In case members of the list are interested in more detail on Hayek (and Machlup) and the sale of the Phillips machine, one source is in the Machlup archive at the Hoover. In Box 44-1, Hayek indicates in a letter to Machlup of 11th January 1950 that he has become a kind of voluntary sales agent for the machine (he encloses some photographs); Machlup in April indicates that he is trying to get Seymour Harris to purchase one, and writes to Harris about this in May.
________________________________________
From: Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Jeremy Shearmur <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, 29 July 2014 7:33 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Kenneth Bounding and the 1949 Clark Medal
Just an aside on the Phillips machine: when Hayek got to the US, he did what he could to try to promote the sale of the machine to U.S. Departments of Economics.
Jeremy Shearmur
________________________________________
From: Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Robert Leeson <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, 29 July 2014 3:27 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Kenneth Bounding and the 1949 Clark Medal
Graeme Dorrance's chapter is the source: Phillips, the undergraduate, couldn't understand a diagram in Boulding's textbook and so used his engineering training ...
The Machine then inspired James Meade to enroll Phillips in a PhD; the stabilization exercise (associated with the curve) is a development from the Machine.
----- Original Message -----
From: "M Morgan" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 5:56:54 AM
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Kenneth Bounding and the 1949 Clark Medal
There is certainly a link between the development of the Mark I Machine built by Walter Newlyn and Bill Phillips - the link is found in an undergraduate essay of Phillips in which he references and reproduces one of Boulding' plumbing diagrams. (Newlyn had also an undergraduate essay in which he considers an hydraulic design for macro-thinking about inflation.) The evidence for this Phillips’ link is reported in my Chapter 5 (of The World in the Model, 2012) on the machine's creation by Newlyn and Phillips.
I did not find any evidence of links between Boulding and Phillips for the P Curve – but then I was not looking for such.
Mary Morgan
Professor Mary S. Morgan
LSE and University of Amsterdam
Catch Mary’s Keynes Lecture 2013 online here: http://www.britac.ac.uk/events/2013/Models_Fact_and_Fiction_in_Economics.cfm
General information, CV and “How Well Do Facts Travel?” project below:
[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/economicHistory/Research/facts/Home.aspx
-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Travel
Sent: 28 July 2014 12:19
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Kenneth Bounding and the 1949 Clark Medal
Robert what is you source for that attribution? I am not too surprised although I never heard Bill mentions Boulding as an inspiration in all the time I worked with him.
Re the text: one must not forget this was a different age for economics texts. Marshall was still used as a text in many places and up and coming young economises did not generally write texts until Samuelson showed them to way. Boulding's book was worth all the praise it apparently got from his contemporary economists and certainly from we honours students at UBC.
Richard Lipsey
-----Original Message----- re
From: Robert Leeson
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 6:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Kenneth Boulding and the 1949 Clark Medal
Boulding's textbook resulted in the Phillips machine and the Phillips curve stabilization program.
Dorrance, G. 2000. Early reactions to Mark I and II. In Leeson, R. Ed *A.W.H
Phillips: Collected Works in Contemporary Perspective*. Cambridge: CUP.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Travel" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 2:51:05 PM
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Kenneth Boulding and the 1949 Clark Medal
I wonder if anyone in our group other than myself was raised on Bounding’s wonderful text Economic Analysis. After the dry books I used and consulted as a student of elementary economics at UBC in the late-1940s, I used Bounding’s great book in my second year theory course. (In those days a course lasted a whole academic year, what would now be 21/2 semesters.) It was wonderful and gave me a sense of economics being a really relevant subject. It confirmed me in my as-yet tentative view that I wanted to become a professional researcher in economics.
Perhaps I might be allowed to add that the series of nearly a dozen articles that Curt Eaton and I wrote in the 1970s on economic geography and monopolistic competition (reprinted in the volume The Foundations of Economic Geography and Monopolistic Competition) and still cited regularly, mainly by economic geographers, was originally motivated when I read Boulding’s exposition of, and elaborations on, Hoteling’s duopolistic competition in a linear market. I think it was Boulding who christened this “The “Principle of Minimum Differentiation”. On reading Boulding’s account, I set myself the research project of discovering if the many generalisations that Boulding suggested followed from Hoteling’s two-firm case would stand up to careful theoretical investigation. I thank Boulding for the 10 fruitful years that Curt and I spent on this subject.
Richard Lipsey
From: Coffin, Donald A
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 12:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Kenneth Boulding and the 1949 Clark Medal
In response to James Forder's suggestion that "...the recipients after the mid-1970s have a higher propensity to become really notable economists than did those before that time."
Here's the list of recipients from the beginning until 1973:
1947 Paul A. Samuelson
1949 Kenneth E. Boulding
1951 Milton Friedman
1953 No Award
1955 James Tobin
1957 Kenneth J. Arrow
1959 Lawrence R. Klein
1961 Robert M. Solow
1963 Hendrik S. Houthakker
1965 Zvi Griliches
1967 Gary S. Becker
1969 Marc Leon Nerlove
1971 Dale W. Jorgenson
1973 Franklin M. Fisher
I'm not sure how that list supports Dr. Forder's suggestion. (Except maybe for the 1953 award.)
Don Coffin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of
James Forder [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 8:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Kenneth Boulding and the 1949 Clark Medal
I have sometimes wondered about Friedman in that kind of way too (not
particularly in relation to the Bates medal). Before ‘A theory of the
consumption function’ (1957) I am not sure that his publications alone
really support some of the remarks one can read from that time about how
clever he was. Isn’t the answer that in those days, assessments based on
personal interactions, comments, private correspondence, discussions at
conferences and the like had much more weight than now, as compared to
publications? As it turned out, Friedman and Tobin produced more than
Boulding, but I am not sure they would have seemed cleverer than him to
those who knew them in the ‘40s. It is our publications-based view that
tells the misleading story, perhaps?
Here’s a suggestion that might raise controversy: Looking at the list at
http://www.aeaweb.org/honors_awards/clark_medal.php and ignoring the recent
awards (since it is too soon to say), the recipients after the mid-1970s
have a higher propensity to become really notable economists than did those
before that time. I hypothesise that this is because as time went on the
award of the medal was increasingly based on publications rather than other
assessments, and those who publish much before they are 40 carry on doing so
afterwards.
best wishes
James
James Forder
Fellow and Tutor in Political Economy
Balliol College Oxford
On 26 Jul 2014, at 22:42, David Mitch <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
In 1949, Kenneth Boulding was awarded the John Bates Clark Medal for best
economist under the age of 40. He was the second person to get this award,
after Paul Samuelson in 1947. Could anyone explain why Boulding would have
been chosen for this award? It is not evident to me at least that his
contributions or potential circa 1949 would have put him in the same league
as other early Clark winners including Samuelson, Friedman, and Tobin. In
posing this query, I intend no disrespect for either Boulding, who I think
had a quite fascinating and worthwhile career, or the Clark Medal. I would
just like to try to understand why Boulding might have been chosen for this
award in 1949.
By the way, I have looked at Philippe Fontaine's 2010 article on Boulding
in _Science in Context_. I think it is an excellent article. But it doesn't
address directly the question of why Boulding might have gotten the Clark
Medal.
A related query is what were the institutional arrangements for selecting
the Clark Medal winner in the late 1940s. Presumably there was a selection
committee. Who was on this committee?
Would John Maurice Clark, JB Clark's son have been involved in the
selection process? Was there some pot of money involved in funding this
award? If so, where did the money come from?
David Mitch
--
David Mitch
Professor of Economics
Graduate Program Director
Economic Policy Analysis
Affiliate Professor, Asian Studies
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
|
