Thanks, Peter.

If John Womack is correct, then his was at least the first to refer to 
"microeconomics". But, for me, I am interested in the curricular issue of when 
some department decided to name their courses with micro and macro. Any ideas on 
that?

LB

Peter J Boettke wrote:
> Larry,
> 
> I don't know if this is accurate.  But when I studied with him, Kenneth
> Boulding told me that his textbook was the first textbook that made the
> micro/macro split.  I believe that book came out in the late 1940s prior to
> Sameulson's book.  If Boulding had the split in Economic Analysis, then it
> must have been the emerging practice.  I would look around the date of those
> publications in the 1940s.
> 
> But the first edition of Samuelson's book, has the macro chapters upfront
> prior to the microeconomics chapters.  I believe that became the standard
> practice for years.
> 
> Alchian and Allen fought against that trend of macro first, but it was not a
> successful text in terms of wide-scale adoption in the 1960s. But it did
> become a standard reference text for a generation of the
> counter-revolutionaries to the Neo-Keynesian synthesis --- property rights,
> public choice, new economic history, etc.
> 
> I believe Gwartney and Stroup is the first text that has some success that
> moved micro prior to macro once again.  And that is in the 1970s.
> 
> Peter J. Boettke BB&T Professor for the Study of Capitalism at the Mercatus
> Center, George Mason University & University Professor & Professor of
> Economics Department of Economics, MSN 3G4 George Mason University Fairfax,
> VA 22030 Phone: 703-993-1149 FAX: 703-993-1133 Email: [log in to unmask] 
> http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/pboettke 
> http://www.coordinationproblem.org
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: Lawrence Boland <[log in to unmask]> Date:
> Saturday, July 17, 2010 9:15 pm Subject: Re: [SHOE] Question about micro vs
> macro classes
> 
>> Several have suggested that I look at catalogs.
>> 
>> Actually, I have looked at the calendars for my undergraduate and 
>> graduateuniversities -- 1957 and '61 for the former, and '61 and '65 for
>> the latter. In none of them were there micro or macro courses by title. In
>> '57 and '61undergraduate calendars there were none even by description. 
>> However, in both, there was classes in intermediate "price theory" and
>> intermediate "nationalincome analysis". For graduate school in '61, there
>> were two classes in "general economic theory", neither of which mentions
>> micro or macro as they have the same description. When it came to '65 the
>> titles were the same but one mentions"general micro-economic theory" and
>> the other "a review of Keynesianmacro-economics".
>> 
>> I have the fourth edition (1958) of Samuelson's textbook (which I used in
>> '61). He mentions micro vs macro on only two pages, the first of which he 
>> promoted the neoclassical synthesis to say the "cleavage between [them] has
>> been closed" (p. 360).
>> 
>> Does anyone have the first edition? My school is too new to have a library
>> copy.
>> 
>> LB
>> 
>> -- Lawrence A. Boland, FRSC Department of Economics, Simon Fraser
>> University Burnaby BC Canada V5A-1S6 ph: 778-782-4487, web:
>> http://www.sfu.ca/~boland
>> 
> 


-- 
Lawrence A. Boland, FRSC
Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University
Burnaby BC Canada V5A-1S6
ph: 778-782-4487, web: http://www.sfu.ca/~boland