MEMORANDUM

progress. He then had a meeting with the mathematician Emil Gumbel who helped him
with some mathematical questions. Gumbel had mentioned Robert Remak whose work in
Gumbel’s view was in mathematical terms similar to what Leontief was concerned with.
The visit as whole had overall gone very well. The habilitation question was as open as
earlier but that was to be expected. 154
On his return to Berlin Leontief wrote immediately to Remak about Gumbel’s
impression that they both had come to be concerned with similar problems, essentially
“determinant analysis of economic equation systems”, Remak from the side of abstract
mathematical economics and Leontief from the side of economic theory. 155 There is no
record of a response from Remak or a meeting between them. Remak’s mathematical
formulations had in fact striking similarities with input-output. But they were on different
tracks: Leontief’s theoretical work was derived from the empirical problems he studied,
while Remak was a mathematician.
After the trip Leontief treasured the memory of the day spent in Bonn and the friendly
welcome Schumpeter had given him. Leontief also came back to the Wagemann matter, i.e.
whether there were any prospects for a position at the Konjunkturforschungsinstitut. He
realized that there could be no question of getting a proper position when he in two months
would leave for America. Leontief had got to know from an inside source that Wagemann
was prepared to accept Leontief as an intern (Volontär) and also some kind of official
relationship for the time Leontief would be in America, which might make the return to
Germany easier. But Leontief whether it would be worthwhile for me to accept the
awkward position of an intern and the loss of time it would involve. 156 Obviously, he was
quite interested in Wagemann’s institute.
Schumpeter and Leontief continued to stay in steady contact. At the end of June
Schumpeter asked Leontief for guidance as to how to apply the demand and supply
analysis. Leontief responded by page references to his paper, enclosing graphs, tables and
explanations. Schumpeter wanted to know how things were going and whether he used his
free time for something “beautiful and new”, or had given himself away to Wagemann?”
On the Wagemann matter Leontief was still undecided and apparently not very inclined to
accept the conditions he had been offered. He was furthermore dismayed by the fact that
the Eisenaufsatz would not appear in the July issue of Weltwirtschaftliches. It had been
submitted one month ago but nothing had been done with it with regard to the technical
editing. And to get a copy of the article (for Schumpeter) was impossible. 157 It appeared
eventually in January,1932.
154 Leontief to Schumpeter, 7 June 1931.
155 Leontief to Remak, 11 June 1931. About Remak, see the account in Parys (2013, 2014).
156 Leontief to Schumpeter, 7 June 1931.
157 Schumpeter to Leontief, 20 June 1931; Leontief to Schumpeter, 23 June 1931.
65