Tag: WilliamsJH

Harvard. Annual Economics Newsletter. 1 June 1960

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

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

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

___________________________

ECONOMICS NEWSLETTER
Fifth Annual Issue, June 1, 1960

UNDERGRADUATE INSTRUCTION:

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

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

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

MATHEMATICS- LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT:

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

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

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

THE ECONOMICS OF HIGHER EDUCATION:

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

There were three resultant manuscripts:

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

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

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

PERSONNEL:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fields Harvard

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

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

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

_____________________________

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

December 22, 1947

Dear Mr. Burbank:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Professor H. H. Burbank
Littauer Center

_____________________________

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

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

February 25, 1948

The Task of the Committee

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

The questions posed by the Provost were as follows:

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

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

The Prospective Situation in the Department

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Place of the Department in the Faculty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Urgent Needs of the Department

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) Both positions could be filled at once;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brown Economists Harvard

Harvard. Application for PhD candidacy. John H. Williams, PhD 1919

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2025-02-24

John Henry Williams was in his day a colossus whose feet were squarely planted in macroeconomic research and macroeconomic policy. Many posts here at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror include material from his Harvard courses. The particular contribution of this post is found in the transcriptions of the graduate course records from the Division of History, Government and Economics that document Williams’ own pursuit of the Ph.D. Not essential to any understanding of the development of modern economics is the flurry of letters, cards and telegrams required to coordinate the time of Williams’ Special Examination that followed the acceptance of his doctoral thesis. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

A timeline of his life and career has been appended to the post below.

_______________________

Current Literature

Pier Francesco Asso’s chapter “John Henry Williams (1887–1980)” in The Palgrave Companion to Harvard Economics edited by Robert A. Cord (1924), pp. 197-220.

_______________________

Ph.D. in Economics, 1919

JOHN HENRY WILLIAMS, A.B. (Brown Univ.) 1912, A.M. (Harvard Univ.) 1916.

Subject, Economics. Special Field, International Trade. Thesis, “Argentine International Trade under Inconvertible Paper Money, 1880-1900.” Assistant Professor of Economics, Princeton University.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1918-19, p. 82.

_______________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DIVISION OF HISTORY, GOVERNMENT, AND ECONOMICS

Application for Candidacy for the Degree of Ph.D.

[Note: Boldface used to indicate printed text of the application; italics used to indicate the handwritten entries]

I. Full Name, with date and place of birth.

John Henry Williams. June 21, 1887. Ystrad, Wales.

II. Academic Career: (Mention, with dates inclusive, colleges or other higher institutions of learning attended; and teaching positions held.)

Brown University. 1909-12.
Harvard University. 1915 to present.
Brown University. Instructor in English, 1912-15.

III. Degrees already attained. (Mention institutions and dates.)

A.B. Brown University, 1912.
A.M. Harvard, 1916.

General course in European history; English Constitutional history; European history since 1815; American history.
Elementary course in Economic Theory; Labor Problems;
Elementary courses in Political Science & in Sociology.
History of Philosophy. English composition (2 year courses).
Anglo-Saxon; English literature (two year courses); French (two years); German (two years); Latin & Greek (one year each). I obtained credit for a course in Spanish by special examination.

V. Department of Study. (Do you propose to offer yourself for the Ph.D., “History,” in “Economics,” or in “Political Science”?)

Economics.

VI. Choice of Subjects for the General Examination. (State briefly the nature of your preparation in each subject, as by Harvard courses, courses taken elsewhere, private reading, teaching the subject, etc., etc.)

Economic theory, and the history of economic thought.
Economics 11, Economics 14: – Harvard.
(Elementary course in theory at Brown.)
Economic history.
Economics 2: – Harvard.
Public Finance.
Economics 31: – Harvard.
Labor Problems.
Economics 34: – Harvard.
(one course at Brown.)
Political Theory.
Govt. 6a; Govt 6b: – Harvard.
International Trade. Special Field
Economics 33.
Economics 20(a) (Research – full course)

VII. Special Subject for the special examination.

International Trade

VIII. Thesis Subject. (State the subject and mention the instructor who knows most about your work upon it.)

The Foreign Trade of Argentina in the Period of Inconvertible Paper Money (1880-19009.
Professor F. W. Taussig.

IX. Examinations. (Indicate any preferences as to the time of the general and special examinations.)

For the general examination. Early May, 1917.

X. Remarks

[left blank]

Signature of a member of the Division certifying approval of the above outline of subjects.

[signed] Charles J. Bullock

* * * [Last page of application] * * *

[Not to be filled out by the applicant]

Name: John Henry Williams

Approved: Jan 23 1917

Ability to use French certified by C. J. Bullock. 18 December 1916 – D.H.

Ability to use German certified by C. J. Bullock. 18 December 1916 – D.H.

Date of general examination Passed – May 7, 1911 – D.H.

Thesis received [left blank]

Read by [left blank]

Approved [left blank]

Date of special examination [left blank]

Recommended for the Doctorate [left blank]

Degree conferred [left blank]

Remarks. [left blank]

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

Record of JOHN HENRY WILLIAMS
in the Harvard Graduate
School of Arts and Sciences

	Grades
1915-16	Course	Half-Course
Economics 2a¹		A
Economics 2b²		A
Economics 11	A
Economics 13	B plus
Economics 31	A minus
Economics 34	A


1916-17	Course	Half-Course
Economics 14	“Credit”
Economics 20a	A
Economics 33²		abs.
Economics 35¹		A
Government 6a¹		A
Government 6b²		abs.

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

Certification of reading knowledge
of French

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

F. W. Taussig
T. N. Carver
W. Z. Ripley
C. J. Bullock
E. F. Gay
W. M. Cole
O. M. W. Sprague
W.E. Rappard
H.L. Gray
E. E. Day

Cambridge, Massachusetts
December 18, 1916.

This is to certify that I have examined Mr. J. H. Williams and found that he has a satisfactory reading knowledge of French and German.

[signed]
C. J. Bullock

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

General examination passed

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

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

Division asks Carver
to Read Williams’ thesis

7 October 1918

Dear Carver:

Will you serve as one of the committee to read the Ph.D. thesis of J. H. Williams, on “Foreign Trade of Argentina in the Period of Inconvertible Paper Money (1880-1900)”? The thesis will be sent to you.

Yours sincerely,
[unsigned copy]

Professor T. N. Carver

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

Taussig’s Daughter to wed in November 1918. Good time to schedule Williams’ Special Examination

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

F. W. Taussig
T. N. Carver
W. Z. Ripley
C. J. Bullock
E. F. Gay
W. M. Cole
O. M. W. Sprague
E. E. Day
B. M. Anderson, Jr.
J. S. Davis
H. H. Burbank
E. E. Lincoln

Cambridge, Massachusetts
October 14, 1918.

Dear dear Haskins:

Address reply to
United States Tariff Commission

October 18, 1918.

Dear Bullock:

I enclose the certificate on Williams’s thesis, duly signed. I should hope to be able to get to Cambridge about November 12th. I can make no unqualified promises, but just now there is something of a let up, and prospects for an easier year are good.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
F. W. Taussig

Professor C. J. Bullock,
Department of Economics
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Enclosure.

[Short-hand note at bottom of page]

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

UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION
WASHINGTON

F. W. Taussig, Chairman
Thomas walker Page, Vice Chairman
David J. Lewis
William Kent
William S. Culbertson
Edward P. Costigan
Wm. M. Steuart, Secretary

Address reply to
United States Tariff Commission

My dear Mr. Williams:

It has been found necessary to change your examination, and it has been set provisionally for Tuesday, November 12, at 3 p.m.

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned copy]

Mr. John H. Williams.

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

F. W. Taussig
T. N. Carver
W. Z. Ripley
C. J. Bullock
E. F. Gay
W. M. Cole
O. M. W. Sprague
E. E. Day
B. M. Anderson, Jr.
J. S. Davis
H. H. Burbank
E. E. Lincoln

Cambridge, Massachusetts
October 24, 1918.

Dean Charles H. Haskins,
Cambridge, Mass.

Dear Dean Haskins:

The date for Mr. Williams’s examination, November 12, at 3 p.m. is satisfactory to me.

Very sincerely yours,
[signed]
T. N. Carver

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

UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION
WASHINGTON

F. W. Taussig, Chairman
Thomas walker Page, Vice Chairman
David J. Lewis
William Kent
William S. Culbertson
Edward P. Costigan
Wm. M. Steuart, Secretary

Address reply to
United States Tariff Commission

October 24, 1918.

Dear Haskins:

I have your note concerning Williams’ examination on Tuesday, November 12th. I will be on hand.

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

Mr. Charles H. Haskins,
Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

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

Asking Burbank to substitute for Bullock

25 October 1918

Dear Burbank:

Could you serve as a member of the committee for the special examination of J. H. Williams on Tuesday, November 12, at 3 p.m.? Professor Bullock, who was to serve, is obliged to be out of town that week, and the date of the examination has to be fixed with regard to Professor Taussig’s presence in Cambridge. Mr. Williams’s special field is International Trade, and his thesis is on Foreign Trade in Argentina, 1880-1900. The other members of the committee are Professors Taussig (chairmen), Carver, and Persons.

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned copy]

Dr. H. H. Burbank.

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

Bullock informed

25 October 1918

Dear Bullock:

I have asked Burbank to serve in your place at Williams’s examination.

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned copy]

Professor C. J. Bullock.

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

Taussig needs to postpone
the Special Examination

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

Dean Agrees to Postponing Special Examination

6 November 1918

Professor F. W. Taussig, U. S. Tariff Commission, Washington, D.C.

Examination can be changed to Friday fifteenth if your presence assured then. Telegraph.

Charles H. Haskins

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

Williams informed of Special Examination date change

7 November 1918

Dear Mr. Williams:

It has been found necessary to change your examination to Friday, November 15, at 4 p.m. in Widener U.

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned copy]

Mr. J. H. Williams.

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

Committee members informed of
Special Examination date change

7 November 1918

My dear Sir:

It has been found necessary to change Mr. Williams’s examination to Friday, November 15, at 4 p.m. in Widener U. I trust this hour will be convenient for you.

Sincerely yours,
[unsigned copy]

[Carver, Persons, Burbank]

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

Special examination passed

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

F. W. Taussig
T. N. Carver
W. Z. Ripley
C. J. Bullock
E. F. Gay
W. M. Cole
O. M. W. Sprague
E. E. Day
B. M. Anderson, Jr.
J.S. Davis
H.H. Burbank
E.E. Lincoln

Cambridge, Massachusetts
November 16, 1918.

Dear Sir:

I beg to report, in behalf of the Committee appointed to conduct the special examination of J. H. Williams, that he passed the examination by unanimous vote of the Committee.

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

Dean C. H. Haskins

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

Notice to President’s Office
of the Award of Ph.D.

[Format matches the listing in the Annual Report of the President of Harvard College]

3 December 1918

The Division of History, Government, and Economics reports that the following candidate for the degree of Doctor of philosophy has presented a satisfactory thesis and passed his final examination successfully:

John Henry Williams,

A.B. (Brown Univ.) 1912, A.M. (Harvard Univ.) 1916.

Subject, Economics. Special Field, International Trade.

Thesis. “The Foreign Trade of Argentina in the Period of Inconvertible paper Money (1880-1900).”

[unsigned copy]
Chairman

Source: Harvard University Archives. Division of History, Government & Economics, Ph.D. 1923-24. (UA V 453.270), Box 05, Folder “Degree Granted”.

__________________________

Course Names and Instructors

1915-16

Economics 2a ¹hf. European Industry and Commerce in the Nineteenth Century. Professor Gay assisted by Mr. A.H. Cole and Ryder.

Economics 2b ²hf. Economic and Financial History of the United States. Professor Gay assisted by Mr. A.H. Cole and Ryder.

Economics 11. Economic Theory. Professor Taussig.

Economics 13. Statistics: Theory, Methods, Practice. Asst. Professor Day.

Economics 31. Public Finance. Professor Bullock.

Economics 34. Problems of Labor. Professor Ripley.

1916-17

Economics 14. History and Literature of Economics to the year 1848. Professor Bullock.

Economics 20a. Economic Research (Economic Theory and International Trade and Tariff Problems). Professor Taussig.

Economics 33². International Trade and Tariff Problems. Professor Persons (Colorado College).

Economics 35¹. Problems of Business Cycles. Professor Persons (Colorado College).

Government 6a¹. History of Political Theory. Asst. Professor Holcombe.

Government 6b². Political Theories of Modern Times. Asst. Professor Holcombe.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College for 1915-16, 1916-17.

__________________________

John Henry Williams
Timeline of his life and career

1887. Born June 21 in Ystrad, Wales.

1889. May. Family emigrates to the United States, settling in the Blackinton section of North Adams, Massachusetts.

1900. October 13. Became a naturalized citizen of the United States.

1908[est.] Graduated from Drury High School, North Adams, Massachusetts.

1912. A.B. Brown University.

1912-15. English instructor at Brown University.

1915. Married Jessie Isabelle Monroe (she died in 1960). Two daughters.

1916. A.M. in economics, Harvard.

1917-18. July to May, Sheldon Travelling Fellow to Buenos Aires.

1918-19. Instructor of Economics. Harvard. Also assistant editor of the Review of Economic Statistics.

1919. Ph.D. in economics, Harvard. Thesis awarded the Wells Prize.

1919. Accompanied Professor Edwin Walter Kemmerer of Princeton University, who was serving as adviser to the Guatemalan government in currency matters, to Guatemala and Cuba. (They departed July 12 from New Orleans). Williams traveled as secretary to Kemmerer.

1919-20. Assistant professor of economics, Princeton University.

1920. Publication of the doctoral thesis, Argentine International Trade Under Inconvertible Paper Money, 1880-1900.

1920-21. Associate Professor of Banking, Northwestern University.

1921-25. Assistant Professor of Economics, Harvard University.

1925-26. Westinghouse professor in Italy.

1925-29. Associate Professor of Economics, Harvard University.

1929-33. Professor of Economics, Harvard University.

1933-57. Nathaniel Ropes Professor of Political Economy, Harvard University.

1932-33. Delegate to the Commission that prepared the World Monetary and Economic Conference.

1933. Spring. Joined the Federal Reserve Bank of New York as Assistant Federal Reserve Agent. Full-time until October 1934.

1936-47. Vice-president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. In charge of the Research Function.

1937-47. First Dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Public Administration.

1944. First edition of Postwar Monetary Plans and Other Essays published. Second edition (1945). Third edition (1947). Fourth edition (1949).

1947-52. Economic Advisor to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

1948-51. Member of the European Cooperation and Administration advisory committee on fiscal and monetary problems.

1951. President of the American Economic Association.

1952-ca.1963. Consultant to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

1953. Economic stability in a changing world; essays in economic theory and policy.

1953. One of seven named by President Eisenhower to a commission to study foreign economic policy.

1953-54. Member of the United States Commission on Foreign Economic Policy.

1957. Retires from Harvard University.

1957-63. William L. Clayton Professor of International Economic Affairs at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

1962. Married second wife, Katherine R. McKinstry
[note: she was thanked for her editorial help in preparing the publication of Postwar Monetary Plans and Other Essays (1944); also in Economic stability in a changing world; essays in economic theory and policy (1953)]

1980. December 24. Died in Southbridge, Massachusetts.

Timeline sources: Obituary in North Adams Transcript (Jan 5, 1981), p. 12; FRBNY Quarterly Review (Winter, 1980-81), pp. 1-2; Who’s Who in America 1952, p. 2622.

Image Source: Passport picture from John Henry Williams’ passport application July 8, 1919. Low resolution scan enhanced by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Tags Bullock, Burbank, Carver, Taussig, WilliamsJH

Business Cycles Exam Questions Harvard Money and Banking Syllabus

Harvard. Exams and assigned reading for money, banking, commercial crises. Williams and Harris, 1938-1939

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2024-09-03

In the previous post, Economics 41, 938-39 (Paper topics), historians of modern economics will find a transcription of 31 typed pages of paper topics with suggested references for the Harvard undergraduate course “Money, Banking and Commercial Crises” taught by Professor John H. Williams and Associate Professor Seymour E. Harris in 1938-39.

Today’s post adds enrollment figures, course reading assignments (when found) and the final exams for that course.

ECONOMICS 41
Readings: First Term

The Nature and Functions of Banking
1. Dunbar, “Theory and History of Banking”, Chs. 1, 2, 3, 4, pp. 1-60
2. White, “Money and Banking”, Ch. 16, pp. 349-372
The Creation of Deposits
1. Phillips, “Bank Credit”, Ch. 3, pp. 32-77
2. Currie, “Supply and Control of Money in the U.S.” Chs. 5, 6, 7, pp. 46-63.
Note Issue
1. Dunbar, “Theory and History of Banking”, Ch. 5, pp. 60-81
2. Currie, “Supply and Control”, Ch. 10, pp. 110-115

Commercial Loan Theory
1. Robertson, “Money”, Ch. 5, рр. 92-117
2. Currie, “Supply and Control”, Ch. 4, pp. 34-46
U.S. Banking History
1. White, “Money and Banking”, Chs. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, pp. 387-529
The Federal Reserve System
1. Dunbar, “Theory and History”, Ch. 6, pp. 81-110
2. Burgess, “Federal Reserve Banks and the Money Market”, pp. 1-327
3. Federal Reserve Bulletin, July, 1935: “Supply and Use of Member Bank Reserve Funds”, pp. 419-428
4. Currie, “Supply and Control”, etc., Chs. 8, 9, pp. 83-110
5. Hardy, “Credit Policies of the Federal Reserve System”, Chs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, рр. 34-243
Recent Banking Changes
1. White, “Banking”, Chs. 29, 30, pp. 670-738.
Foreign Banking Systems
1. Dunbar, “Theory and History”, Chs, 8, 9, 10, pp. 139-235

Reading Period
January 5-18, 1939

Economics 41: Read one of the following:

Hardy, Federal Reserve Policy.
Hawtrey, Art of Central Banking, pp. 116-303.
Keynes, Treatise on Money, Vol. II, Book VII.

Reading Period
May 8-31, 1939

Economics 41: Read one of the following:

a. Robertson and Pigou, Economic Essays and Addresses, pp. 95-138.
b. Robertson, Banking Policy and Price Level.
Durbin, Problems of Credit Policy.
Keynes, Tract on Monetary Reform.
Keynes, Treatise on Money, Ch. 30 and Book VII.
Committee on Finance and Industry (Macmillan Report), Report and Addenda 1 and 3.
Wicksell, Interest and Prices.
Hawtrey, Capital and Employment, Chs. 7-11 inclusive.
Harrod, Trade Cycle.
Marget, Theory of Prices, Chs. XI-XVI.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003.Box 2, Folder “Economics 1938-1939”.

_________________________

1938-39
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 41
Money and Banking
[Mid-Year Examination]

(One hour.) The Supply and Use of Member Bank Reserve Funds.

	(In millions of dollars)
	From June 1927 to Dec. 1927	From Dec. 1927 to June 1928
Bills discounted	+132	+423
Bills bought	+170	–163
U.S. Government securities	+227	–391
Other Reserve Bank credit	–11	–14
Monetary gold stock	–204	–282
Treasury currency	+3	+1
Money in circulation	+238	–345
Treasury cash and deposits with Federal Reserve banks	–12	–14
Non-member deposits	–6	+1
Other Federal Reserve accounts	+6	+21
Member Bank reserve balances	+91	–89

(a) What is the meaning of each of the above items?

(b) Present, in the form of a balance, a statement indicating the effects of changes in the above items on member bank reserve balances for each of the two periods.

(c) What conclusions do you draw regarding (1) the condition of the money market, (2) member bank policy, (3) Federal Reserve policy?

Write on one of the following questions.

(a) What is the “Commercial Loan Theory” of bank assets? Would banking policy, based on this theory, provide the right quality of bank assets? the right quantity of money?

(b) Discuss the functions of reserves in a modern banking system, distinguishing the case of member banks from that of central banks, and give your views on the various solutions that have been proposed for the reserve problem.

(c) What are the attributes of a good bank note? Give your critical opinion of the following: the national bank note, the Bank of England note, the Bank of France note, the Federal Reserve note.

Trace

(a) the evolution of Federal Reserve objectives since the establishment of the system and indicate to what extent you think these objectives have been attained;

(b) the development of instruments of control of the Federal Reserve system, and evaluate their effectiveness.

Discuss the banking weaknesses in the U.S. revealed by crises in the period (a) before the war, or (b) after the war.
Write on one of the following: (Reading period.)

(a) Keynes: Compare the effectiveness of central bank control over the supply of money in England and the U.S.

(b) Hardy: Discuss Federal Reserve policy and speculation, 1927 to 1929.

(c) Hawtrey: Using historical illustrations, discuss the effect of the experience of the Bank of England on current central bank theory and practice.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Mid-year Examinations 1852-1943. Box 12. Papers Printed for Mid-Year Examinations [in] History, History of Religions, … , Government, Economics, … , Naval Science (January-February, 1939) in the bound volume Mid-Year Examinations—1939.

1938-39
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 41
[Year-end Examination]

Answer Question 1 and two others.

Reading Period
Present and comment upon the views expressed in the reading period assignment on the relation between (a) money and prices or (b) money and economic fluctuations.
Monetary authorities try increasingly to influence the rate of interest. Are they likely to be reasonably successful? If they are successful in controlling the rate of interest, are they likely to attain what you consider the proper objectives of monetary policy?
Answer (a) or (b).
1. Is it your view that the recent breakdown of the gold standard is to be explained by poor management or by fundamental economic factors?
2. What advantages over the gold standard has a system of free or variable exchanges?
Discuss one of the following:
1. Under-consumption theories of the trade cycle
2. Investment theories of the trade cycle
3. Monetary theories of the trade cycle
Compare the treatment of velocity in the Fisher and the Cambridge versions of the quantity theory.
“Nowhere do conservative notions consider themselves more in place than in currency; yet nowhere is the need of innovation more urgent.” Discuss.

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University. Final Examinations, 1853-2001. Box 4: Papers Printed for Final Examinations [in] History, History of Religions, … , Government, Economics, … , Naval Science (June, 1939).

Image Source: 1935 one U.S. dollar silver certificates. From the United States Paper Money Currency webpage at the U.S. Paper Money website.

Tags Harris, WilliamsJH

Business Cycles Harvard Macroeconomics Money and Banking Paper Topics Suggested Reading

Harvard. Suggested paper topics and references for money and banking. Williams and Harris, 1938-1939

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2024-09-02

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror is extremely proud to provide a comprehensive, granular set of references suggested for 137 possible topics for papers to be written in the undergraduate course “Money, Banking, and Commercial Crises” jointly taught by Professor John Henry Williams and Associate Professor Seymour Edwin Harris during the 1938-39 academic year at Harvard College. We have before us the vista of the breaking dawn of Keynesian macroeconomics as experienced by Harvard undergraduates(!).

Warning: I have encountered numerous misprints and I have corrected/edited when noticed. I have tried to transcribe accurately but the devil of typos is unlikely to be contained over 30 pages. Nonetheless I believe the value of the material transcribed below is hardly diminished by cooking and serving this document on the rare side. Certain items are included in many topics, giving an indication of their scope but also an indication of their importance in the eyes of the instructors.

_________________________

Course Material from the Other Years

1937-38
1940-41
1941-42

_________________________

Source: Harvard University Archives.

_________________________

Harvard. Economics Ph.D. alumnus, Seymour Edwin Harris. 1926

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2024-08-25

While this post still needs the course transcript from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Harvard to be complete, there is enough information about the 1926 Harvard economics Ph.D. Seymour Edwin Harris for it to be added to our series “Meet an economics Ph.D. alumnus/alumna”.

_______________________

Biographical/Historical Note

Seymour Edwin Harris was born September 8, 1897 in New York City. He received an A.B. in 1920 and a Ph.D. in 1926 from Harvard University. From 1922 to 1964, Dr. Harris taught economics at Harvard University, where he received a full professorship in 1954, and served as the chairman of the department of economics from 1955 to 1959. During World War II, Dr. Harris was involved in several wartime planning projects. From 1954 to 1956, Dr. Harris became chief economic advisor to Adlai Stevenson. He then served Senator John F. Kennedy in the same capacity and was chosen as a member of President Kennedy’s task force on the economy. In 1961, Dr. Harris was named as chief economic consultant to Douglas Dillon, Secretary of the Treasury. During the Kennedy administration. Dr. Harris, a proponent of Keynesian economics, was a member of Walter W. Heller’s New Frontiersmen, which persuaded President Kennedy that the stimulation of the economy was more important than a balanced budget and tax cuts and government spending could counter threats of a recession. In 1963, Dr. Harris became the chairman of the department of economics at the University of California at La Jolla. At the same time, he served as a chief economic advisor to the Johnson administration.

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, Archives. Guide to the Seymour E. Harris Personal Papers.

_______________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DIVISION OF HISTORY, GOVERNMENT, AND ECONOMICS

Application for Candidacy for the Degree of Ph.D.

[Note: Boldface used to indicate printed text of the application; italics used to indicate the handwritten entries]

I. Full Name, with date and place of birth.

Seymour Edwin Harris. Sept. 8, 1897; Brooklyn, N.Y.

II. Academic Career: (Mention, with dates inclusive, colleges or other higher institutions of learning attended; and teaching positions held.)

C.C.N.Y. – 1916-18. Harvard A.B. 1918-20.
Princeton – Instructor of Economics 1920-2.
Harvard – Tutor 1922-4.

III. Degrees already attained. (Mention institutions and dates.)

A.B. Harvard. 1920.

IV. General Preparation. (Indicate briefly the range and character of your undergraduate studies in History, Economics, Government, and in such other fields as Ancient and Modern Languages, Philosophy, etc. In case you are a candidate for the degree in History, state the number of years you have studied preparatory and college Latin.)

Economics A, 3, 5, 11, 33
History 1, 12, 32b
Government 1, 17B.
Latin – 2 years at college. Greek – 1 year. French – 2 years (college). German – 1 year.

V. Department of Study. (Do you propose to offer yourself for the Ph.D., “History,” in “Economics,” or in “Political Science”?)

Economics.

Economic Theory & History.
Economics A, 11 – as undergraduate – 14, 15
Money and Banking.
Economics 38
Two half courses at Princeton Grad. School. (Currency Reform & Monetary Histor of the U.S.)
Statistics.
Economics 41
Public Finance
Economics 31
American History.
History 32b (as Undergraduate)
& Private reading
[Left blank]

VII. Special Subject for the special examination.

Money and Banking with International Trade as a substitute field [committee: Professors Young (chairman), Taussig, Gay, and Monroe]

VIII. Thesis Subject. (State the subject and mention the instructor who knows most about your work upon it.)

Subject? [The Assignat]
Professor Young.

IX. Examinations. (Indicate any preferences as to the time of the general and special examinations.)

May 15, 1924
[March (early), 1926]

X. Remarks

I have not decided on any subject. At present, I expect to write in Theory, and I hope under Professor Young.

Signature of a member of the Division certifying approval of the above outline of subjects.

Allyn A. Young

* * * [Last page of application] * * *

[Not to be filled out by the applicant]

Name: S. E. Harris

Approved: April 2, 1924

Ability to use French certified by C. J. Bullock, 10 May 1923.

Ability to use German certified by C. J. Bullock, 10 May 1923.

Date of general examination April 29, 1924. Passed A.A.Y.

Thesis received March 5, 1926

Read by [left blank]

Approved [left blank]

Date of special examination [left blank]

Recommended for the Doctorate [left blank]

Degree conferred [left blank]

Remarks. [left blank]

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

Certification of reading knowledge
of French and German for Ph.D.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Cambridge, Massachusetts
May 10, 1923

This is to certify that I have examined Mr. S.E. Harris and have found that he has such a knowledge of French and German as we require of candidates for the Ph.D. degree.

Very truly yours
[signed]
C. J. Bullock [K]

Dean D. H. Haskins

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

Passed General Examination

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Cambridge, Massachusetts
April 30, 1924

Dear Dean Haskins:

As Chairman of the Committee to conduct the general examination of S. E. Harris for the degree of Ph.D., I beg to report that Mr. Harris passed the examination. It was the opinion of the Committee that Mr. Harris’ showing was distinctly good, “better than the average”.

Yours sincerely,
[signed]
Allyn A. Young

Dean C. H. Haskins

[Note: The exam was held Tuesday, 29 April at 4 p.m. in Widener D. Committee: Professors Young, Crum, Bullock, Williams and Dr. Merk with Professor Persons substituting for Professor Crum at the examination.]

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

Passed Special Examination

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Cambridge, Massachusetts
March 12, 1926

To the Division of History, Government and Economics:

As chairman of the committee appointed to conduct the special examination of Mr. S. E. Harris for the degree of Ph.D. in Economics I beg to report that Mr. Harris passed a very creditable examination.

[signed]
Allyn A. Young

Source: Harvard University Archives. Division of History, Government & Economics, Ph.D. Degrees Conferred 1929-30. (UA V 453.270), Box 6.

Image Source: This particular portrait of Seymour E. Harris has been cropped from the 1934 Harvard Album. The identical portrait can be found already in the 1925 Harvard Album.

Tags Bullock, Gay, Harris, Monroe, Persons, Taussig, WilliamsJH, Young

Economists Harvard

Harvard. Application for PhD candidacy. Edward S. Mason, 1923

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2024-05-30

Below you will find a transcription of the paper trail of Edward Sagendorph Mason that documents the satisfaction of the requirements for his Ph.D. in economics (Harvard, 1925).

Understatement is almost an art form in the hands of the chairman (Professor Frank W. Taussig) of Mason’s final doctoral examination that followed acceptance of his dissertation: “His showing was highly creditable, even brilliant”.

_______________________

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DIVISION OF HISTORY, GOVERNMENT, AND ECONOMICS

Application for Candidacy for the Degree of Ph.D.

[Note: Boldface used to indicate printed text of the application; italics used to indicate the handwritten entries]

I. Full Name, with date and place of birth.

Edward Sagendorph Mason, Clinton, Iowa. Feb. 22, 1899.

II. Academic Career: (Mention, with dates inclusive, colleges or other higher institutions of learning attended; and teaching positions held.)

University of Kansas 1916-’19
Harvard (graduate school) one year 1919-’20
Oxford University (Lincoln College) 1920-’23

III. Degrees already attained. (Mention institutions and dates.)

A.B. Kansas 1919
M.A. Harvard 1920
B. Litt. Oxford 1923

30-40 hours in Economics (Theory – Econ. Hist. – Banking – Hist. of Theory)
Political theory – American government.
English History – Modern French History.
French – 3 years.
English literature – 20-30 hours.

V. Department of Study. (Do you propose to offer yourself for the Ph.D., “History,” in “Economics,” or in “Political Science”?)

Economics

Economic Theory. – Econ 11 at Harvard. Elementary and advanced courses at Kansas. – Reading and lectures in England and Germany.
History of Theory (from Plato & Aristotle). Elementary course at Kansas – Reading and lectures at Oxford
Statistics. – Graduate course at Harvard. Additional Reading.
Public Finance. – Graduate course at Harvard.
Economic History of England and the United States. – Elementary course in U.S. Econ. History at Kansas. Lectures and reading at Oxford.
American Government and Constitutional Law. – Elementary course in Am. Gov. at Kansas. Graduate course in Const. Law at Harvard. Additional reading.
International Trade.

VII. Special Subject for the special examination.

International Trade

VIII. Thesis Subject. (State the subject and mention the instructor who knows most about your work upon it.)

Dumping – A Study of Certain International Trade Practices. ~~England, Germany and the United States (B. Litt. Dissertation at Oxford in this subject. May submit same at Harvard.)~~
Professor Taussig.

IX. Examinations. (Indicate any preferences as to the time of the general and special examinations.)

General Examination. June 10th or after.
Special Examination. Next year.

X. Remarks

Attendance at Oxford makes it impossible for me to present myself before June 10th at the earliest.

Signature of a member of the Division certifying approval of the above outline of subjects.

[signed] F. W. Taussig

* * * [Last page of application] * * *

[Not to be filled out by the applicant]

Name: Edward S. Mason

Approved: May 28, 1923

Ability to use French certified by C. J. Bullock. Oct 3, 1923.

Ability to use German certified by C. J. Bullock. Oct. 3, 1923.

Date of general examination November 27, 1923. Passed. F.W. Taussig, ch[airman]

Thesis received 22 December 1924.

Read by Professors Taussig, Young, Williams.

Approved 14 January 1925.

Date of special examination 22 January 1925. Passed F.W.T.

Recommended for the Doctorate [left blank]

Degree conferred 24 February 1925

Remarks. [left blank]

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

Record of E. S. Mason in the
Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

1919-20

Economics 11 [Economic Theory. Prof. Taussig]	A
Economics 31 [Public Finance, Prof. Bullock]	A minus
Economics 41 [Statistics: Theory and Analysis, Asst. Prof. Day]	B plus
Government 19 [American Constitutional Law, Mr. MacLeish]	A
A.M. 1920

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

Dean not amused by late application

28 April 1923

My dear Mr. Mason:

Your application requesting for arrangements for a general examination this year has just been received. I am rather surprised that you should hand it in at such a late date and expect us to meke such arrangements. The list of examinations has been scheduled and printed for some weeks, and we cannot guarantee examinations for anyone after the first of June as it is exceedingly difficult to secure the presence of all the members of the examining comittee in Cambridge on the same day after the close of the lecture period. If you will indicate definitely the date of your return, which you mention vaguely in your letter, we shall try, however to arrange a committee for you at that time. Nothing can be promised, but we shall try to do what we can. I appreciate the convenience to you of taking the general examination this year, but I beg to remind you that due notice should be given of your plan of study and of your application for a general examination.

Very truly yours,
[unsigned carbon copy]

Edward S. Mason

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

Mason responds to the Dean regarding an early date for his general examination

Lincoln College,
Oxford.

May 9, 1923.

Dean C. H. Haskins,
Harvard University.

My dear Sir –

If it is convenient for you and for the examiners I should like to take the Ph.D. general examination (Economics) on June 12th. I am writing to Professor Bullock, my examiner in French and German, asking to be allowed to present myself June 11th for the language examinations.

May I emphasize again that if it causes the slightest inconvenience to yourself or the examiners, I should very much like to have the examination postponed till October or November, since I intend to be at Harvard next year in any case.

Thanking you for the trouble you have taken.

I am,

Very Truly Yours,
[signed] Edward S. Mason

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

Division Memo Regarding Planned General Examination (undated)

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
(INTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE SHEET)

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Edward S. Mason

June 10, or after.

[Taussig] Economic Theory
[Bullock] History of Theory (from Plato to Aristotle)
[Crum] Statistics
[Burbank] Public Finance
[Usher] Economic History of England and the United States
[Holcombe] American Government and Constitutional Law.

Special field: International Trade

Thesis being done with Professor Taussig.
Professor Taussig has signed the application.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Cambridge, Massachusetts
January 27, 1925.

Dear Haskins:

I have to report that Edward S. Mason passed his special examination for the Ph.D. degree on Thursday, January 22, by unanimous vote of the Committee. His showing was highly creditable, even brilliant.

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

Dean C. H. Haskins

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

Source: Harvard University Archives. Division of History, Government & Economics. PhD. Examinations, Box 6: 1924-26.

Image Source: Portrait of Edward S. Mason included in the Harvard Class Album 1932.

Tags Mason, Persons, Taussig, WilliamsJH, Young

Columbia Economist Market Economists Harvard

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

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

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

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

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

________________________

[stamp] FEB 25, 1936

ECONOMICS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

England

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

Other outstanding young Englishmen:

[Richard F.] Kahn, Kings College, Cambridge

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economics Programs Harvard Undergraduate

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

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

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

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

1932-1941

1941-1946

___________________________

1946-1947

September 29, 1947

Dear Dean Buck:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

articles were published.

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

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

Sincerely yours,
H. H. Burbank

Dean Paul H. Buck

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

___________________________

1947-1948

September 30, 1948

Dear Provost Buck:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following books were published by members of the Department:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very sincerely,
H. H. Burbank

Provost Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall

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

___________________________

1948-1949

September 28, 1949

Dear Provost Buck:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following books were published:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economic Planning, by Seymour E. Harris. Knopf.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely
[Harold H. Burbank]

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

___________________________

1949-1950

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________________

1949-1950

January 5, 1951

Provost Paul H. Buck
5 University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Provost Buck:

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

I. Undergraduate Instruction

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

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

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

II. Graduate Instruction

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

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

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

III. Research

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

IV. The Staff of the Department

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

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

**VI. [sic] Distinctions**

Members of the Department received the following distinctions:

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

Professor Sumner Slichter — President, Industrial Relations Research Association.

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

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

Sincerely yours,
Arthur Smithies

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

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

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

Economist Market Economists Harvard

Harvard. Memo to Provost supporting Galbraith appointment. Black, 1947

Post author By Irwin Collier
Post date 2021-12-17

As surprising as it might sound, the Harvard economics department couldn’t always get whom they wanted (Theodore Schultz). As a consequence we are able to observe an aggressive strategy employed by a member of one side in the departmental hiring dispute. Professor John D. Black attempted to play the rebound in re-pleading his case for John Kenneth Galbraith’s appointment to a newly established professorship. Indeed by writing directly to the Provost, Black could have been charged with at least an additional count of “working the ref”. The episode is well summarized in Richard Parker’s biography of Galbraith (John Kenneth Galbraith: his life, his politics, his economics, pp. 226-227). Still, there is nothing quite like the pleasure of watching sharp elbows at work in the service of intradepartmental politics as revealed in the complete letter posted below. Black was not afraid to push nativist buttons in referring to anti-Galbrathians among his colleagues: “European clique” (cf. Haberler in 1948 on Galbraith vs Samuelson), “the monetary-fiscal policy axis” and “gaudy Keynesian trappings”.

A cynical nose can detect more than a whiff of a self-serving plea to strengthen the prospects of Black’s own field and style of research.

Archival note: Parker refers to a copy of the letter in Black’s papers with the Wisconsin Historical Society, this post is based on a copy of the letter I found in Galbraith’s papers at the JFK Presidential Library.

Economics in the Rear-view Mirror provides the outlines and exams for Black’s courses on the marketing of agricultural commodities from 1947-48).

____________________

December 22, 1947

Provost Paul Buck
University Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Provost Buck:

As you are no doubt aware, it was I who last year nominated Galbraith for the joint professorship to the School of Public Administration and in the Department of Economics. It was my judgment at that time that in view of his experience in public affairs and acknowledged great ability he surely should be considered for this position. The voting last year confirmed my judgment surprisingly. Excluding Schultz, to whom the appointment was offered, and Tinbergen from the Netherlands, he ran neck and neck with Yntema for top place in all of the balloting, with Samuelson next, and Smithies in seventh place. Tinbergen owed his strength to the European clique in the Department of Economics (by no means all European born), who have a European idea of the function of a university, und would have been a misfit in this appointment.

The voting of course reflected in large measure the conceptions of the voting members as to the needs of the appointment. A majority of my colleagues in the Department of Economics thought of it in terms simply of getting another high-grade technical economist, with little thought for the needs of the School of Public Administration. To meet this situation, I prepared and read at one of last year’s joint meetings on the appointment, the following statement, which I now I now submit anew, as still describing the conditions of the appointment:

The decision as to an appointment in economics at this time raises the whole question of the future of the Graduate School of Public Administration and its meaning for the Departments of Economics and Government.

The first point to make under this head is that the two departments named, without the Graduate School of Public Administration, are destined to become conventional departments in these fields, not distinguishable from similar departments in other universities, except for probably having better faculties than most of them. Even the latter distinction could easily fade in the next decade or two. With the Graduate School of Public Administration working with them, they both have possibilities of becoming super-graduate departments, by building on top of the usual graduate offerings in these fields a type of advanced graduate instruction that deals with problems of the sort that arise in the higher levels of policy-making in government. The seminars now given are well worth while from this point of view, but they fell much sort of realizing their possibilities. The two departments therefore very much need the Graduate School of Public Administration. It offers them a real opportunity to achieve greatness and become important influences in our national life. On the other hand, the School can get nowhere without the regular graduate work of the two departments as a foundation. The School and the two departments should therefore work closely together, each helping the others at each step in their advancement.

This means looking at a problem, such as that of the new appointment, as a common problem, and asking the question what kind of an appointment now will promote best the progress of the departments and the School?

Before answering this question, we need to go back and consider the basis on which the School was conceived. Those who formulated the program for the School finally settled down on training in policy-making as the great opportunity for a school of public administration at a university like Harvard. They exhibited a kind of prescience and inner wisdom in so doing that would almost seem like a miracle except for the fact that it did grow almost inevitably out of the situation.

In the two or three years following the founding of the School, much actual headway was made in realizing the objective of training for policy-making. The program of the School and it method made a strong impression in government circles and in the world of education. Since then, the School has lost considerable of the advantage of such a splendid start. If it does not take hold with vigor again and press forward along the lines laid out, it will lose it entirely in five or ten more years and become nothing more than a minor adjunct of the two conventional departments of the University. This the departments themselves cannot afford to let happen. Neither can Harvard University.

Looking at the present problem in this light, there can be no doubt that the great weakness in our present situation is in persons qualified to train advanced graduate students in policy-making, who have the aptitude for it as well as the background. The interests of the departments are in such an appointment at this time. The training in policy-making, comparatively speaking, is not suffering now, and will not suffer for several years, because of deficiencies in the preliminary graduate training needed as a foundation for it.

Also needing to be considered are important and somewhat similar relations to other departments of Harvard University, particularly to the Graduate School of Business Administration, to the Law School, and to the new Department of Social Relations. The School can add something of high importance to each of these if its seminars in the policy-making function are adequately developed; and in turn its contribution will be much enriched by what workers in these fields have to offer.

An appointment at this time of one new professor qualified as indicated will not of course take us far alone the way we need to go. But it will make a good start. We shall need mainly two things in addition: A. Additional research funds for the different seminars — to be used in employing research associates, financing field work, statistical laboratory work, etc., B. Some appointments wholly on the faculty of the School. Funds for both of these, especially the first, can be obtained if sought in earnest.

In conclusion, it should be stated that the School has made a start exactly along the right lines. It does not need in the least to back up and take a fresh start, but instead only to pick up what it has and go forward with it.

You, Provost Buck, do not need to be told that since I made this statement, the School has done exactly what I was hoping for. Almost certainly now at least three of the major seminars of the School will have research projects combined with them, each with small staffs of research associates. Steps are being taken to bring the School into effective working relations with the Law school and the Department of Social Relations. The need for an appointment that will strengthen its instruction in the policy-making function has in consequence become even more urgent then it was a year ago.

When it came time to offer nominations again this year, I felt that in view of the strong vote for Galbraith last year, surely he should be considered again. The third men in the top three this year, Smithies, has been substituted for Samuelson by those who supported Samuelson last year, apparently for two reasons: one, they now admit Samuelson’s shortcomings in the policy role, and consider Smithies a better candidate from this point of view; two, they expect to have Samuelson appointed to the full professorship now vacant in the Department of Economics. There seems to be more general acceptance than year ago of my conception of the needs of the appointment.

It has been necessary for me to make this last statement because it is the basis for the most important factor in the whole situation as it now develops, namely, that to appoint both Smithies and Samuelson at this time would further unbalance the work in economics at Harvard in the direction of the monetary-fiscal policy axis, since both of these men work mainly along these lines. The simple fact of the matter is that the men working in money and banking, fiscal policy and international trade, plus a few (in theory mostly) who vote with them on appointments, already constitute a voting majority in the Department of Economics. (You will remember that they did their utmost to prevent Dunlop’s appointment two years ago.) To add one more to this axis at this time would be highly unfortunate. It is, of course, not their voting which is most important — it is the narrowing effect which they have on the teaching and research in economics at Harvard. Those two appointments would contribute more than usual to such narrowing, since they are Keynesians in addition.

Of course none of these in this axis considers that he is narrow. In their discussions, to be sure, they draw in all phases of the economy. But they organize it all in terms of a single framework of reference. They pour it all, as it were, through one narrow funnel, and do some sieving in the process. As to how much they may mislead themselves in so doing, — and unfortunately some of the policy-makers of the nation; we have had abundant evidence in the past two years.

We can be reasonably certain that within ten or fifteen years, the Keynesian system of economic thinking will have been pretty well taken in stride. It would be unfortunate if at that time Harvard found itself with a faculty in economics too largely clothed in outworn habiliments. The economies of that day will have a different cast then the pre-Keynesian; but it will have lost much of its gaudy Keynesian trappings.

One of the first stories told me about Harvard when I arrived in 1927 was of President Eliot’s having been asked why Harvard University’s Department of Psychology had never developed a “school” of thought in that field, as had the Departments of Cornell and Columbia, and of his having answered that if he had discovered that his Department of Psychology was becoming dominated by one school of thought he would have hastened to appoint the strongest man he could find of an opposing school.

Of course this last point is no argument for the appointment of Galbraith. It is merely an argument against appointing Smithies if Samuelson is going to be appointed to the Department of Economics — and the pressure for Samuelson’s appointment is very strong in the Department of Economics.

I do not propose to present any strong affirmative arguments in support of Galbraith’s appointment. I nominated him because I believed that he should at least be considered. It has been the votes of my colleagues that has put him in the running, and I prefer that they tell you their reasons. I would not want him appointed if in their judgment, and that of the ad hoc committee, he is not the strongest man for this joint appointment.

I say this even though I would hope that if Galbraith were appointed he could spare a small fraction of his time to helping me give the two year courses which I now give in Commodity Distribution and Prices (ordinarily called Marketing.) Even though I am now giving these two courses, with the help of one-fifth of the time of an annual instructor, in addition to three full year courses in the Economies of Agricultura (with help of part of the time of one visiting lecturer) besides supervising a score of doctor’s theses, I shall manage somehow if I can get some other regular help with the three courses in the Economics of Agriculture.¹

____________

The undergraduate course in marketing had 90 students in the fall term, and the graduate course had 12 plus 8 auditors. This course was offered to Harvard undergraduate in 1946-47 for the first time, except for sone special instruction in food marketing given to armed service prospects during the war. The graduate course has been given since 1933.
____________

It may also be of interest that 12 of the 120 Ph.D’s reported as conferred in Economics in the United States in 1946-47 (12 months) were to candidates writing theses under my direction. (See September 1947 American Economic Review.)

There have, however, been some statements made about Galbraith in faculty discussions that must be commented upon in the interest of truth and sound decision. It has been said of him that he is “not a highly competent technical economist.” All this means is that he has published no articles in which he has applied methods of statistical and mathematical analysis, to the development of refinements of economic and monetary theory. I have no doubt of Galbraith’s ability to do this when this is the important thing for him to do. The simple truth is that a man of his breadth of comprehension is likely to find himself mainly absorbed in dealing with broad fundamental economic relationships; and this is especially true in times as disturbed as those in which he has been doing his writing. When asked, in the summer of 1947, to read a paper on the current economic situation, I entitled this paper “Fundamental Elements in the Current Agricultural Situation,” and I wrote as follows:

“The day and the hour seem to call for analysis in terms of broad fundamentals. This is no occasion for the refinements of theory and their application; but rather for over-simplification and over-emphasis on a few vital elements. Something of accuracy is lost in consequence; but this is not relatively important in the emergency that confronts us. There are wild horses loose in the world and the first task is to bring them to leash. Later we can break them to the plow and the cart.”

This statement is truer today than it was in 1942. If any economist of today is turning out articles or books presenting analysis of refinements, he is doing it because he lacks real power of analysis of the larger issues of the day, or as a by-product of such analysis, or as relaxation from the steady grind of his regular job. No doubt some of Smithies’ articles fit into these latter descriptions. Galbraith’s writings of the past ten years have covered the larger aspects of a very broad range of subjects.

Another criticism has been that he is not a good speaker. It is true that he often speaks haltingly when extemporizing. He needs time to find the exact word he wants. But he writes excellent papers, and reads them very effectively. (John Williams reported at a recent faculty meeting that his paper and Ed Mason’s were the outstanding papers at a full meeting in Philadelphia. His paper at the Atlantic City meeting in December 1946 was an outstanding performance.) In fact, he has become a very effective writer. To have a man in the Graduate School of Public Administration who can write as effectively as Galbraith on public questions of the day will be a highly valuable asset.

It needs to be added that he is effective in the classroom in spite of halting for a word now and then. The secret of this is that he has an uncanny sense for the vital points in a classroom discussion the same in analyzing public issues, and for putting these in their proper perspective. He is also a very stimulating influence among students in private discussion.

Rating higher in my scale of values than in those of many other academicians is capacity. Some of my colleagues do twice as much teaching, research and writing as some others, and do it fully as well or better. Galbraith has demonstrated a high order of capacity.

The other adverse report concerning Galbraith is not so easy to analyze. It is that he does not handle public relations well, nor even his relations with colleagues and subordinates. Surely a man of Galbraith’s type needed a man of different sort to work alongside him and handle the difficult public relations of OPA. And surely Leon Henderson was not that man. He was less apt at it even than Galbraith. The public relations man for OPA had to say “No” very often; and Galbraith does not have the ease of manner for such an assignment. Given time enough to plan for it in advance, he is able to differ with his colleagues and associates in a pleasant and gracious manner; but not in haste and under pressure, and especially when some body is trying to “put something over”.

No doubt a factor in his relations with others has been his urge to get on with the job and not waste too much time talking about it. I must confess a kinship with him in this respect. He no more than I should be assigned task a with many administrative decisions.

On this point, I am ready to predict without any hesitancy that Galbraith’s relations with his colleagues in the School and in the Department of Economics, should he receive this appointment, would be more congenial by a wide margin then those now generally prevailing in these departments; also that in the role of a Harvard professor, his relations with the public and with government officials would be unusually cooperative and friendly.

Perhaps a word is in order as to why I did not vote for Yntema. Most of all, I do not want to take a chance on either of two things (1) that he will prefer to continue with his present job, thus postponing our filling this appointment for another year: (2) that he will accept the appointment, but will want to continue a tie-us with CED that will remain his main interest. We cannot afford any more such tie-ups. Second, he seems to be so well fitted to his present assignment that I do not believe he would fit ours.

Very truly yours,

John D. Black

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith Papers. Box 519. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Folder: “Correspondence Re: Appointment of JKG as Professor of Economics. 12/22/47—3/22/50”.

Image Source: Professor John D. Black in Harvard Class Album 1945.

Tags BlackJD, Dunlop, Galbraith, Mason, Samuelson, SchultzTW, Smithies, Tinbergen, WilliamsJH, Yntema

ECONOMICS NEWSLETTER Fifth Annual Issue, June 1, 1960

UNDERGRADUATE INSTRUCTION:

MATHEMATICS- LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT:

THE ECONOMICS OF HIGHER EDUCATION:

PERSONNEL:

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

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

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

February 25, 1948

Current Literature

Ph.D. in Economics, 1919

HARVARD UNIVERSITY DIVISION OF HISTORY, GOVERNMENT, AND ECONOMICS

Application for Candidacy for the Degree of Ph.D.

Record of JOHN HENRY WILLIAMS in the Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

Certification of reading knowledge of French

HARVARD UNIVERSITY Department of Economics

General examination passed

HARVARD UNIVERSITY Department of Economics

Willing to take a professorship at Lafayette College if offered.

Department of Commerce Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce Washington

Dean Haskins reply to Williams

Undated File Note Presumably late June 1918.

Division asks Carver to Read Williams’ thesis

Taussig’s Daughter to wed in November 1918. Good time to schedule Williams’ Special Examination

HARVARD UNIVERSITY Department of Economics

Dean Haskins Begins to Assemble Special Examination Committee

HARVARD UNIVERSITY Division of History, Government, and Economics

Division sets tentative dates for Special Examination

Division checking whether Taussig would be available for the Special Examination

Persons can serve on Special Examination Committee

UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION WASHINGTON

UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION WASHINGTON

Bullock has Taussig’s letter to him forwarded to Dean Haskins

HARVARD UNIVERSITY Department of Economics

Special Examination Date Change (to the Committee)

Special Examination Date Change (to Williams)

Special Examination Date Change (to Taussig)

Carver agrees to serve on Williams’ Special Examination Committee

HARVARD UNIVERSITY Department of Economics

Bullock can’t make the new Special Examination date

HARVARD UNIVERSITY Department of Economics

Carver agrees to new date for Williams’ Special Examination

HARVARD UNIVERSITY Department of Economics

UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION WASHINGTON

Asking Burbank to substitute for Bullock

Bullock informed

Taussig needs to postpone the Special Examination

Dean Agrees to Postponing Special Examination

Williams informed of Special Examination date change

Committee members informed of Special Examination date change

Special examination passed

HARVARD UNIVERSITY Department of Economics

Notice to President’s Office of the Award of Ph.D.

[Format matches the listing in the Annual Report of the President of Harvard College]

Course Names and Instructors

1915-16

1916-17

John Henry Williams Timeline of his life and career

Course Material from a Few Other Years

Course Announcement

Course Enrollment

First Term Reading List [Note: First term reading list is identical to that for 1937-38]

ECONOMICS 41 Readings: First Term

Reading Period January 5-18, 1939

Reading Period May 8-31, 1939

1938-39 HARVARD UNIVERSITY ECONOMICS 41 Money and Banking [Mid-Year Examination]

1938-39 HARVARD UNIVERSITY ECONOMICS 41 [Year-end Examination]

Course Material from the Other Years

Suggested Topics for Theses in Economics 41 1938-39

SUGGESTED TOPICS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR COURSE THESES IN ECONOMICS 41

ECONOMICS NEWSLETTER
Fifth Annual Issue, June 1, 1960

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

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

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DIVISION OF HISTORY, GOVERNMENT, AND ECONOMICS

Record of JOHN HENRY WILLIAMS
in the Harvard Graduate
School of Arts and Sciences

Certification of reading knowledge
of French

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Department of Commerce
Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce
Washington

Undated File Note
Presumably late June 1918.

Division asks Carver
to Read Williams’ thesis

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Division of History, Government, and Economics

Division sets tentative dates for
Special Examination

Division checking whether
Taussig would be available for the Special Examination

Persons can serve on
Special Examination Committee

UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION
WASHINGTON

UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION
WASHINGTON

Bullock has Taussig’s letter to him
forwarded to Dean Haskins

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Special Examination Date Change
(to the Committee)

Special Examination Date Change
(to Williams)

Special Examination Date Change
(to Taussig)

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Bullock can’t make
the new Special Examination date

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Carver agrees to new date for
Williams’ Special Examination

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION
WASHINGTON

Taussig needs to postpone
the Special Examination

Committee members informed of
Special Examination date change

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics

Notice to President’s Office
of the Award of Ph.D.

John Henry Williams
Timeline of his life and career

First Term Reading List
[Note: First term reading list is identical to that for 1937-38]

ECONOMICS 41
Readings: First Term

Reading Period
January 5-18, 1939

Reading Period
May 8-31, 1939

1938-39
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 41
Money and Banking
[Mid-Year Examination]

1938-39
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 41
[Year-end Examination]

Suggested Topics for Theses
in Economics 41
1938-39

SUGGESTED TOPICS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
FOR COURSE THESES
IN ECONOMICS 41