Motivations and Limitations

Two considerations motivate this essay: First, the author may have testimony to give about Ragnar Frisch. Second, the history of economic ideas should analyze those views about planning that were influential during the third quarter of this century, particularly in Western Europe. During the 1950s and early 1960s, European economists involved in setting up national accounts and macroeconomic programming often met for a week or so, in conditions very different from those prevailing in the large, short gatherings now common for international scientific interchange. A group of some 30 participants would discuss at length issues raised by their work. The younger ones would receive advice from a few dominant personalities, who would also at times embark on lengthy debates with each other. The atmosphere was friendly and open.

Ragnar Frisch was almost always present at the many such meetings I went to during that period; he, of course, marked them by his interventions. After a while I thought I could fairly well predict some of his comments, even some with which I disagreed. But other comments were truly unpredictable and surprising. The differences in approach and temper between Frisch and such people as Richard Stone, Jan Tinbergen, or Herman World were also worth noting. Because I am one of the few living non-Norwegian economists who had such an acquaintance with Frisch, I feel a duty to provide whatever information I can regarding that extraordinary man.