Erik Lundberg worked for the “Skandinaviska Banken, Stockholm”
RL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Kragh" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, August 7, 2012 1:33:51 AM
Subject: Re: [SHOE] RVW -- Schiffman on Kuznets, _Jewish Econ omies: Deve lopment and Migration in America and Beyond - Volume I: Th e Economic Life of American Jewry_
Just a note on the Economic Sciences Prize in Memory of Alfred Nobel: it is not awarded by any “Swedish bankers”. See the list here:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/prize_awarder/committee.html
Here you have the list of members of the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences class of social sciences:
http://www.kva.se/en/contact/Members/Social-sciences/
The only “banker” you will find in there is Lars Svensson, who before becoming vice chairman of the Riksbank (Swedish central bank) was already a noted economist at Princeton and Stockholm University.
My intuition is that ethnicity, nationality or religion has historically played a relatively minor role in the selection of prize winners. Other criteria, such as “influence on the profession” and “rigor”, have been more important. This is also why we can expect to see fluctuations in the awards, as “rigor” in scientific enterprises is not a constant over time.
Kind regards
Martin
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of mason gaffney
Sent: den 6 augusti 2012 23:45
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] RVW -- Schiffman on Kuznets, _Jewish Econ omies: Deve lopment and Migration in America and Beyond - Volume I: Th e Economic Life of American Jewry_
Professor Flanders raises a challenging (if rhetorical) question. I do not know enough about chemists and mathematicians and their ethnicity to accept or reject her premise of anti-Jewish discrimination before 1946 – perhaps others will provide some evidence. It is common knowledge, of course, that the world raised Einstein to the level of a demi-god; Oppenheimer led the Manhattan Project; Freud dominated psychiatry, and so on, but such fragments are too few to refute her premise. Others, please chime in!
I take this occasion to mention a related topic that I should have raised earlier: we should not use “Nobel” laureates to measure achievement and distinction in Economics. These are awarded by Swedish bankers free-riding on the name of Nobel. They naturally see capital markets from the side of lenders more than borrowers. Their criteria for selecting Laureates would be bent in that direction. Populist or socialist judges would pick an entirely different group.
Diaspora Jews, having no land titles to pledge for loans, and turning to money-lending as a permissible outlet for their enterprise and energy and saving, would be subject to the same bias and develop cultural norms appropriate thereto, hence more simpatico to Swedish bankers. That is no more than an hypothesis, but one worth testing, I should think. It runs counter to the Jubilee tradition of periodically forgiving debts, and may be the subject of existential strife among Jews (however defined), making testing difficult. It also changes over time. “Jubilee” has lost its ancient biblical meaning, while the banking tradition has grown. Again, I defer to others more familiar with the territory, and hope they will chime in. It may just be too complex to unravel.
Mason Gaffney
From: Societies for the History of Economics [ mailto:[log in to unmask] ] On Behalf Of M June Flanders
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 11:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] RVW -- Schiffman on Kuznets, _Jewish Econ omies: Deve lopment and Migration in America and Beyond - Volume I: Th e Economic Life of American Jewry_
A brief comment on Gaffney’s point 4: If American colleges and universities discriminated against Jewish economists because of ancient and medieval patterns of landholding, what is the explanation for their discrimination against chemists, mathematicians, et al. until after the end of WWII?
Professor M June Flanders
The Eitan Berglas School of Economics
Tel Aviv University
Tel Aviv Israel 69978
Tel: +972.(0)3.549.5625
734.757.8265
Fax +972.(0)3.547.7316
[log in to unmask]
From: Societies for the History of Economics [ mailto:[log in to unmask] ] On Behalf Of mason gaffney
Sent: 06 August, 2012 05:06
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] RVW -- Schiffman on Kuznets, _Jewish Econ omies: Deve lopment and Migration in America and Beyond - Volume I: Th e Economic Life of American Jewry_
I believe that Roy Weintraub errs to dismiss defining a Jew as mere “pilpul” (casuistry). It is hard to study a subject without defining its central term.
He is right, however, that this should not stop us from considering the original questions about how Jews, however defined, have made such a mark in academic economics. Two or three contributors have submitted definitions of Jews. I would like to suggest some vital points missing from the definitions.
#1 is that in medieval times in Europe Jews were not allowed to own land. In contrast the major Christian church, Roman Catholic, was a or often THE major landowner. In the feudal system, owning land was a personal relationship of loyalty between the sovereign and the “owner” - “own” relating to the word “owe”, meaning the nominal owner owed cash or other services to the sovereign. Nothing is ever that simple, but that was a basic part of the bargain. The king’s tenant had to swear PERSONAL loyalty to the king, and be his subject. A foreigner did not qualify, and infidels were foreigners.
Thus it was consistent with diaspora culture, as it evolved under this system, that Ricardo could create a model in which land rents were considered a “surplus”. Baron von Thunen in Germany could create an analogous model explaining urban rents, but without its being subject to the same interpretation of a “surplus” (at least, not to my knowledge – if anyone knows otherwise, correct me).
#2 is that in Judeah and Israel the tribes were assigned their lands, except for the Levites, who lived on contributions from the landed tribes, and were expected to frame laws for all, owners and plebs alike. This included reassigning lands and forgiving debts every 50 years, a much more egalitarian system than evolved in Christian jurisdictions. This naturally entailed Jews looking at gentiles from the outside, as it were, hence more objectively, hence more scientifically.
#3, since Jews could not own land, it followed that they were unlikely to lend on the security of land as collateral. Lacking political power, they would be loathe to lend to sovereigns. It would follow that they would lend on the security of personal property, e.g. inventories, and get involved in small businesses, and identify with them. Of course they also got involved in personal consumption loans, a source of great hostility.
#4, American colleges were originally Christian seminaries, and later evolved into satrapies of robber barons and other great landowners. It would follow that they would disfavor Jewish economists until in recent times the Jews had grown richer and could identify more with great wealth.
The above needs more refining and better organizing, but I hope the basic ideas are clear and acceptable.
#5 is the matter of language. Having a distinctive language makes it easier to communicate secretly, and weed out spies (as per the Shibboleth story). Pilpul , for example, is not in Webster’s Collegiate or the O.E.D., and is somewhat exclusionary.
Mason Gaffney
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of E. Roy Weintraub
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 4:50 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] RVW -- Schiffman on Kuznets, _Jewish Econ omies: Deve lopment and Migration in America and Beyond – Volume I: Th e Economic Life of American Jewry_
For a comment on the SHOE list, it is curious that John Brown is uninterested in the history of economics. The economics profession was certainly not secular in the sense of neutral with respect to the religion of the economist in the United States until after WWII. To teach economics in an elite institution one had to be a white Christian male. There were only around 100 Jewish scholars teaching any subject, yes any subject, in any, that's right any, US college or university around 1910. And the questions are not about "Jewish economics" but about economists who were Jews. Were their professional experiences different from those of Christian economists? Why were there so many Jewish Nobelists? These seem to me to be historically interesting questions. And to push such questions aside with arguments about the definition of a "Jew" is, frankly, pilpul.
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 2:25 PM, John Brown < [log in to unmask] > wrote:
I think that the question is interesting but largely unimportant. In a predominantly secular society, in a discipline that is very secular in its orientation, questions of religious identity are not likely to feature very extensively.
I am by background a WASP, however neither my Anglo-Saxon, nor my Protestant origins have ever had any relevance to my professional work. I assume that most of the many distinguished economists whose ethnic origins were Jewish, did not experience their work as "jewish" but as a contribution to the scientific traditions of economics. In point of fact, the only references that I can remember to "Jewish economics" originate with facists (specifically Nazis.) That very point may well explain the discomfort attached to singling out the Jewish contribution to economics.
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Daniel Schiffman < [log in to unmask] > wrote:
I thank Prof. Weintraub for his insightful comments. It is indeed puzzling
that historians of economics have neglected the overrepresentation of Jews
in economics.
I wish to broaden the discussion to the question of religious influence on
economists.
In 2007, the Center for the History of Political Economy (CHOPE) at Duke
University hosted a conference on the subject "Keeping Faith, Losing
Faith: Religious Belief and Political Economy." To the surprise of the
organizers, there were no submissions dealing with Jewish economists (Brad
Bateman and Spencer Banzhaf, "Keeping Faith, Losing Faith: An
Introduction," HOPE 40 (Annual Supplement), 1-20).
Why were there no submissions on Jewish economists? Was it lack of
interest on the part of historians of economic thought? I believe not.
Rather, I believe that the lack of submissions reflects the paucity of
religious influences on the writings and/or activities of the leading
Jewish economists. This is understandable, when we consider that a. Jewish
economists were highly secularized and b. those who were less secularized
(if any) would have been compelled to conceal any religious influence, for
fear that it would arouse Anti-Semitism and derail their academic careers.
Of course, the reality is different today. Today, an economist can publish
work on Jewish economic history or on economic analysis of issues that
arise in Jewish religious texts, without fear of Anti-Semitism. There is
no need to act as Kuznets did--to write papers on Jewishly-oriented themes
while concealing those papers from one's fellow economists.
--
An optimist, often disappointed, but still hopeful.
John Howard Brown, Ph.D. Physical Mail
Associate Professor P.O. Box 8152
School of Economic Development School of Economic Development
Georgia Southern University Georgia Southern University
Statesboro, GA 30460
Telephone (912) 478-0896 Fax (912) 478-0710
--
E. Roy Weintraub
Professor of Economics
Fellow, Center for the History of Political Economy
Duke University
www.econ.duke.edu/~erw/erw.homepage.html
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 7358 (20120805) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
|
