Categories
Economists M.I.T.

MIT. Department of Economics Group Photo, 1976

Back Row:  Harold FREEMAN, Hal VARIAN, Jerome ROTHENBERG, Peter DIAMOND, Jerry HAUSMAN

4th Row: Paul JOSKOW, Anne FRIEDLAENDER, JOHN R. MORONEY (VISITOR TO DEPARTMENT)

3rd Row: Stanley FISCHER, Jagdish BHAGWATI, Rudiger DORNBUSCH, Robert SOLOW, Robert HALL

2nd Row: Edward KUH, Morris ADELMAN, Abraham J. SIEGEL, Richard ECKAUS, Martin WEITZMAN

1st Row: Evsey DOMAR, Paul SAMUELSON, Charles KINDLEBERGER, E. Cary BROWN, Franco MODIGLIANI, Sydney ALEXANDER, Robert BISHOP

1976_MITEcon_blogCopy

Apparently didn’t get the memo and/or not pictured: Michael PIORE, Frank FISHER, Peter TEMIN.

Thanks to Robert Solow, the photo-bomber standing to Solow’s left in the picture has been identified as a guest from Tulane University, John Moroney. It is possible that I forgot some other person not included in this faculty picture.

I note that the entire front row has gone to that great Department of Economics in the Cloud.

Source: A graduate student buddy of mine who entered the MIT Ph.D. program in 1975/76.

______________________

If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled of which this is the 250th. You can subscribe to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror below. There is also an opportunity for comment following each posting….

Categories
Chicago Columbia Cornell Curriculum Harvard Johns Hopkins Pennsylvania Princeton Wisconsin Yale

Columbia Economics’ Market Share in 1900

The School of Political Science at Columbia University was divided into three groups of subjects: History and Political Philosophy, Public Law and Comparative Jurisprudence, and Economics and Social Science.

Economics and Social Science comprised the two subject groups: Political Economy and Finance; Sociology and Statistics. 

Seligman figured that of the approximately 135 graduate students specializing in economics in 1899-1900 in the seven eastern departments (Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Pennsylvania, Princeton, and Yale), about 75 were at Columbia.

___________________

SCHOOL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Department of Economics.—Since the recent reorganization of the work in economics, there has been a marked increase in the number, as well as in the quality of the students. Numbers, indeed, constitute no adequate test of the real work done by the various departments within a university; for the subject which attracts the fewest students may possess the highest scientific value and may be presided over by the ablest professors. But, when an institution is compared with others of about the same grade and size, the relative number of students in any one department affords a fair indication of the importance to be assigned to it. Hence, the following table is of much interest:

 

1900_ColumbiaEconomics

*By graduate student is meant a student holding a first degree.
1 Attending for three terms.
2 Including Economics and Public Law.
3 Including Economics, Politics and History.

The number of graduate students in economics and social science at Columbia is much greater than the number in any other American institution. If we compare Columbia with six Eastern universities,—Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Pennsylvania and Princeton,—we find that Columbia has almost as many such students as all six, that is, 75 as against 89. And if it were possible to separate the students working primarily in economics at Johns Hopkins, Yale, and Cornell (where the figures include other students in political science as well), it is practically certain that Columbia would be found to possess more graduate students working primarily in economics and social science than the other six institutions together. Assuming that half of the students returned in Johns Hopkins, Yale and Cornell are working primarily in economics,—a very liberal assumption, —we should have a total of 60 in the six Eastern universities, as against 75 in Columbia. This is a remarkable showing.

In order that it may not be supposed that the basis of classification varies, it may be added that each of the students at Columbia is enrolled primarily under the Faculty of Political Science and is a candidate for the master’s or doctor’s degree, with the major subject in economics and social science. Every such student is required to attend a seminar. In addition to the seminar, 35 of the 75 students are taking 3 or more courses in economics or social science and 20 are taking 2 such courses. The remainder, who are taking one course in addition to the seminar, are chiefly students who have taken most of their lecture work in previous years.

The following figures, as to enrollment in economics and social science, will prove instructive:

Graduate students, primarily enrolled in political science, taking graduate courses (whether as a major or minor) 95
Graduate students (male) in the whole university taking graduate courses 123
Non-graduates (male), primarily registered in political science, doing chief work in economics 22
Students, graduates and non-graduates (male, but exclusive of seniors and other college students) in the whole university, taking graduate courses 149
Enrollment of students, as above (not deducting duplicates), in graduate courses in economics and social science 559
Enrollment of under-graduates in Columbia College 179
Enrollment of students of all kinds (male) pursuing these studies 738
Enrollment of Barnard students 140
Total enrollment in the University 878

The relative importance of the university work may also be seen by this comparison with Harvard:

Harvard Columbia
Total students primarily registered in non-professional (graduate) schools 341 331
Total graduates in non-professional (graduate) schools 323 292
Total graduates in political science 52 or 16% 114 or 39%
Total graduates primarily in economics and social science 8 or 2½% 17 or 26%

This showing is doubtless due in part to the system on which the work in economics and social science at Columbia is organized. The department has four full professors, one instructor and two lecturers. The work has been so apportioned that each professor devotes himself primarily to his own specialty—Professor Mayo-Smith to statistics and practical economics, Professor Clark to economic theory, Professor Giddings to social science, and Professor Seligman to economic history and finance. Another explanation of the large numbers is the facility afforded to students to combine with their studies in economics the courses in history, public law and general political science.

Among the recent graduates in economics of the School of Political Science, no less than 25 are now giving instruction in economics at other institutions, including Yale, Cornell, Amherst, Bryn Mawr, Smith, Syracuse, the Universities of Illinois, Indiana, and Colorado, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A number of graduates have become editors of important daily or weekly papers, in New York, Buffalo, Omaha and other cities, and a large number occupy administrative positions in the service of the national and state governments. Among the latter may be mentioned one of the chief statistician in the census office, a number of expert agents and chief clerks in the departments of the treasury and of agriculture in Washington; and the deputy commissioner of labor statistics and the sociology librarian in the State Library at Albany.

E. R. A. S. [Edwin R. A. Seligman]

___________________

Source: Columbia University Quarterly, Vol. 2, June, 1900, pp. 284-287.

Categories
Columbia Courses Economists Syllabus

Columbia. Syllabus for Trust Problem. Seager, 1907

The second in a two-semester “problem sequence” taught by Professor Henry Rogers Seager at Columbia. Found in the papers of John Maurice Clark. The first semester was a course on the labor problem. The field of pre-game-theory industrial organization can trace its roots to the trust problem.

________________________

ECONOMICS 106—Trust Problem.        Professor Seager.

Tu. And Th. At 11.30, second half-year. 415 L.

In this course special attention is given to the trust problem as it presents itself in the United States. Among the topics considered are the rise and progress of industrial combinations, the forms of organization and policies of typical combinations, the common law and the trusts, anti-trust acts and their results, and other proposed solutions of the problem.

Given in 1906-07 and in alternate years thereafter.

Source: Columbia University. Bulletin of Information. Fifth Series, No. 10 (March 25, 1905). History, Economics, and Public Law. Courses Offered by the Faculty of Political Science. Announcement 1905-07, p. 25.

________________________

Columbia University
in the City of New York

 

THE TRUST PROBLEM

OUTLINE OF COURSE
BY
HENRY R. SEAGER
Professor of Political Economy

 

(The references are to the numbers attached to the titles in the bibliography. Those printed in heavy-faced type constitute the required reading for the course. Those marked with asterisks are especially recommended.)

 

  1. Nature and scope of the trust problem. Survey of literature. (43, chap. XVIII, pp. 428-441.)
  2. Progress of the corporation movement in the United States. (*8, chap. I; *36, June, 1890, pp. 50 et seq.; 47, 1900, vol. VII, chap. II, sec. XI, and 1905, Bulletin 57, pp. 13-18.)
  3. Progress of the trust movement in the United States. (5, chap. I; 9, chap. I; *14, chap. V; *30, chap. I; 31; 41, vol. XIX, pp. 595-608; 47, 1900, vol. VII, chap. II, sec. XVII.)
  4. Conflicting theories in regard to the economic advantages of the trusts. (22, chaps. I and II; 43, chap. XVIII, pp. 442-461; *6, pp. 35-42; *14, chap. IV; *30, chap. II; 27, Part I.)
  5. Typical American trusts; the Addyston Pipe Company. (22, chap. VII ; 43, chap. V.)
  6. Typical American trusts : the Standard Oil Company. (22, chap. VIII, pp. 151-157; 29; 39; 40; 41, vol. I, pp. 93-173; *44; 46.)
  7. Typical American trusts: the Standard Oil Company today. (*37.)
  8. Typical American trusts: the United States Steel Corporation. (22, Appendix F ; *28, chap. XVII ; 41, vol. I, pp. 173-205; 42; *48.)
  9. The United States Steel Corporation’s bond conversion (43, chap. VIII.)
  10. Typical American trusts: the International Mercantile Marine Company. (43, Chap. VI.)
  11. Typical American trusts: the United States Shipbuilding Company (43, chap. IX.)
  12. The success of American trusts as business enterprises. (*15, 1907; 31.)
  13. Conflicting legal theories in regard to corporations and the attitude of American courts. (16; *17, pp. XVIII-XLIII ; *21, pp. 7-16 ; *45, chaps. III and VIII.)
  14. The development of corporation laws in the American states and the present law of New Jersey. (4; *6, pp. 383-394, 409-422 ; *21; 23.)
  15. The Massachusetts Business Corporation Law. (43, chap. XV; *38.)
  16. State anti-trust legislation and the reasons for its failure. (*1, 1904, pp. 37-41; *13, vol. II, part VIII; 30, chap. V ; 41, vol. I, pp. 225-232, vol. II.)
  17. The federal anti-trust act of 1890 and what has been accomplished under it. (43, chap. XII ; 13, vol. II, part VII.)
  18. Latest phases of the attempt to enforce the anti-trust act. (43, chap. XIV.)
  19. The trust problem in the United Kingdom and the British Companies Act of 1900. (43, chap. XVII; 20, part II, chap. III ; 27, chaps. VIII and IX ; 41, vol. XVIII, part I, chap. II.)
  20. The trust problem in Germany. (22, chap. XII; 24 ; 35, third series, vol. V, no. 3; *41, vol. XVIII, part I, chap. V.)
  21. Germany’s corporation law and the attitude of the German government towards trusts. (43, chap. XVI; 24 ; *41, vol. XVIII, part II, chap. IV.)
  22. Present problem in the United States: the trusts and investors. (22, chaps. V and VI; 28, chaps. VII, VIII, XV, and XIX ; 41, vol. I, Digest, pp. 242-253.)
  23. Present problem in the United States: the trusts and wage-earners. (22, chap. IX; 6, pp. 349-354 ; 9, chaps. VII and VIII.)
  24. Present problem in the United States: the trusts and consumers. (22, chap. VIII; 41, vol. I, part I, pp. 39-57.)
  25. Present problem in the United States: the trusts and the tariff. (22, chap. III; 5, chaps. VI and XV; *6, pp. 171-177 ; *8, chap. III; 25; 41, vol. XIX pp. 627-631.)
  26. Proposed solutions of the trust problem. (22, chap. XI; *1, 1904, pp. 44-63; 30, chap. VI; 41, vol. XIX, pp. 649-652.)
  27. Objects to be accomplished through federal control over the trusts. (22, chap. XIII; *7, chaps. IV and V; 21, pp. 168-173; 28, chap. XX.)
  28. The future of trusts in the United States. (*26, part III, chap. II; *27, chap. XII.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

  1. Annual Reports of the United States Commissioner of Corporations. 1904—
  2. Baker, Monopolies and the People. Third edition. 1899.
  3. Beach, A Treatise on the Law of Monopolies and Industrial Trusts. 1898.
  4. Black, Corporation Laws of New York and New Jersey. Second edition, 1904.
  5. Bolen, Plain Facts as to the Trusts and the Tariff. 1902.
  6. Chicago Conference on Trusts, September, 1899. 1900.
  7. Clark, The Control of Trusts. 1901.
  8. Clark, The Problem of Monopoly. 1904.
  9. Collier, The Trusts. 1900.
  10. Cook, “Trusts.” Second edition. 1888.
  11. Davis, Corporations: Their Origin and Development, 2 vols. 1905.
  12. Dos Passos, Commercial Trusts. 1901.
  13. Eddy, The Law of Combinations, 2 vols. 1901.
  14. Ely, Monopolies and Trusts. 1900.
  15. Financial Review (Annual) of the Commercial and Financial Chronicle.
  16. Freund, The Legal Nature of Corporations. 1896.
  17. Gierke, Political Theories of the Middle Ages. 1900.
  18. Gunton, Trusts and the Public. 1899.
  19. von Halle, Trusts or Industrial Combinations in the United States. 1895.
  20. Hirst, Monopolies, Trusts and Kartells. 1905.
  21. Horack, the Organization and Control of Industrial Corporations. 1903.
  22. Jenks, The Trust Problem. Revised edition. 1903.
  23. Laws of the State of New Jersey Relating to Business Companies. 1905.
  24. Liefmann, Die Unternehmerverbände. 1897.
  25. Liefmann, Schutzzoll und Kartelle. 1903.
  26. Macgregor, Industrial Combination. 1906.
  27. Macrosty, Trusts and the State. 1901.
  28. Meade, Trust Finance. 1903.
  29. Montague, The Standard Oil Company. 1904.
  30. Montague, Trusts of Today. 1904.
  31. Moody, Truth about the Trusts. 1904.
  32. Mussey, Combination in the Mining Industry. 1905.
  33. Nettleton, Trusts or Competition. 1900.
  34. Political Science Quarterly. 1886—
  35. Publications of the American Economic Association. 1886—
  36. Quarterly Publications of the American Statistical Association. 1888—
  37. Report of the Commissioner of Corporations on the Transportation of Petroleum. 1906.
  38. Report of the Committee (Massachusetts) on Corporation Laws. 1903.
  39. Report of the Committee (New York) on General Laws on the Investigation Relative to Trusts. New York Senate Document No. 50, Vol. V. 1888.
  40. Report of the Committee (United States) on Manufactures on the Investigation of Trusts. House of Representatives Report, No. 3112. 1888.
  41. Report of the United States Industrial Commission, 19 vols. 1900—1902.
  42. Reports of the United States Steel Corporation. 1902—
  43. Ripley, Trusts, Pools, and Corporations. 1903.
  44. Tarbell, The History of the Standard Oil Company, 2 vols. 1904.
  45. Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations. Fifth edition. 1905.
  46. Trust Investigation of the Ohio Senate. 1898.
  47. United States Census Reports and Bulletins.
  48. Wilgus, The United States Steel Corporation. 1901.

Source: Columbia Archives. John M. Clark Collection. Box 23, Lecture Notebooks.

Monopoly Image: From The Up-to-date Primer: A First Book of Lessons for Little Political Economists.

Categories
Courses Harvard Syllabus

Harvard Economics. Course. Graduate Theory. Schumpeter. 1935-36

 

 

The graduate economic theory course, Economics 11, was taught by Schumpeter for both semesters of the academic year 1935-36. According to Schumpeter’s own handwritten list of students and grades for that course, Paul Samuelson received a grade of A+ and represented the local maximum of the “Ec 11 boys, graduates”.

1935_6_Ec11_SchumpeterGrades

____________________

Because the “cost controversy” was discussed during the first term of the academic year 1935-36 (one can gleam a glimpse of content from Schumpeter’s course notes from random names and words not written in his shorthand) I append here the corresponding readings assigned for the second term of the the academic year 1934-35.  Note that Pigovian welfare economics appears to have been covered some time during the second term of the academic year 1935-36, see the exam below.

____________________

The Laws of Cost and Returns. Probably three or four weeks. It is proposed to deal fully with the so-called “cost controversy”, a series of more or less closely connected articles which appeared in the Economic Journal from 1922 to 1932. The following is a list of the articles in the order of their appearance. Students will not be held responsible for those included in brackets, some of which are connected only remotely with the main controversy. 1) “On Empty Economic Boxes”, J. H. Clapham, Sept. 1922; “Empty Economic Boxes: a Reply”, A.C. Pigou, Dec. 1922; “Those Empty Boxes”, D. H. Robertson, March, 1924; “The Laws of Returns under Competitive Conditions”, P. Sraffa, Dec. 1926; [“The Laws of Diminishing and Increasing Costs”, A.C. Pigou, June 1927]; [“An Analysis of Supply”, A. C. Pigou; June 1928]; “Varying Costs and Marginal Net Products”, G. F. Shove, June 1928; [“The Instability of Capitalism”, J.A. Schumpeter, Sept. 1928;] [“The Representative Firm”, L.C. Robbins, Sept. 1928]; “Increasing Returns and Economic Progress”, A.A. Young, Dec. 1928; “Increasing Returns and the Representative Firm: a Symposium”, D.H. Robertson, G.F. Shove, and P. Sraffa, March 1930. The following two articles by R.F. Harrod are in effect a continuation of the “cost controversy”, but they will be considered later in connection with the discussion of imperfect competition: “Notes on Supply”, June 1930; and “The Law of Decreasing Cost”, Dec. 1931.

Source: Harvard University Archives,  HUC (FP) – 4.62. Joseph Schumpeter, Lecture Notes. Box 9, Folder: Ec11 Fall 1935.

____________________

Economics 11 [First term]

            Following is a list of some of the most important works in English dealing with problems outside the range of perfect competition. They are not all assigned, but assigned reading is taken altogether from this list.

Pigou, A. C., Economics of Welfare, 3rd Edition.
Chamberlin, E. H., The Theory of Monopolistic Competition.
Chamberlin, E. H., On Imperfect Competition, in the March, 1934 Supplement of The American Economic Review, pp. 23-27.
Robinson, Joan, Economics of Imperfect Competition.
Robinson, Joan, What is Perfect Competition, Q. J. E., Nov. 1934.
Zeuthen, F., Problems of Monopoly and Economic Warfare.
Cournot, A. A., Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth.
Edgeworth, F. Y., The Pure Theory of Monopoly (Papers, Vol. I)
Hotelling, Harold, Stability in Competition, E. J., March 1929.
Shove, G. F., The Imperfection of the Market, E. J., March 1933.
Harrod, R. F., Doctrines of Imperfect Competition, Q. J. E., May 1934.
Hicks, J. R., The Theory of Monopoly, Econometrica, Jan. 1935.

The subjects, in the order in which they will be taken up, together with the assigned reading, are given below.

I. The Technique and the Background.
Pigou, Part II, Ch. XIV.
Robinson, Chs. 1, 2.
Chamberlin, Chs. 1, 2.
V. Monopolistic Competition
Chamberlin, Chs. 4, 5, 6, 7.
Robinson, Ch. 7. Q.J.E., Nov. ‘34
Shove, E.J., March ’33.
Harrod, Q.J.E., May ’34.
II. Simple Monopoly.
Pigou, Part II, Ch. XVI.
Robinson, Chs. 3, 4, 5.
VI. Discrimination.
Pigou, Chs. XVII, XVIII (Part II).
Robinson, Chs. 15, 16.
III. Duopoly and Oligopoly
Pigou, Part II, Ch. XV.
Chamberlin, Ch. 3.
VII. Imperfect Competition and the Theory of Distribution.
Chamberlin, in March ’34 A.E.R. Supplement.
IV. Bilateral Monopoly.(To be discussed in class)

 

Source: Harvard University Archives,  HUC (FP) – 4.62. Joseph Schumpeter, Lecture Notes. Box 9, Folder: Ec11 Fall 1935.

____________________

1935-36
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ECONOMICS 11

Four questions may be omitted. Arrange your answers in the order of the questions.

  1. Discuss the concepts “internal economies” and “spreading of overhead” and explain what, if any, relations exist between the two.
  2. What do we mean by Production Function? Discuss its principal properties, and state why and for what purpose we need this instrument of analysis.
  3. “Wherever products are differentiated, the theory of monopoly seems adequately to describe their prices. Competition is not eliminated from the explanation; it is fully taken into account by the recognition that substitutes affect the elasticity of demand for each monopolist’s product.” Do you agree? Justify your answer.
  4. “Under imperfect competition, in conditions of full long period equilibrium, it is not only true that average costs for the individual firm may be falling; they must be falling.” Discuss. Does this necessarily imply falling supply price?
  5. Assume that a commodity is offered by two sellers. Disregard costs. Describe the courses of action open to the two sellers, and discuss the conditions of the case in which price and quantity sold are uniquely determined. Show that in this case price will as a rule be higher than under perfect competition and lower than under monopoly.
  6. In his 1926 article, Sraffa says, “It is necessary to abandon the path of free competition and turn in the opposite direction, namely, towards monopoly.” Discuss the considerations which led him to adopt this view.
  7. Discuss price and output under discriminating monopoly.
  8. State and discuss the principle involved in “Hotelling’s case.”
  9. “The economist has shown that, granted certain assumptions, a set of prices exists which, if established from the beginning, would produce a state of equilibrium; he has never demonstrated, however, that forces are at work which would tend to establish such a system of prices.” Discuss.

Mid-Year. 1936.

Source: Harvard University Archives,  HUC (FP) – 4.62. Joseph Schumpeter, Lecture Notes. Box 9, Folder: Ec11 Fall 1935.

____________________

ECONOMICS 11 [Second term]

            The first four or five weeks of the second term will be devoted to a study of distribution, with special emphasis on the theory of wages. Topics to be covered include (1) marginal productivity, (2) the elasticity of substitution, and (3) opportunity costs. The following is a list of reading.

  1. Marginal Productivity and the Theory of Wages
    1. Marshall, Bk. VI, especially Ch. I.
    2. Hicks, J. R., “The Theory of Wages”, Chs. I and VI.
    3. ——-, Marginal Productivity and the Principle of Variation,” Economica, Feb., 1932.
    4. Schultz, Henry and Hicks, J. R., “Marginal Productivity and the Lausanne School: A Reply” and “A Rejoinder”, Economica, Aug., 1932.
    5. Clark, J. B., “The Distribution of Wealth”, Ch. VIII.
    6. Robertson, D. H., “Wage Grumbles” in the volume of essays entitled Economic Fragments.
  2. Elasticity of Substitution
    1. Hicks, Ch. VI (Cf. above).
      (mathematical treatment in Appendix for those who prefer)
    2. Machlup, Fritz, “The Common Sense of the Elasticity of Substitution”, Review of Economic Studies, June, 1935.
    3. Also notes and articles on substitution in Review of Economic Studies, Vol. I, nos. 1 and 2, though not required reading, may be consulted.
  3. Opportunity Costs.
    1. Green, D.I., “Pain Cost and Opportunity Cost”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1894.
    2. Davenport, H.J. , “Economics of Enterprise”, Ch. VI.
    3. Knight, F.H., “A Suggestion for Simplifying the Statement of the General Theory of Price”, Journal of Political Economy, 1928.

Source: Harvard University Archives,  HUC (FP) – 4.62. Joseph Schumpeter, Lecture Notes. Box 9, Folder: Ec11 1935-36.

____________________

ECONOMICS 11  [Second term]

            The next two or three weeks will be devoted to the discussion of capital and interest. A select bibliography and the assigned reading are listed below. The readings from Wicksell and Knight will probably not be covered in class and may, therefore, at pleasure be postponed until the reading period. As usual in this course there will be no additional reading period assignment.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

  1. Böhm-Bawerk, E., Capital and Interest (a history of interest theories); The Positive Theory of Capital (the third edition, available only in German, containing the polemical Excursi, is to be preferred to the English translation)
  2. Marx, Karl, Capital (especially Vol. I, Parts III and VII; Vol. II, Part III; Vol. III, Parts II and III)
  3. Wicksell, Knut, Über Wert, Kapital und Rente;  Lectures on Political Economy, Vol. I
  4. Fisher, Irving, The Rate of Interest (1907);  The Theory of Interest (1930) (a rewriting of the earlier work)
  5. Taussig, F.W., Wages and Capital
  6. Knight, F.H., “Interest”, article in The Encyc. of Soc. Science
  7. For a rather complete list of the numerous recent articles on capital, interest and the structure of production, Cf. Machlup, Fritz, “Professor Knight and the Period of Production”, Journal of Political Economy, 1935, first footnote.
  8. For an exposition of Böhm-Bawerk, Wicksell and the later work along the same lines done in Sweden, particularly by Gustav Akerman, Cf. Kirchmann, Hans, Studien zur Grenzproduktivitätstheorie des Kapitalzinses.

 

ASSIGNED READING

  1. Fisher, The Rate of Interest, Part I, Chs. 1,2,3; Part III, Ch. 10
  2. Böhm-Bawerk, Positive Theory, Book I, Ch. 2; Book II, Chs. 2,4,5; Book V, Chs. 1,2,3,4,5; Book VI, Chs. 5,6,7; Book VII, Chs. 1,2,3.
  3. Wicksell, Lectures, Vol. I, pp. 144-171; 185-195.
  4. Knight, “Professor Fisher’s Theory of Interest: a Case in Point”, Journal of Political Economy, April, 1931.

Source:  Harvard University Archives, HUC (FP) – 4.62. Joseph Schumpeter, Lecture Notes. Box 9, Folder: “Ec11 1935-36”

____________________

[Given that Economic Welfare, the distinction between marginal social value and private net value product, and the national dividend show up in questions 5 and 6 in the final, I append here the corresponding readings assigned for the second term of the the academic year 1934-35]

Welfare and the National Dividend. Approximately two weeks. The discussion will turn around the following chapters from “The Economics of Welfare” by A.C. Pigou (3rd or 4th edition): Part I, Chapters 1,2,3,5,6,7,8; Part IV, Chapter 2; and Part II, Chapters 1,2,3,4,11. In the second edition the corresponding chapters from Part I are 1-7 inclusive and from Part II, 1,2,3,4,10. Chap. 10 Part II is completely revised in the third edition (where it appears as Chap. 11, Part II) and should if possible be read in the third.

Source:  Harvard University Archives, HUC (FP) – 4.62. Joseph Schumpeter, Lecture Notes. Box 9, Folder: “Ec11 Fall 1935”

____________________

1935-36
Final Examination
Economics 11

One question may be omitted. Arrange your answers in the order of the questions:

  1. What is the relation between elasticity of substitution and elasticity of demand? Interpret the following statement: “If the demand price of capital increases as a result of a fall in wages, then the elasticity of demand for labor is greater than the elasticity of substitution.”
  2. How would you expect inventions to affect the rate of interest?
  3. Marginal productivity of labor is held to determine wages. How does this work out in the cases of perfect and of imperfect competition?
  4. State and discuss Boehm-Bawerk’s theory of interest.
  5. “If in all industries the values of marginal social and marginal private net product differed to exactly the same extent, the optimum distribution of resources [between their possible uses] would always be attained, and there would be, on these lines, no case for fiscal interference”. Discuss.
  6. Define Economic Welfare and National Dividend. Do you consider these two concepts to be serviceable instruments of economic analysis? Why or why not?

 

Source:  Harvard University Archives, HUC (FP) – 4.62. Joseph Schumpeter, Lecture Notes. Box 9, Folder: “Ec11 Fall 1935”

____________________

Categories
Columbia Cornell Economists Pennsylvania Yale

Portrait of Eight Economists. University Extension Summer Meeting. 1894

This set of pictures was found in Box 2, Folder “Photographs” of the Franklin Henry Giddings papers, 1890-1931, Columbia University, Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Judging from the college/university affiliations given (about a two year window) and the fact that the Seventh Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association was held with Columbia College, New York City, December 26-29, 1894, my first guess was that this was related to the AEA event and put together by the local organizers.

However we can be certain that this handsome collection of portraits was published instead as a supplement to the University Extension Bulletin. Exactly these eight economists are the “corps of lecturers” for the University Extension Summer Meeting held July 2-28, 1894 at the University of Pennsylvania as described in The University Extension Bulletin, Vol. I, No. 8 (May 10, 1894). Further it is announced: “We present our readers also with a supplement with portraits of the lecturers in the Economics Department.” Here at haithitrust.org is that supplement.

 

Probably this collection of portraits is related to the 7th Annual AEA Meeting at Columbia Dec 26-29, 1894.