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]
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]>
To: [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]
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]
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]> 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]
|
