Abstract

This article looks back at the early development of industrial organisation at Harvard. It seeks to understand the emergence of the “Harvard tradition” around the spread of a set of common and identifiable tools and concepts. The paper identifies a specific subject of study bringing together a group of economists. This is the hypothesis of “mutual dependence recognized,” which fosters the development of the theory of tacit collusion in oligopoly. This theory was developed by Edward Chamberlin and gradually taken up in several contributions from the 1930s and early 1940s by economists like Bain, de Chazeau, Galbraith, Kaysen, Mason, Schumpeter and Triffin. These authors, who all had connections with Harvard, appropriated Chamberlin’s theory in pursuit of four goals. First, the possibility of tacit collusion in oligopoly allowed them to provide theoretical grounds for explaining price rigidities. Second, the oligopoly issue fostered the development of new tools for identifying oligopolies and accounting for firms’ behaviour and strategic interaction. Third, these tools were regularly mobilised in debates among economists about the “basing point system”. This pricing method was used at the time in the iron, steel and cement industries and led these economists to address the question of how effective antitrust laws were. Fourth, it led some Harvard economists to entirely reappraise the very nature of mid-century American capitalism.

摘要

本文回顾了哈佛产业组织的早期发展。它试图理解“哈佛传统”的出现，围绕着一套常见的、可识别的工具和概念的传播。该论文确定了一个将一组经济学家聚集在一起的特定研究主题。这就是“公认的相互依赖”假说，促进了寡头默契合谋理论的发展。这一理论是由爱德华·张伯林提出的，并逐渐在 1930 年代和 1940 年代早期被贝恩、德沙佐、加尔布雷思、凯森、梅森、熊彼特和特里芬等经济学家所采纳。这些作者都与哈佛有联系，他们利用张伯林的理论来追求四个目标。第一的，寡头垄断中默契合谋的可能性使他们能够为解释价格刚性提供理论依据。其次，寡头垄断问题促进了新工具的发展，用于识别寡头垄断并解释公司的行为和战略互动。第三，这些工具经常在经济学家关于“基点制”的辩论中被使用。这种定价方法当时用于钢铁和水泥行业，并引导这些经济学家解决反垄断法的有效性问题。第四，它导致一些哈佛经济学家完全重新评估了本世纪中叶美国资本主义的本质。寡头垄断问题促进了新工具的开发，用于识别寡头垄断并说明公司的行为和战略互动。第三，这些工具经常在经济学家关于“基点制”的辩论中被使用。这种定价方法当时用于钢铁和水泥行业，并引导这些经济学家解决反垄断法的有效性问题。第四，它导致一些哈佛经济学家完全重新评估了本世纪中叶美国资本主义的本质。寡头垄断问题促进了新工具的开发，用于识别寡头垄断并说明公司的行为和战略互动。第三，这些工具经常在经济学家关于“基点制”的辩论中被使用。这种定价方法当时用于钢铁和水泥行业，并引导这些经济学家解决反垄断法的有效性问题。第四，它导致一些哈佛经济学家完全重新评估了本世纪中叶美国资本主义的本质。