MEMORANDUM

Leontief had not yet published a single paper in an English language journal. The
“familiarity” with Leontief’s interest in economic theory must have come from what
Schumpeter had told Burbank, or from the few Harvard people who had studied the
Versuch treatise, the only paper of importance Leontief had published so far. Had Burbank
acquired over the grapevine impressions of Leontief from NBER, from Kiel or even from
the AEA meeting in December 1931. Burbank was in any case convinced that Leontief
was a brilliant candidate and had qualifications that Harvard particularly needed. 193
Burbank’s question about Leontief’s interest in teaching international trade may have
reflected an acute lacuna in the teaching plan. Leontief confirmed his interest in
international trade and was soon after working on his first paper in English, on indifference
curves in the analysis of foreign trade (Leontief 1933). The impulse for embarking on it is
very likely to have originated in Burbank’s question.
Burbank’s letter of 21 Jan. 1931, in which he apologized for having been so
“indefinite” when they met in December, was followed by a flurry of telegrams to Leontief
about details of Harvard’s offer. Leontief continued to keep Schumpeter updated about his
talks with Harvard and the situation soon became more definite. Harvard offered a lecturer
position for 1932/33, possibly to be converted into a professorship one year later. The
teaching obligations were been stated as comprising “Modern Economic Theory” and
“Price Analysis” to be given as full courses and an additional half-course on selected topics
in international economics. Leontief commented to Schumpeter: “A bit much, but quite
enticing!“ [Etwas viel, aber recht verlockend]. He was promised an assistant for his own
research and the salary would be $3600, more than the average instructor.
Harvard wanted an immediate commitment from Leontief but he wanted Schumpeter’s
opinion before responding. He asked Schumpeter: “Would my prospects in Germany (if
they still exist) deteriorate?” But was this tongue-in-cheek or an indication that Leontief
had not yet finally given up Germany? At this point Leontief had become convinced that
193 This may as good place as any other for a brief remark Leontief’s Jewishness (or lack of the
same). One may wonder whether the extraordinary attention given to Leontief by Burbank would
have been different if he had known that Leontief was the son of a Jewish mother. Burbank’s anti-
Semitism is a well-established fact, not least from Paul Samuelson’s labeling of Burbank as “anti-
Semite no. one in Harvard’s department of economics” (Backhouse (2014, pp. 61-62). McCraw
(2007, p.202) writes that “Harvard was making every effort to entice Wassily Leontief, a brilliant
young Jewish economist from Russia.” But it was hardly the case that Leontief was ever spoken (or
thought) of as a “Jewish economist” or unimaginable that he thought of himself in such terms.
Leontief’s status wrt. Jewishness was that from an orthodox point of view he was and would always
remain a Jew. But as an immigrant to the United States he was not Jewish. I thank E. Roy
Weintraub for this clarification.
83