Appreciation certificate military

I

Introduction

E. LYNN TURGEON was a unique and iconoclastic figure in the field of economics. An important, if somewhat conventional, figure in the study of the Soviet economy in the 1950s, his views on the USSR evolved over time to become more and more distinctive and provocative. In retrospect, many of his arguments and forecasts have proven to be wrong, especially about the former Soviet Union and the economies of the former Soviet bloc. (1) At the same time, some of his most controversial and apparently shocking positions can now be seen as prophetic in the context of the extreme difficulties that many of the countries of the former Soviet bloc have experienced during their transition. Although Turgeon pinpointed difficulties in the Soviet system and foresaw its slowdown, he was also willing to point out certain positive aspects of the old system that few outside Soviet circles were willing to admit, He was not afraid to face what seemed to him to be the facts and to follow where those facts would lead him. This he did in the face of disapproval and sharp disagreement from his peers in the West.

Later in life, his writing reflected more his classical Keynesian roots. He argued against such pre-Keynesian policies as central bank autonomy, tight money, fiscal austerity, and social retrenchment. Instead, he supported bold Keynesian fiscal policy, for example, significant expansion of government spending on social programs, and the neutralization of monetary policy. While acknowledging the stimulating benefits of supply-side cuts (coined as "commercial Keynesianism" by Robert Lekachmen) and massive defense spending (military Keynesianism) in Germany and Japan in the 1930s, Turgeon considered these policy arrangements to be among the most socially regressive types of Keynesian policies. He adopted Joan Robinson's term "Bastard Keynesianism" to describe these supply-side cutting and military spending agendas. Instead, Turgeon preferred to think of himself as a "classical Keynesian," wedded to the fundamental truths of The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money (Keynes 1964). He believed that the u ltimate goal of economic policy was not growth for growth's sake, but full employment of human resources, environmentally sustainable economic development, more equitable distributions of income and wealth, and rising living standards for all (Turgeon 1996:73). Before going into greater depth on Turgeon's contributions to Sovietology and economics, it is important first to understand some of the earlier personal and professional influences on his career.

II

A Brief Biography

EDGAR LYNN TURGEON was born on August 26, 1920 in Mitchell, South Dakota. (2) In an unpublished memoir (Turgeon 1990), he claimed that growing up during the Great Depression on a small farm in the Midwest influenced his decision to study economics. Since good jobs were scarce for young men in the 1930s, he went to the University of California at Berkeley where he majored in economics before serving as a U.S. Navy supply officer in the Pacific during World War II. During his service he became aware of the waste and misery of war, and made a commitment "to do something, which might contribute to preventing another war ... assuming I survived" (Turgeon 1990:2-3). He anticipated that the next major conflict after World War II might be with the Soviet Union, and he began to study the Russian language. At the end of the war, with the aid of the GI. Bill, Turgeon decided to either pursue a law degree or a Ph.D. in economics. Not quite sure in which direction to go, he decided to visit the famous Keynesian economist Alvin Hansen at Harvard University. Turgeon was impressed with Hansen's prewar writings and felt he could talk frankly with him since he was a fellow South Dakotan (Turgeon 1990:3). After finding Hansen in the Harvard library wearing green eyeshades, Turgeon spoke with him for about a half-hour and was convinced to stay with economics and pursue a graduate degree. He went back to Berkeley to obtain a master's degree in economics, writing a thesis on "The Economic Effect of World War II on the U.S. Electronics Industry," and continued his study of the Russian language.

From California he went to New York and studied at the Russian Institute at Columbia University where he became associated with Abram Bergson, a preeminent Sovietologist. Another influence at this time was Paul Sweezy, the co-editor of Monthly Review, who occasionally gave lectures at Columbia University. Turgeon became acquainted with Sweezy, who reviewed his essay 'The Economics of the Transition from Socialism to Communism" for his Russian Institute certificate from Columbia University in 1950. He received his Ph.D. from Columbia University in economics for a dissertation on labor productivity in the Soviet Union in 1959.

From 1950 to 1955 he worked full-time with Bergson as a researcher at the Rand Corporation. This period generated some of his most influential work in the area of conventional Sovietology, with his work on price indexes in the Soviet economy standing out for special notice. Key works resulting from this research include papers that appeared in the Review of Economics and Statistics (Turgeon 1952) and The Journal of Political Economy (Bergson, Bernaut, and Turgeon 1956). Out of this experience Turgeon developed a lifelong fascination with keeping track of actual prices in Russia and other Central and East European countries, especially the prices at collective farm markets and street kiosks. He would travel extensively in those areas over the years, keeping detailed journals filled with price data and recording his observations. These travel journals reflect his ability to tell important details about the quality of life in Russia and Eastern Europe. (3) He also encouraged students and friends to collect price data while traveling in these countries and eagerly awaited their new information on prices.

Although he would serve as a visiting lecturer at numerous universities, his academic home was Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. He was a faculty member of the economics department from 1957 to 1990, teaching various economics courses, including comparative economic systems and the economics of discrimination. He was a well-liked and respected teacher at Hofstra and received the University's Distinguished Teaching Award in 1967. After his retirement, he remained professionally active until less than a year before his death. It was during this period that he increasingly presented his views through letters to the New York Times and book reviews. In the last years of his life, he turned to Internet lists as outlets for expressing his views, especially the Johnson Russia List (jrl) and Post Keynesian Thought (pkt). Having been diagnosed with prostate cancer in the 1990s, he died on March 10, 1999 of heart failure at his daughter's home in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Besides his daughter, Dr. Kim Turgeon, his e x-wife Olivia R. Turgeon survives him, along with a sister, Margaret Johnson, and two grandchildren.

III

The Iconoclastic Sovietologist and Comparative Economist

ALTHOUGH TURGEON CONTINUED to write and speak on the problems of the socialist and transition economies to the end of his life, his most influential articles and books on Sovietology and comparative economics were written during the years that he was at Hofstra University. A review of his major publications shows an iconoclastic and original thinker who had significant insights into the nature of the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries. Perhaps the two most distinctive elements of Lynn Turgeon's economic position was his fusion of Keynesian and comparative economics, and his argument that the fundamental reason to study the Soviet economy was to understand the U.S. economy. (4)

Certainly there were other economists who studied socialist economies with at least a partial purpose of commenting on capitalist economies; Friedrich A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises come to mind. (5) But very few did so from a strongly Keynesian perspective. Turgeon was unique among the Keynesians in that most Keynesians spent their time analyzing the capitalist economies and did not bother much with the socialist economies. Besides unsettling his Keynesian friends, Turgeon's iconoclastic approach disturbed his Marxist friends as well. He commented on the irony that Soviet Marxists found his arguments discomforting because so much of Marxist economics was classically oriented and "pre-Keynesian," especially their views on money (Turgeon 1980:109). Turgeon had considerable admiration for the work of Karl Marx, but was critical of the modern Marxists who failed to assimilate Keynes's basic teachings.