Gerhard Tintner’s research report, prepared for UNESCO’s enquiry into social-science teaching through the Econometric Society, surveys econometric instruction in Egypt, France, India, Mexico, Poland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Its eleven sections move from survey design through financing, departmental organization, curricula, prerequisites, student participation, research requirements, and graduates to recommendations for international cooperation. Two appendices reproduce the questionnaire and institution-by-institution responses. The central concern is how an emerging quantitative approach can acquire coherent teaching arrangements, adequate preparation, and a wider international constituency.
The investigation relies chiefly on questionnaires circulated early in 1952 to teaching members of the Econometric Society and institutions subscribing to Econometrica, supplemented by further contacts suggested by respondents. Tintner deliberately includes mathematical economics, economic statistics, and related subjects within the survey’s boundaries. This breadth makes an initial institutional map possible, but limits what its categories establish:
This course was followed since the survey was regarded as being one of a preliminary nature seeking a broad rather than detailed comprehension of the state of econometric teaching.
The preliminary character is fundamental to the report’s interpretation. Course titles do not guarantee comparable content, and instruction classified as econometric may be only loosely connected to the subject. Membership and subscription figures supply context rather than direct measures of teaching. Tintner finds the strongest provision in the United States, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, with substantial activity in France and India; evidence for Egypt, Mexico, and Poland is much thinner. His comparisons concern responding institutions already offering relevant instruction, not national university systems as a whole.
Financing brings the relationship between disciplinary development and existing educational structures into view. Public support predominates outside the United States, where privately and publicly supported institutions occur in roughly equal numbers. Tintner cautions that this contrast probably reflects general arrangements for higher education more than distinctive priorities for econometrics. A better enquiry would distinguish institutional budgets from funds specifically allocated to econometric teaching. His positive institutional model is the research institute combining instruction with investigation, exemplified by the Cowles Commission, Cambridge’s Department of Applied Economics, and the Paris institute of applied economics. Such centres offer social science an analogue to the teaching-and-research laboratories of the natural sciences.
Departmental organization follows from the subject’s composite intellectual character:
Econometrics is a combination of mathematical economic theory and mathematical statistics applied to the solution of economic problems.
Econometrics therefore requires cooperation among economics, mathematics, and statistics, although their administrative relationships differ nationally. French instruction often belongs to law faculties or specialized institutes; Indian provision centres strongly on statistics; British and American provision generally rests in economics departments, sometimes jointly with mathematics or statistics. Tintner treats these arrangements as expressions of local scholarly traditions. The appendix makes their diversity concrete by recording courses, teachers, degrees, support, and research requirements across individual institutions.
The curricular discussion distinguishes the visibility of “econometrics proper” from the actual coverage of econometric methods. Mathematical economics and economic statistics are commonly as prominent as, or more prominent than, courses bearing the econometrics label:
Such subjects may be adequately covered in courses on economic statistics and mathematical economics. But a greater unity of treatment can probably be achieved by courses and seminars on the subject of econometrics itself.
Unity, rather than a particular course title, is the pedagogical objective. Tintner connects national strengths with established traditions in mathematical economics and statistics, while tracing newer applications in national-income analysis, agriculture, linear programming, and game theory. Specialized course counts can understate coverage because demand analysis, time series, index numbers, and business cycles also appear within broader courses. Conversely, mathematical statistics taught without economic applications can inflate apparent econometric provision. Dedicated mathematics courses for economists address a practical tension: extensive conventional mathematical training may consume time needed for economic study. Linear programming and game theory may warrant separate instruction because their methods differ from those of traditional mathematical economics.
Prerequisite requirements indicate that econometrics is generally advanced study, drawing on prior economics, mathematics, or statistics. Evidence about class sizes, foreign students, and graduates is considerably less reliable. Some reported figures are internally inconsistent: the prose assigns Mexico one course although the table and appendix record four, and the British class-size range is printed as “41-11.” These figures should not sustain precise comparisons. Tintner’s broader conclusion is that participation remains limited despite growing recognition of the method’s value.
The recommendations join broad economic literacy to specialist training. All economists should gain enough econometric preparation to follow quantitative discussions, while a larger body of thoroughly trained students should become teachers and independent researchers. International student exchanges, guidance for thesis requirements, and UNESCO assistance where teaching remains weak would help extend this capacity. The concluding methodological lesson also qualifies the report’s own ambition:
In particular, for the survey to be properly designed we need to have clear ideas as to what kind of policy questions we are seeking to answer.
Future surveys should define econometrics more narrowly and investigate its economic and statistical background through related enquiries. The report’s lasting relevance lies in this conjunction of institution-building and methodological restraint: developing econometric teaching requires intellectual integration, but assessing that development requires sharper definitions and evidence suited to explicit educational-policy questions.
This work was divided into 16 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 16 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian