Dear Ric Holt,
  It is somehow inspiring to hear that there have been such considerate discussions behind the scenes of AEA.  And such fine minds.  
  Marie Duggan

________________________________

From: Societies for the History of Economics on behalf of Ric Holt
Sent: Sat 6/15/2013 3:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [SHOE] Letters between Joan Robison and Ken Galbraith 1971-72



Some of you might appreciate these letters between Joan Robinson and Ken Galbraith concerning her Richard Ely Lecture at the AEA meetings in 1971. I was told not to add attachments to our e-mails to this list, so just a few here. Besides wanting to shake up the establishment with inviting Joan to give the prestigious Ely lecture, she also represented a goal Galbraith had as President of the AEA -- to achieve equality for women in the economics profession. Something interesting: the letters show the importance Mac Bundy played in providing funds from the Ford Foundation to support this goal. Also there is the interesting exchange between George Borts, Managing Editor of the AEA, and Paul Davidson and others about the selection process of articles for the Review -- a very contentious discussion. Finally, some interesting exchanges between Galbraith and Jim Tobin and Ken Arrow as they tried to work on the transitions from one AEA president to the next during this period while supporting certain long term goals. The achievements of Tobin, Galbraith and Arrow as Presidents of the Association was very impressive. The profession owes all three a lot.

The Galbraith Letter Project is still plugging along. I have collected over 11,000 letters so far and in the process of providing annotation to them. 

Ric Holt

 

                                                                                    20 July 1971

Dear Ken,

Many thanks for your letter and comic cuts. I propose as the title of my lecture, "The Second Crisis of Economic Theory". I will put in a few highbrow bits, but on the whole I think I can treat the subject in a way that the broad masses ought to understand.

                                                                        Yours sincerely,

                                                                        Joan Robinson

  

62 Grange Road

Cambridge

                                                                         December 29, 1971

Dear Ken:

I much enjoyed the opportunity to have a go at AEA. I am grateful to you for arranging it. I found that having you as President has aroused my hope among the dissent groups that something might be done about the Review. There is first of all the question [of] the papers joint between URPE and AEA being printed in the proceedings and, more generally, the editorial policy of the Review to only print neoclassical stuff (They even refused a piece by Franklin Fisher because he came out on my side about the production function!) Gurley has been treated insolently. For the sake of their own reputation as the organ of the profession I think they should be made to see how they look.

It was very noticeable how the younger generation was reacting at the meetings.

                                                                        With thanks once more

                                                                        Yours

                                                                         Joan

                                                                                                                    

January 12, 1972  

Dear Joan:

            Many thanks for your note. If the meetings were slightly less stuffy and neoclassical than usual, it was owing more to you than to anyone else. It was extremely good of you to accept the invitation and your paper was absolutely superb.

            The president of the Association, as I think I said once in New Orleans, has powers closely paralleling the President of Italy, but perhaps less. Indeed this is the way in which all establishment maintain themselves. One diffuses power through people who are reliably like of mind. But I hope to have some slight influence on the Journals, and I'm also going to make a particularly determined effort to revise hiring practices in the profession and see if I can win a better break for women.  A good deal has been done in the past couple of years to put the problems of the black and Spanish-speaking minorities on the professional conscience. Discrimination against women remains in some degree the most blatant.

            Would you, when you get back to Cambridge, write me a little more complete observation and complaint - something that I can send to the editor to ask for his comments. Sometimes the knowledge of an unsatisfied clientele produces some results.




                                                                        Love,

                                                                        John Kenneth Galbraith