 37 Quarterly Journal of Economics, 436 (1923); and on the shoe machinery industry, articles by R. Roe, 21 Journal of Political Economy, 938 (1913), and 22 Journal of Political Economy, 43 (1914).

2 This phrase is used hero and elsewhere to comprehend conditions of quasi-monopoly as well as monopoly in the strict sense.

3 While the mathematical method does not appear, in general, to have made strong appeal to German economists, this particular aspect of the problem of monopoly has been further developed by Karl Forchheimer in an article in Schmoller’s Jahrbuch, vol. xxxii, p. 1, “Theoretisches zum unvollständigen Monopole.”

 

Image Source: National Archives and Records Administration. United States, Selective Service System. Selective Service Registration Cards, World War II: Fourth Registration. Records of the Selective Service System, Record Group Number 147. World War II Draft Cards (Fourth Registration) for the State of Maryland. State Headquarters ca. 1942. NARA Publication: M1939. NAI: 563727. The National Archives at St. Louis, Missouri. U.S.A.

Categories
Economists Michigan

Michigan. Organization of Behavioral Sciences. Report to Ford Foundation, 1954

Here an except from the University of Michigan’s Survey of the behavioral sciences, the fourth university of five participating in the Ford Foundation Project of 1953-54 on the behavioral sciences. Harvard, Chicago, Stanford and Michigan’s reports are in the public domain and available at hathitrust.org. I have been unable to locate the University of North Carolina’s report but perhaps some kind visitor to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror (attention colleagues at Duke!) can track that one down for us sometime. These reports provide a very nice set of artifact-bookends for my project on graduate economics education in the United States that I truncate around mid-twentieth century. Link to Michigan’s Economics-Pantheon here.

___________________________________

[p. 11]

THE ORGANIZATION OF
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE ACTIVITIES

At the University of Michigan there is no general administration of Behavioral Science or of Social Science as such. The teaching activities of the University are organized in a College of Literature Science and the Arts, a Graduate School, and 13 professional schools. Research and special services are carried on in each of the teaching units, and also in special bureaus, institutes and centers which are authorized for particular continuing operations and which, depending on their scope, may report to a department, a school, or to the central university administration.

Since 1934 there has been a Division of the Social Sciences1, comprised of representatives from the relevant departments and schools. Its function is primarily advisory and it has no budget or administrative responsibility. The General Committee of the Division nominates a Research Committee which advises the Board of the Graduate School on allocations for research projects in the field of social science.

The administrative units concerned with the Behavioral Sciences are described in the following sections:

1) Departments of the College of Literature, Science and the Arts
2) Professional Schools
3) Institutes and Research Agencies.

[p. 12]

DEPARTMENTS OF THE COLLEGE
OF LITERATURE, SCIENCE AND THE ARTS
 

Anthropology

The present organization of the Department of Anthropology, in a sense a transitional one, involves a staff of 15 members of whom five hold full-time teaching appointments in the Department of Anthropology and five hold full-time appointments in the Museum of Anthropology. Of the other five, two hold joint appointments with the Department of Sociology, one with the Department of Near Eastern Studies, one with the Institute of Human Biology, and one with the English Department. These complicated administrative arrangements are the result of a long-standing and well established tradition of separation of Museum and Department, and a general overlap of research interests with other disciplines.

In 1939 the Department had a staff of three men, one of whom devoted most of his time to his duties as Director of the Museum of Anthropology and of the University Museums, while the others taught full-time. It offered an undergraduate major and an A. M. degree. Museum staff members, not including the Museum Director, were three men who devoted themselves to research and curatorial work, their chief contact with students being consultation on research topics involving Museum collections. Owing to war absences in 1944-45, the Museum staff members were called upon to participate in the regular teaching program of the Department, and shortly thereafter this practice was formalized by granting them professorial titles, although no change was made in budgetary arrangements. This growth of departmental resources made possible a considerably expanded curriculum, and it was decided to press for further expansion of staff with a view to establishing a full-fledged doctoral program. This goal was achieved in 1948.

Joint appointments, particularly in the specialized fields of social organization, culture and personality, and linguistics, materially aided the rapid staff expansion. A fairly well rounded representation of the various areas of special interest within anthropology has resulted, although the staff and administrative structure are by no means thought to have attained any final or ideal form. The development of smoothly functioning working arrangements among the units involved in anthropology is an important problem; presumably these arrangements will evolve [p. 13] in response to problem situations as they arise. No difficulties have as yet come up which are insoluble under the present organization.

Research in anthropology at Michigan reflects several currents of influence. Traditional, individual research in descriptive ethnography and culture theory is well represented by the work of White and Titiev, and in prehistoric archaeology by the Museum staff; Beardsley, Schorger, and others participate in area interdisciplinary team research through such programs as those of the Center for Japanese Studies and the Department of Near Eastern Studies; and topical research interest in the problems of kinship and social organization is represented by Aberle and Miner. There does not appear to be any strong “official” emphasis along any of these lines from the standpoint of the insider, but the outside image of Michigan research is probably still influenced by the pre-expansion situation when the archaeological work of the relatively large Museum staff was especially visible.

No well defined trend is now evident, and it seems likely that Michigan anthropological research will be as difficult to characterize sharply in ten years as it is now. Presumably the archaeological research collections of the Museum will continue to be exploited, the dominant interest of the Michigan physical anthropologists in population genetics will persist, and the various area programs will continue to operate.

 

Economics

The Department of Economics has been in the forefront of the post war development of economics in two principal and interrelated directions, increased attention to economics as part of the study of human behavior as a whole, and greater emphasis on quantitative economics and econometrics.

Five members of its staff of 17 hold joint appointments with other departments and institutes, and 10 teaching fellows and predoctoral instructors are engaged in elementary course teaching.

Student enrollment consists of about 127 undergraduate concentrates and 62 graduate students of whom about two-thirds are working at the doctoral level.

The fields of economics in which research is being carried on are:

Economic Theory: Ackley, Boulding, Dickinson, Katona, Morgan, Palmer, Suits
[p. 14]
Money and Banking: Musgrave, Watkins
Labor: Haber, Levinson
International Economics: Remer, Stolper
Public Control and Regulation: Peterson, Sharfman
Public Finance: Ford, Musgrave
Quantitative Economics, Statistics and Research Methods: Katona, Klein, Suits
Economic History: Dickinson
Interdepartmental, Interdisciplinary, Area Programs, etc.: Ackley, Boulding, Remer, Stolper, Suits

The trend at Michigan to relate the study of economics to human behavior as a whole and thus to integrate it with the problems and results of other disciplines is shown in many activities of its staff. Of particular interest is the work of George Katona on the psychological foundations of economic behavior, and Kenneth Boulding’s explorations into problems in the integration of the social sciences. Members of the economics staff participate in the interdisciplinary seminars in the Japanese, Near Eastern and Latin American area programs, and in the Metropolitan Community Seminar and the Seminar on Land Utilization.

Considerable emphasis is placed upon quantitative economics and econometrics. The number of courses in this field has been increased from the two courses in economic statistics formerly available, to include a semester’s work in mathematical economics, now required of all doctoral candidates, a year’s work in econometrics under Klein, a semester of research methods under Katona, and a continuing research seminar in quantitative economics. In addition, an increasing amount of quantitative research is being carried on in the substantive seminars. Particularly notable are the recent studies in the incidence of taxation carried out by Musgrave in his seminar on Fiscal Policy, and studies of interregional development directed by Stolper.

The location of the Survey Research Center here has greatly encouraged and facilitated the development in these two directions by providing personnel, materials and additional methodology for the conduct of quantitative research. It has stimulated graduate student interest in these problems through participation in research and in many cases through employment. The annual appointment of two post doctoral visiting economists as research associates of the Center, broadening the area over which ideas are interchanged, was made possible by Carnegie Corporation funds.

[p. 15] The Interdisciplinary Program in Mathematics and the Social Sciences and the Detroit Area Study, both established under the 1950 Ford Foundation grant, have made important contributions to mutual understanding of problems by mathematicians and social scientists. The Detroit program makes an annual sample survey of the population in that area, providing training for graduate students as well as a research facility for faculty members.

These developments have had a natural effect on the interests and work of graduate students. Five students at the doctoral level are now employed by the Survey Research Center as study directors. Five others are engaged as half-time research assistants in the research seminar in quantitative economics. One student is engaged in an independent sample survey project growing out of the interregional studies mentioned above, and two students are pursuing independent research utilizing data obtained from the Survey of Consumer Finances conducted annually for the Federal Reserve Board by the Center.

Quantitative research by graduate students is limited by two factors. In the first place, the costs involved in processing quantitative data in any volume discourage such activity except where the expenses can be met by the research institute, program or seminar in which the student is participating. No free departmental funds are available for this purpose.

Secondly, the department itself has not yet overcome the “cultural lag” between its encouragement of quantitative research on the one hand and its formal doctoral program on the other. Traditionally the department has placed primary emphasis on theory rather than research. The student has been required to familiarize himself with economic theory and the institutional background of economic activity. Introductory courses in statistics and accounting have long been required as research “tools” for graduate students, but although further study has always been encouraged, no formal place in the graduate curriculum has been provided for it. The members of the Economics faculty are well aware of this contradiction and it is expected that it will be resolved in the near future.

 

Political Science2

[p. 16] Although lectures in political science were given as early as 1860 (by members of the law faculty) and courses in political institutions were found in the history department from 1870 on, a political science department as such was not established until 1910. An abortive “Institute of Political Science” had been established in 1887, but administrative difficulties caused it to disappear from the scene in a few years.

The department gradually grew in size until its faculty by 1933 numbered 12. In the post war days this number doubled, and there are now 24 members on the department staff. In the early days the department expanded by adding new courses in public law, political theory, municipal government and administration, and foreign governments. The work in public administration increased gradually from 1914, when a special curriculum was organized, until 1937 when an Institute of Public and Social Administration was created, which in turn led to a separate Institute of Public Administration in 1945. From the mid-thirties on the department has expanded primarily by the addition of staff in the fields of international relations and politics.

Today there are 1887 student enrollments in a total of 43 courses. There are 71 graduate students, and 176 undergraduate concentrates. Fifteen graduate students are in the process of writing dissertations.

The department divides its program into the following six fields of specialization: American government and constitutional law, foreign governments, political parties and public opinion, political theory, public administration, international law and relations. The staff is divided unequally in these fields, reflecting the demands of undergraduate and graduate instruction. The largest number of courses in the department, according to a recent report of its Curriculum Committee, are of the institutional-descriptive type (about 40). The political theory courses follow the traditional pattern of chronological analysis of great ideas. Two methodology courses are given each for one semester only: Scope and Method of Political Science, and Bibliography and Methods of Research. A growing interest in political behavior is indicated by three courses in this area and by the use of behavioral methods and materials in other courses.

The content and method of doctoral dissertations reflects an orientation of staff and courses toward institutional-descriptive materials. Of the 56 dissertations completed since 1947 or now being written, about one-half are legal-structural studies in American national, state or local government. Another 10 [p. 17] are in the international field, with half of them in international law. Six are traditional political theory studies. Eight can be classified strictly as behavioral and these have been written in the last two or three years.

The department has several interdisciplinary linkages, both formal and informal. Four members of its staff are involved in the Japanese Research Center, the Russian Studies Program, the Latin-American Program, and the Near Eastern Studies Program. The department regularly participates in the Metropolitan Community Seminar and the Land Use Seminar. By invitation of the government and the University of the Philippines, and supported by a government contract, it organized and operates a Public Administration Training Center in Manila. It has set up special courses in conjunction with the schools of Public Health, Forestry, and Education. Its linkages with Sociology are close on occasion. The Institute of Public Administration has had a sociologist on its staff for the past year. Political science staff and graduate students were on the staff of the Detroit Area Study during two of the three years it has been going on. The Political Behavior Program has granted a research assistantship to a Sociology graduate student for the past two years. The Phoenix Project in the Institute of Public Administration, includes a sociologist as well as economists on its staff.

The most significant behavioral developments in the department, especially from a student-training standpoint, are the Political Behavior Research Program inaugurated in 1950 with Ford funds, and the Phoenix project in public administration and legislative aspects of atomic energy control. Currently several members of the department are planning a collaborative program of research on the representative process. A program of behavioral research and training is thus seen to have a substantial and promising start. It will develop by the addition of staff members in this area and by the inclusion of more research training for graduate students, in proportion as the demonstrated achievement of the current activities earn departmental support and succeed in gaining financial support.

 

Psychology3

A major development in the Department of Psychology was undertaken in the years following 1946. Prior to the war the [p. 18] department had been small, with primary emphasis in experimental work. Walter Pillsbury retired as chairman in 1943 and during the war there was greatly restricted activity. After the war, with the establishment of a training program in clinical psychology, and with the expansion in social research, the staff was trebled and the graduate program greatly broadened.

The staff now consists of 55 members, only a few of whom are appointed full time on the teaching budget. The sum of their fractional teaching appointments is 24. The other parts of their appointments are in the Institute for Social Research, on research grants, and in clinical agencies.

The main directions of activity in graduate research and training may be conveniently considered as three; clinical, social, and general experimental. There is a certain amount of administrative separation of the three, and the students tend to group in these categories, but a deliberate effort has been made to integrate their work. Four-fifths of the work of the first graduate year is common for all students; specialization begins in the second year; after prelims many of the seminars again find all kinds of students together.

There are about 110 graduate students working toward the doctoral degree in Psychology. The number is arbitrarily limited by the admission of not more than 25 or 30 graduate students each year. They are selected from 200 or more qualified applicants. Admissions are planned so that there will be about the same number of students in clinical, social and general. Only two or three a year drop out for personal or academic reasons. The Department undertakes to find half-time positions for practically all students in research, teaching or clinical work which will contribute to their training. There are 30 appointments in the Veterans Administration, 5 to 8 in other clinical agencies, 5 on United States Public Health Service stipends, about 20 in teaching, and 10-20 on research projects. Ordinarily two students hold University fellowships and two to nine hold outside fellowships. The capricious inflexibility of this system is obvious, and it is frequently impossible to provide the job most appropriate for the student’s level and direction of training.

Active research programs are carried on in the following fields, usually with some assistance from outside grants:

Visual psychophysics: Blackwell, Kristofferson
Physiological: McCleary, Smith
Learning: Walker, Birch
[p. 19]
Motivation: Atkinson, Clark
Perception: Brown
Therapy: Bordin, Raush, Hutt, Segal
Counseling and Psychodynamics: Blum, Miller, McNeil, Allinsmith
Personality Assessment: Kelly
Mathematical Methods: Coombs, Milholland, Hays
Attitude Change: Katz, Newcomb, Peak, Rosenberg
Teaching Process: McKeachie
Industrial Human Relations: Maier
Others in Institute for Social Research

Laboratory and practicum facilities, in addition to the I.S.R., include the well equipped Vision Research Laboratory, a 10- room animal research laboratory, and a 10-room experimental laboratory in addition to a 10-room teaching laboratory, all in Mason Hall. A three-room machine and wood shop is fully equipped. In the Bureau of Psychological Services is a Psychological Clinic directed by Frederick Wyatt, and a Student Counseling Service directed by Edward Bordin, both extensively used for training. Hospital facilities are favorable for training in Pediatrics, less so in Psychiatry.

One of the continuing objectives of the Department of Psychology is to realize a reasonable balance of strengths. Before the war the emphasis was almost exclusively on laboratory experimental work. With the advent of the Veterans Administration program in 1946 the emphasis became heavily clinical. The establishment in 1948 of the Institute for Social Research created an immediate emphasis in social psychology. Only in the last year or two has general experimental psychology been strengthened by new appointments, new laboratories, and outside research grants to the point where reasonable balance has been attained.

 

Sociology

Courses in sociology have been taught at Michigan for about 60 years. During half of that period the leading figure was Charles Horton Cooley, an outstanding exponent of the psychological approach to the analysis of social life. In 1930, after Cooley’s death, sociology became a separate department, under the leadership of Roderick D. McKenzie. McKenzie’s interest in human ecology was a counterfoil to the Cooley tradition. Both approaches, developed through the years, are reflected in the current work of the department.

[p. 20] The major areas of research and graduate training concern four fields: Social Organization, Human Ecology and Population, Social Psychology, and Methodology. A series of substantive courses and seminars are offered in each of these areas. Some of the principal research areas in which graduate and faculty research go on within each of these general fields are as follows:

Social Organization

Social Stratification: Landecker, Lenski, Swanson
Political Sociology: Janowitz, Campbell
Social Integration: Angell
Industrial Sociology: Carr
Comparative Community Structure: Miner
Family and Kinship: Aberle, Blood
International Social Organization: Angell and Landecker
Collective Behavior: Swanson, Aberle
The Urban Community: Hawley, Janowitz, Freedman
Religious Institutions: Lenski
The Dynamics of Small Groups: Lippitt, Swanson

Population and Human Ecology

Population Distribution: Hawley, Kish
Fertility Trends: Freedman
Migration: Freedman, Hawley

Social Psychology (see next section of report)

Methodology

Survey Research Techniques: Likert, Campbell, Kish
Group Dynamics Methodology: Lippitt
General Quantitative Methodology: Williams

The department has major responsibilities in undergraduate teaching. In the fall semester of 1953 there were 1708 course elections in sociology. Most of the undergraduate elections are in introductory courses. In the fall of 1953 there were 60 undergraduate concentrates in sociology and 24 concentrates in pre-professional social work. There were approximately 50 graduate students.

Many ties with other University units are maintained. Two staff members have joint appointments in anthropology; three have joint appointments in psychology; and four are on the staff of the Institute for Social Research. Twelve of the 24 graduate courses offered for credit during the current semester are also listed by at least one other department.

[p. 21] There has been considerable revision in the graduate curriculum during the post-war period. Outstanding trends have been increasing emphasis on (1) systematic theory, oriented to the empirical testing of hypotheses and (2) training in and utilization of new methodological developments for empirical work. Illustrative of the first trend is a seminar in Theories of Social Organization required of all doctoral candidates. Illustrative of the second trend is the required participation in the Detroit Area Study of all first year graduate students.

At the present time approximately one-third of all graduate students have their primary orientation in the field of Human Ecology and Population; the remaining two-thirds in Social Organization. Students whose major orientation is in Social Psychology generally enter the special doctoral program in that field. The department now has rather large groups of students trained for work in these three fields.

Continuing research programs involving students and faculty in these areas compose the chief development needs felt at the present time.4 These needs are reflected in part in the proposal for a social organization research program, presented elsewhere in this report. The Department assigns the highest priority to the continuation of the Detroit Area Study as a central focus for its training of first year graduate students.

Work in the area of Social Psychology is carried on mainly through the special doctoral program in Social Psychology and is described in the next section of the report. The Sociology Department makes a special contribution to this program in its emphasis on the relationship between aspects of social organization and psychological variables. Illustrative of this contribution are courses in mass communication, personality and culture, and collective behavior. Eight members of the department do teaching directly related to the social psychology program.

 

Doctoral Program in Social Psychology

In 1947 the Departments of Psychology and Sociology, wishing to avoid overlapping and competition in the field of common interest, and hoping to provide better advanced training jointly than either could provide alone, were authorized by the Graduate School to create the jointly sponsored Doctoral Program in Social Psychology. Its policies are determined by an Executive [p. 22] Committee appointed by the Dean of the Graduate School from the faculties of the two departments. The chairman, Theodore Newcomb, holds a professorship in each department.

The Program has its own requirements for admission, for courses of study and examination, and recommends candidates for the Ph.D. degree. It has no teaching staff of its own and there is no formal faculty status labeled “Social Psychology.” Instruction is provided by staff members from the Sociology and Psychology Departments. There are about 20 staff members holding graduate faculty status in one or both of the two departments who regard social psychology as their primary specialization and who give instruction in this area. Several of these people hold full-time teaching appointments; most of the rest hold primary appointments in the Institute for Social Research, characteristically teaching a one-semester course each year.

Because social psychology draws heavily upon both sociology and psychology, early specialization is discouraged. Admission to the Social Psychology Program presupposes at least one year of graduate work in one of the two “parent” fields. Certain advanced theory courses in the field which was not the student’s previous specialty are required in the program. Another important way in which students are kept in close touch with the parent fields is through the preliminary examinations; two of the four which are required in Social Psychology (Personality, Social Organization) are the same as those taken in Psychology and Sociology respectively.

Curricular requirements include a series of units in theory (mostly in small seminars), one year of advanced statistics, and three methods courses, two of which involve active experience in gathering and analyzing data. A paid assistantship, most commonly in research, less often in teaching, is found for every student for at least one of his years in the Program. Many of these are provided by the Institute for Social Research.

Only about ten students are admitted to the Program each year, roughly half from each of the two parent fields, out of a much larger number who apply. Very few of them have been Michigan undergraduates, but about half have begun their graduate study here. One advantage of selecting among applicants who have already completed a year of graduate work is that mortality is very small. The nine or ten Ph.D’s granted each year make this Program the fourth largest in the University.

Of the 35 persons who completed their degrees during the Program’s first four years, more than half now hold full-time or part-time research positions; the next largest number (about [p. 23] one-quarter) have academic teaching positions. There has been no greater difficulty in finding suitable positions for these people — perhaps less — than for Ph.D’s in Psychology or Sociology.

 

PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS

The University’s constituent schools have strength and considerable autonomy. In addition to the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts and the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies there are 13 professional schools: Architecture and Design, Business Administration5, Dentistry, Education, Engineering, Law, Medicine, Music, Natural Resources6, Pharmacy, Public Health and Social Work. The Deans of the various schools meet together at the Deans’ Conference—an important agency in the formation of overall University policies. The major part of this report is concerned with activities centered in the College of Literature, Science and the Arts and in the School of Graduate Studies. However, every professional school in the University also has certain activities with a behavioral science aspect. A special study of these activities is reported in Chapter X.

 

INSTITUTES AND RESEARCH AGENCIES

Institute for Social Research7

The Institute for Social Research, consisting of the Survey Research Center and the Research Center for Group Dynamics, [p. 24] was established by Regents’ action in 1948. It is organized on a University-wide basis, administratively independent of the teaching departments and schools, but closely allied with many of them through research, teaching, and professional interests. The Board of Regents specified that “the Institute shall be under the direction of a Director (Dr. Rensis Likert) appointed by the Board of Regents on recommendation by the President and assisted by an Executive Committee.” It provided further that “the Executive Committee shall be responsible for the determination of general policies regarding the nature and scope of the activities of the Institute…” In keeping with the broad relevance of the Institute’s activities, members of the Executive Committee have been drawn from various schools of the University.

From the time of its establishment the Institute has conceived its objective as having four main aspects: (1) the conduct of fundamental research on a variety of problems of both practical and theoretical significance, (2) the dissemination of research results in ways that maximize the usefulness of the research to other scientists and to the public at large, (3) the development of behavioral science through the training of research people and the provision of assistance and consultation to researchers at Michigan and elsewhere, and (4) the development of improved methods for social research.

The Institute conducts a broad program of quantitative research on economic and political behavior, social organization and leadership, group functioning, human relations, the process of planned and unplanned change, and the effects of group membership on individual motivation and adjustment. The research undertaken employs recently developed techniques of sampling, interviewing, quantification of verbal materials, observation and quantification of group functioning, and the experimental control and manipulation of variables determining the phenomena under investigation.

The Institute contributes to graduate training through participation in formal teaching and by providing opportunities for graduate students to take part in ongoing research projects. During the year 1953-54 eighteen members of the Institute staff held joint appointments with seven teaching departments or schools, and taught twenty-five courses. Ordinarily about forty graduate students hold appointments in the Institute, and many of these complete doctoral dissertations in conjunction with this employment.

[p. 25] The research of the Institute is administered within the two major Centers in a number of program areas under the supervision of senior professional staff members. This senior staff consists, in the Survey Research Center, of Angus Campbell, Director, and Charles F. Cannell, Robert L. Kahn, George Katona, Leslie Kish, and Stephen Withey. In the Research Center for Group Dynamics it is composed of Dorwin Cartwright, Director, and John R. P. French, Jr., Ronald Lippitt, and Alvin Zander. The regular staff of the Institute consists of about fifty research scientists, a central clerical and administrative staff of about sixty persons, and a staff of part-time field interviewers located throughout the country numbering over two hundred.

The major portion of the Institute’s financial support comes through research contracts with governmental agencies, private business firms, and professional organizations/ and through grants from research supporting foundations. The Institute during recent years has operated on a budget of approximately $800,000 per year.

 

Institute of Human Biology8

The Institute of Human Biology is a research unit of the University devoted to “the discovery of those fundamental principles of biology which may be of importance for man and the application of biological principles to human affairs.” It is supported in part by general funds of the University and in part by grants from outside sources. Its regular scientific staff of 16, supplemented by 12 other research associates or collaborators, is organized around specific research projects as research teams.

Certain Institute projects have directly significant implications for behavioral science. The Heredity Clinic functions as an outpatient clinic for the University Hospital, giving advice to referred patients on medical problems of hereditary origin and conducting research on the genetics of various defects. The Community Dynamics section conducts ecological studies with particular emphasis on communities in which man is a conspicuous member. The Assortative Mating Study is investigating the effects on the heredity of a city population which may be produced by the tendency of persons with similar traits to marry [p. 26] more or less frequently than would be expected by chance. The Hereditary Abilities Study is an elaborate investigation of human heredity using the method of comparison of identical twin, fraternal twin, and sibling pairs on a large number of psychological, bio-chemical and anthropometric variables.

 

Institute for Human Adjustment

The Institute for Human Adjustment was established by Regents’ action in 1937, its purpose being “to discover means of applying the findings of science to problems of human behavior, to train professional workers, to disseminate new information and techniques among professional workers, and as far as staff, funds, and selection of problems permit, to perform distinct social services. The actual program of the Institute is carried out through five operating units, each administratively responsible to Dean Ralph Sawyer of the Graduate School who serves also as Director of the Institute.

(1) The Division of Gerontology, Wilma Donahue, Director, engages in research in the psychosocial aspects of aging; offers educational programs for older adults in conjunction with communities, business, and industry; assists in the training of professional and volunteer workers through institutes, workshops, conferences, and publications; and serves as a consultation and information center about the problems of aging.

(2) The Fresh Air Camp, Edward Slezak, Director, provides courses in sociology, education and social work, experience in organizing group programs with children, and opportunity for systematic, supervised observation of child behavior.

(3) The Social Science Research Project, Amos Hawley, Director, is a facility for giving students of the social sciences actual field experience in research. The laboratory is the metropolitan community of Flint.

(4) The Speech Clinic, Harlan Bloomer, Director, provides opportunity for the observation, diagnosis, and treatment of all types of speech disorders, for experience in the rehabilitation of persons with hearing loss, and for research in speech pathology.

(5) The Bureau of Psychological Services, E. Lowell Kelly, Director, carries out its program through four divisions as follows:

[p. 27]
(a) Evaluation and Examining (E. J. Furst, Chief) is responsible for all university testing programs and through consultation is of service to individual staff members as well as schools and departments in improving programs of student evaluation.

(b) Student Counseling (E. S. Bordin, Chief) is designed to help students in solving their problems of educational, vocational and social adjustment.

(c) Reading Improvement (Donald Smith, Chief) provides noncredit training in reading speed and comprehension.

(d) Psychological Clinic (Frederick Wyatt, Chief) serves the general public and is especially interested in the early identification and treatment of psychological problems in the family.

Most of the units of the Institute are affiliated directly or indirectly with one or more of the teaching units of the University, and have planned their programs to contribute to the training of specialists in the fields of human adjustment as well as to provide services to individuals. Financial support for the several programs is derived from endowments of the Horace H. and Mary A. Rackham Funds, from general funds, private contributions and fees for services. In general, the funds available from these combined sources are not sufficient to provide any substantial research support in addition to the service and training functions.

 

Museums

One unit of the University Museums, the Museum of Anthropology, is concerned with social science. It is administratively distinct from the Department of Anthropology, although its curatorial staff hold academic appointments and ranks in the Department and teach two or three courses each year.

The scientific staff of the Museum consists of a director and three curators who are responsible for the collections of the Museum and who conduct research in addition to their teaching. They act only in an advisory capacity with regard to the exhibits of the Museum which are installed and maintained by a special department. The research activities of the Museum curators are in the fields of archaeology and ethnobotany and hence do not fall within a strict definition of behavioral science.

Two series of publications are issued by the Museum; any topic within the general field of anthropology is acceptable for these publications and several members of the Department staff [p. 28] have used this outlet for publications in behavioral science.9 The Museum maintains an anthropological library which is used by students and the staff of the Department.

 

The Institute of Public Administration10

The Institute of Public Administration integrates instruction, research, and service in the field of public administration. The major instructional emphasis of the Institute is its full-time graduate program for people who wish to enter the public service. The Institute also develops inservice training courses for persons already employed in public positions. Through its Bureau of Government, the Institute undertakes a governmental research program and provides technical advice and assistance on problems of local, state, and national government.

The graduate program in public administration is conceived as a training course for administrative generalists. The positions which graduates are likely to fill are those which involve staff assistance to key administrators, administrative research and procedures analysis, or personnel and fiscal management. The curriculum in public administration leads to the degree of Master of Public Administration and utilizes courses throughout the University.

The Bureau of Government is the research and public service unit of the Institute of Public Administration. One of the oldest organizations in this country devoted to governmental research, the Bureau of Government was established in 1914 as a center of information on government. Its activities now include (1) a program of research on governmental problems, (2) bulletins and pamphlets based on research findings, (3) an information service on public problems which may be used by any citizen or governmental agency, and (4) the research training of the graduate students holding research assistantships in the Institute of Public Administration.

[p. 29] Recent research publications11 have dealt with career attitudes of the personnel of a federal agency, the use of admissions and income taxes by municipalities, and the public personnel activities of professional and technical associations. Problems outside Michigan are being examined in current research on civil-military leadership and an analysis of recent changes in state constitutions. Research now being done on Michigan problems concerns highway finance, elections, and the preparation of an assessors manual to be used by all the assessors in the state.

The Bureau is undertaking a study of “Public Administration Aspects of the Atomic Energy Program,” with a special staff of research associates and assistants, under a grant from the Michigan Memorial Phoenix Project.

The Institute of Public Administration, in cooperation with the University of the Philippines and the Foreign Operations Administration of the Federal Government, is now engaged in the operation of a new Institute in Manila, Philippine Islands. Under the terms of the agreement the initial personnel of the Philippine Institute are supplied by the University of Michigan, and the University of the Philippines will gradually assume complete direction. Financial support is provided jointly by the Foreign Operations Administration and the Philippine government.

 

Area Research and Training Programs

Area research and training programs at the University of Michigan include the Program in Far Eastern Studies, the Center for Japanese Studies, the Program in Latin American Studies, and the Department of Near Eastern Studies.

As the title indicates, the program in Near Eastern Studies is organized as a full department offering a concentration program to undergraduates and the M.A. and Ph.D. degrees to graduate students and having an independent staff and course list. Its basic program consists primarily of historical and linguistic training, but a close association with other departments is maintained and students are expected to develop skills in traditional disciplines. Interdisciplinary field training sessions in the Near East are held in alternate years under the guidance of two faculty members. These sessions last for a [p. 30] full year and are flexible in organization to permit the student to specialize in his particular interest.

The remaining area programs are staffed by members of various departments, and the listed courses are compilations from the offerings of those departments. Undergraduate concentration is permitted only in the Program in Far Eastern Studies. All three offer the M.A. degree and some students preparing for business or government service stop there; students continuing in graduate school transfer to one of the regular departments for the Ph.D. degree.

The Center for Japanese Studies12 maintains a special library on the campus, a field station at Okayama in Japan, and has an extensive publication program for the research of faculty and students.13

The activities of the area programs are by no means confined to the behavioral sciences. All have literary and historical interests, and elementary linguistic training is an important phase of the student’s training. Behavioral science is fostered however; community studies, for example are a characteristic activity, and the integrated multidisciplinary approach is well exemplified in the faculty seminar conducted in each program.

 

FACILITIES AND SERVICE AGENCIES

Statistical Services

The University has a variety of statistical facilities located in a number of different units.

A major facility is the Tabulating Service which is well equipped with IBM machines. These machines are available to those research projects having budgets adequate to meet the service charges. The bulk of the work done by Tabulating Service is for the Registrar’s Office and the Business Office. A significant portion is devoted to tabulations for the Institute for Social Research. Only a small part is for other research projects on the campus. In addition to the customary IBM equipment, the Tabulating Service has a 602A Calculating Punch which is used a great deal. In the spring of 1952 an IBM Card Programmed Electronic Calculator (CPC) was acquired on a trial [p. 31] basis, but there has been insufficient demand from contract research to meet the full costs of this relatively expensive machine.

The Statistical Research Laboratory exists for the express purpose of assisting faculty members and graduate students with their individual statistical problems. The laboratory maintains a small but fairly complete IBM installation (including a 602A Calculating Punch). Automatic desk calculators are also available. Most of this equipment may be used without charge provided the use is for pure, (unsponsored) research, such as doctoral dissertations.

Small IBM installations, consisting of little more than a punch and sorter, are located in other units of the University. Of major relevance to behavioral science research are those in the Institute for Social Research and in the School of Public Health.

High speed, large capacity automatic computing machines are available at the Willow Run Research Center. These are of both the analog and digital types. These facilities appear to be capable of handling statistical problems as complex as behavioral scientists are likely to encounter for some time. They are primarily used at the present time by those conducting research in engineering, natural sciences, and mathematics.

Recently a group of staff members closely associated with the various statistical services of the University submitted an unofficial report to the administrative authorities urging that steps be taken toward establishing a centralized facility for both training and research in all aspects of computation, and it is hoped that the development of the North Campus will include such a computation center more readily available to all interested University personnel.

 

Photographic Services

The University has an adequate and efficient Photographic Service, equipped to handle a wide variety of work in the field of photography. It is prepared to produce slides of all sizes in black and white or color, film strips, motion pictures, and prints. It does photomacography and photomicography. It also does a large volume of photo-offset work.

The Photographic Service has a photostating section which is equipped to handle many kinds of duplicating processes. Its Ozalid facilities are used extensively for reproducing transcripts and theses. Its map service may be used for photographing maps and modifying their scale.

[p. 32] These services are available at cost to anyone connected with the University. At the present time 11 people are engaged in the work of the Photographic Service.

 

Publication Facilities

The University has very limited facilities for scholarly publication. Some funds are regularly available from the University budget for publications, but only a very small portion of this sum is available to the behavioral sciences. Editorial facilities are so limited that few scholars are willing to endure the publication lag involved in obtaining editorial help. The Institute for Social Research has employed a full-time editor to facilitate its own publications.

The University of Michigan Press, organized in 1930, is currently undergoing study and reorganization and there is widespread hope that it will become a more significant and effective agency in Michigan scholarship.

 

The Library

The University has a large library with a competent and efficient staff. Lack of sufficient space, however, has operated to reduce the efficiency of library service. The University General Library Building is badly overcrowded. Many acquisitions of research materials cannot be made easily available because of inadequate shelves and files. Lack of space has also led to an excessive dispersion of materials in numerous special collections housed in various buildings about the campus. The groupings of materials at separate locations has not always been functional from the point of view of the behavioral scientist with an interdisciplinary interest. The University administration regards the improvement of library facilities as a first priority in general development plans, and important steps are now being taken to relieve the overcrowding by the construction of a stack building on the North Campus and of the Kresge Medical Library building.

 

Audio-Visual Education Center

The University has a well-equipped Audio-Visual Education Center, with a large collection of sixteen-millimeter sound and silent motion pictures, filmstrips, tape recordings, and art reproductions. It also is prepared to produce a variety of audio-visual materials and to provide consultation on the use of audio-visual [p. 33] materials. The staff of the Center offer graduate and undergraduate courses in audio-visual methods in the School of Education and in the Extension Service. Instructors in schools and departments on the campus may obtain materials from the Center without charge for instructional purposes. Projection service is also available without charge for any regularly scheduled University class.

 

GENERAL LEVEL OF BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE ACTIVITY

In order to bring together the relevant data about the departments the following table has been prepared. These data are for the year 1953-54. They are provided for confidential use and should not be published in any form. Figures on numbers of students and on class enrollments are particularly difficult to use in comparisons between universities because of the differences in methods of calculation.

1954_Michigan_BehSciencesTable

 

[NOTES]

 

  1. Appendix item 5; The Division of the Social Sciences: Reprinted from “The University of Michigan, An Encyclopedia Survey” Ann Arbor, Univ. Mich. Press, 1942, Vol. I, pp 304-306. Appendix item 6; List of Members, General Committee of the Division of the Social Sciences, University of Michigan, 1953-54. Appendix item 7; News Letters of the Division of Social Sciences, University of Michigan, April, 1950, June, 1952, January, 1953, May, 1953. Appendix item 8; List of Faculty Members in the Social Sciences, University of Michigan, 1953.
  2. Appendix item 9; The Department of Political Science. Reprinted from “The University of Michigan: An Encyclopedia Survey” Ann Arbor, Univ. Mich. Press, Part IV, 1944, pp 702-708.
  3. Appendix item 10; The Department of Psychology, Reprinted from “The University of Michigan: An Encyclopedia Survey” Ann Arbor, Univ. Mich. Press, Part IV, 1944, pp 708-714.
  4. Appendix item 11; Suggestions to the Dean and Executive Committee from the Department of Sociology on the Development Council Request.
  5. Appendix item 12; Publications, School of Business Administration, Bureau of Business Research, Bureau of Industrial Relations, Univ. of Michigan, 1953.
  6. Appendix item 13; Dept. of Conservation: The First Three Years (1950-1953) Univ. of Mich. School of Natural Resources. Appendix item 14; The School of Natural Resources and the Social Sciences, 1951.
  7. Appendix item 15; Institute for Social Research, Survey Research Center, Research Center for Group Dynamics, Univ. of Mich., 1952. Appendix item 16; Executive Committee and Staff of the Institute for Social Research, 1953. Appendix item 17; Publications of the Institute for Social Research, September, 1952 through November, 1953.
  8. Appendix item 18; Institute of Human Biology, Univ. of Mich. Appendix item 19; Publications, Institute of Human Biology, March 1, 1953.
  9. Culture and Agriculture by Horace M. Miner, Occasional Contributions from the Museum of Anthropology of the University of Michigan, No. 14, 1949; Araucanian Culture in Transition by Mischa Titiev, Occasional Contributions from the Museum of Anthropology of the University of Michigan, No. 15, 1951; Spanish-Guarani Relations in Early Colonial Paraguay by Elman R. Service, Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 9, 1954.
  10. Appendix item 20; Institute of Public Administration, 1954- 55 Announcement, University of Michigan, Official Publication.
  11. Appendix item 21; Publications. Bureau of Government, Institute of Public Administration, February, 1953.
  12. Appendix item 22; Center for Japanese Studies, Announcement, June 11, 1954.
  13. Appendix item 23; Publications, Center for Japanese Studies and Near Eastern Studies, 1953.

 

Source: University of Michigan. Survey of the Behavioral Sciences. Report of the Faculty Committee and Report of the Visiting Committee. Ann Arbor, Michigan: July 1, 1954.