Report of the Committee on International Co-Operation: The I.E.A.

Gottfried Haberler’s report is a procedural but revealing document about the postwar organization of economics as an international profession. Its central argument is that the American Economic Association should join the newly forming International Economic Association because the proposed body now matches the conditions previously set by the A.E.A.: it is limited in scope, organized through national associations, financially rather than politically tied to UNESCO, and inexpensive for the A.E.A. to support.

A draft of a proposed constitution for an International Economic Association, prepared by Professor Mossé, was reviewed paragraph by paragraph, and after some discussion it was VOTED that Professor Haberler be authorized to attend the forthcoming conference in Paris on April 5-6 and to express the sentiments of the Executive Committee as being in favor of a small, modest beginning in organizing an international association, preferably on the basis of national associations

The report’s structure is chronological and justificatory. Haberler first recalls earlier A.E.A. discussions in Cleveland and Princeton, then recounts his attendance at the April 1949 UNESCO meeting in Paris, the circulation of draft statutes, the positive responses from leading members of the Executive Committee, and the July 1949 meeting of the I.E.A.’s Interim Executive Committee. This sequence matters because the document is not merely announcing an international body; it is establishing that participation has been deliberated, authorized, and disciplined by prior A.E.A. concerns.

The main conceptual move is to define international cooperation as institutional federation rather than individual membership or ideological affiliation. The Princeton mandate had favored organization “on the basis of national associations,” and Haberler stresses that this principle survived the Paris revisions.

It will be recalled that the Executive Committee was of the opinion that in order to keep the I.E.A. on a modest scale it should be a federation of national associations and should not have individual members.

This formulation reveals the report’s governing logic: internationalization is acceptable when mediated through existing national professional bodies. The I.E.A. is imagined not as a supranational authority over economists, but as a coordinating association whose legitimacy derives from recognized national societies. That design also guards against excessive bureaucracy, financial burden, and possible dependence on UNESCO.

The I.E.A. will receive some financial aid from UNESCO. It is not yet quite certain how much it will be, but I was told that a sum between $10,000 and $15,000 will be made available for the purpose of organizing the contemplated conference next September.

The report repeatedly balances ambition with restraint. The I.E.A. is to proceed, but cautiously: its officers are nominated subject to confirmation; its first Council meeting is paired with a substantive round table on “Long-range Economic Problems of International Balances”; and its secretary is appointed only part-time. Even the first conference topic is chosen pragmatically, because it could be prepared quickly. Haberler presents intellectual cooperation as something that must be administratively feasible before it can become intellectually productive.

In accordance with the Interim Arrangements provided in the Draft Statutes, the Interim Committee nominated Professor Schumpeter as President, M. Rueff as Vice President, and Ronald Walker (Australia) as Treasurer of the I.E.A. These nominations will have to be confirmed by the Council at its first meeting.

Financially, the report reassures the A.E.A. that its obligation would be limited to annual dues of $200, while UNESCO support would help fund the September 1950 meeting. At the same time, Haberler notes that smaller associations may find even $100 burdensome, indicating that the international federation must accommodate unequal national capacities if it is to function.

The document is especially relevant as evidence of how economics reconstructed international scholarly networks after World War II. Its references to Britain, Scandinavia, the Low Countries, Canada, Australia, France, Italy, Austria, and the reconstituted Verein für Sozialpolitik in Germany show an effort to rebuild a European and transatlantic professional order. The report’s understated prose marks a larger historical transition: economics becoming an organized international discipline through carefully limited institutional cooperation.

Haberler’s conclusion is cautiously affirmative. Because the I.E.A.’s structure conforms to the Princeton resolution, the A.E.A. will “presumably wish to participate,” though it should still examine the details. The report therefore advances membership not as enthusiasm alone, but as a reasoned consequence of institutional safeguards already secured.

In view of the discussions which took place during the last two meetings of the Executive Committee and the fact that the proposed structure of the I.E.A. corresponds to the requirements laid down in the resolution adopted at the Princeton meeting, the A.E.A. will presumably wish to participate. It will, however, be necessary to discuss thoroughly whether we are satisfied with all the details of the proposed arrangements.