UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON ARCHIVES
ORAL HISTORY PROJECT

Interview #210
HAVEMAN, ROBERT

HAVEMAN, Robert (1936- )
Professor of Economics; Director of Institute for Research on Poverty
At UW: 1970-2002

Interviewed: 1982		
Series: Poverty Institute
Interviewer: Laura Smail  
Length: 1 hour
Transcript: 26 pages

Work in Washington, D.C.; Appointment as director of Poverty Institute; NAS evaluation; OEO's criticisms of Institute; Changes in organization of Institute; Funding issues; Growing staff allegiance to Institute; Impact of staffing on Economics Department hiring. 

Tape 1/Side 1     

00:00:00	Was at Grinnell. In 1968 he was invited to UW and received offer.  Decided go 	to Washington as senior staff economist for Joint Economic Committee of 	Congress.  
 
00:00:50	Burt Weisbrod and Eugene Smolensky invited him here.   

00:01:24	Spent two years in Washington. Harold Watts proposed RH as candidate for directorship of Poverty Institute (PI).  Informally done.

00:03:06	Why they wanted him.  OEO concerns not a factor.  Came in 1971.  

00:05:31	First evaluation of PI was in progress.   

00:07:03	National Advisory Committee. Prominent people.  Twice yearly meetings.  Sounding board for director.  Brought director in touch with OEO/HEW.  
 
00:08:19	PI seeking extra money from OEO that year.  OEO reviewed program.  Said PI needed more structure.  Created tension. University researchers want independence.  Had shoot out in front of advisory committee.  Committee very helpful.  PI started   seven seminar groups.  Describes these.  They produced a planning document.   

00:11:29	RH welcomed increased structure.  Not used to large university.  Was associate director first year.  

00:13:02	RH worked well with Ned Gramlich.  
 
00:13:40	When RH came, hard to get handle on what PI was.  In retrospect it was: 1) researchers working on Negative Income Tax experiment (NIT).  Harold Watts worked with them; 2) a group of individuals working on own subjects.  Didn't meet.  Scattered   over campus.  First year RH met with them.  Weeded out a lot of people.   

00:16:00	Staff meant either research staff or PI staff.  Jack Lefcowitz School of Social Work.  Wasn't producing.   

00:17:30	Watts ran things informally.  RH formal procedures.  Met research committee regularly.  Director is boss, but can get advice.  RH thinks change was welcomed.  Made PI more visible. NIT was visible but PI hadn't been.   

00:19:31	Way PI was financed.  OEO gave special grant for NIT experiment.  So $1 million to PI not being paid much attention to.

00:21:53	Bob Lampman's role.  Very important.  RH talked with him often.  His wisdom.  Is skeptical often.  Sees alternatives, pitfalls.  Good judgment.   
 
00:24:18	Felicity Skidmore.  Strong willed, able.  Alienates some people.  Good writer.  Valuable.  She ran PI while Watts busy with experiment.   

00:26:29	SSRI no longer an issue when RH came.   

00:27:11	Evaluation.  Issue of long-range funding.  New arrangement gave two-year lead time.   RH and Jack Sorenson worked on it.

00:29:16	Seminars.  OEO was not happy with amorphous blob of research coming out of PI.   Sorenson and RH went to Washington. Then discussed with research committee. 
  
00:30:25	End of side.     

Tape 1/Side 2     

00:30:26	OEO wouldn't have discontinued grant but would put on pressure.  Q. of what would happen to PI under Nixon. Uncertainty.  Transition to HEW.  
 
00:33:38	Post-docs.  There was no center to PI.  People liked getting money but had no allegiance to PI.  RH thought of bringing in research associates who would be in the PI and have allegiance to it.  Lampman felt it was risky to bring in people not associated with department. 

00:37:17	Once Research Associates came, then researchers began coming to seminars.  Objected to letting money go on Research Assistants.  Meant less for researchers.
  
00:39:56	Irwin Garfinkel wanted to stay on and wanted PI to have an advocacy position.   Antagonism to PI when RH was director, but those people have left.  Felt PI was biasing economics faculty. None now.  

00:42:12	End of interview.

END