Joel B. Slemrode, a research analyst working on his dissertation, says Feldstein was his adviser before, he adds jolingly, the "Marty Feldstein incarnation of the NBER was created." He says Feldstein "probably could be characterized as one who has faith in the ability of the market unfettered to operate efficiently."
Slemrode adds that the bureau's president doesn't tell people what to think but Slemrode suggests that preconceptions can influence results. "My prediction (of the economy's next move) depends on all the assumptions I've had to make. Because that's true I try to test the model with many different assumptions," he explains. Slemrode says that basic to the whole project is the conservative assumption that all markets stay in equilibrium.
While the main thrust of Feldstein's economics is conservative, Eckstein says that "the basic question is 'Does he impose his views on the bureau?' And he has not, if you look at the type of research that's done."
Certainly Harvard professors have engaged in a variety of areas of research. McLure cites five or six areas of study, although he says he "would guess that maybe half the professors are in capital formation."
Several people connected with the bureau say both Harvard and the NBER have benefitted from their close relationship. The bureau fosters a community spirit, provides an efficient and effective environment for study, as well as office space, resources and access to other economists. In addition, some say it may be easier to get grant money through the NBER than through an individual application. The bureau, in turn, has at its disposal young and outstanding economists. "Harvard has been very good in facilitating our operation," McLure says.
But Slemrode suggests the interaction between the NBER and the Harvard Economics Department may not be so mutualistic as the one between the bureau and individual Harvard professors. "The department was never noted for its cohesiveness. Some would say the bureau breaks down the cohesiveness that is there," Slemrode says.
Perkins counters that cohesiveness has not been a problem in the department, and that the bureau makes no difference to its functioning. "We're not cohesive in having a single ideology," Perkins says. "There is a great diversity in our basic attitudes toward what constitutes good economics. And I hope that diversity stays with the department at least as long as I'm here." As for the advantages to professors, Perkins says, "Except maybe in the amount it's publicized, I don't think it makes any difference whether an economist does the research sitting at his desk in Littauer or at the bureau."