Professor Horton became a faculty member of Columbia Business School in 1970 and was tenured in 1977. He currently teaches "Modern Political Economy," is the Director of the Social Enterprise Program, and is the Chair of the Management Division. I sat down with Professor Horton to learn a little more about his background, his interests, and his hopes for Columbia Business School students.
BL: I guess we’ll start with where you grew up, where you went to school, how you got into political economy?
RH: I was born and raised in a small town in Iowa – Sibley, Iowa. My father was a car dealer. I went to college at Grinnell, a small liberal arts school in Iowa, as my parents had done. Because I didn’t know what to do after college, I went to Law School, because that’s what everyone said I should do. I went to Harvard Law School and after three insufferable years at Harvard, still not knowing what I wanted to do, I applied for doctoral programs in Political Science. I came to Columbia, not because it had the best program, but because I wanted to say I’d lived in New York City for a year before I transferred to the best program.
BL: Why did you decide to go into teaching? I guess in academia that is somewhat of a natural transition, but is that something you were interested in?
RH: Even as a youngster I had the notion that teaching was an honorable profession. And, like so much in my life, sort-of serendipitously, a teaching opportunity at a major university arose. I had been teaching college-level political science the previous three years at Grinnell when I was working on my doctorate at Columbia. So by the time I got the offer at Columbia Business School, I knew I liked teaching.
BL: What are you favorite classes to teach?
RH: Well the course I teach now is, "Modern Political Economy." In the past, the teaching I’ve enjoyed the most has had more to do with how to evaluate and improve the performance of public and non-profit organizations.
BL: How did you become interested in Political Economy?
RH: I began to understand that the research I’d been doing on New York City was really Political Economy. And then I got interested in seeing whether what I’d seen at the sub-national level applied at the national level. And once you get to the national level, you have to go to the international level.
BL: So what you saw at the local level, was that New York City in the late 1960’s to the early 1970’s?
RH: Yes. I started my doctoral program in political science in 1965 so by the late sixties I was focused on politics in New York City.
BL: Who were the professors that influenced you the most? Who influences you now and do you have any mentors?
RH: Certainly my dissertation adviser, Wallace Sayre. Certainly Eli Ginsberg, who has been a member of the Business School faculty for many, many years. They were people that helped me get situated institutionally. And then beyond that, I think my most enduring relationship has been with Chuck Brecher, the person that I worked with at the Citizen’s Budget Commission (CBC) and with whom I wrote all of these "Setting Municipal Priority" volumes in the 1980s, as well as the book Power Failure.
BL: How long were you involved with the CBC and how long have you known Brecher?
RH: When I was President of the CBC he was Director of Research and Executive Vice-President, so we worked together hand-in-hand on research and advocacy for 20 years or so.
BL: What kind-of research are you working on now?
RH: I’m working on a case on global warming, an international political economy issue of some importance, and I’m starting on a case on business and terrorism. And I will bring one if not both into the Modern Political Economy class if they turn out right.
BL: How do you see political economy fitting into the business school students’ lives once they graduate from Columbia?
RH: That’s a good question. To begin, you don’t want your students, when they enter the hard, cruel world, to find out that the hard, cruel world doesn’t conform to what they’ve learned at the Columbia Business School. So you want them to understand that politics and economics are inter-related rather than separable. You want them to understand that whatever they learned about neo-classical economic theory it’s not descriptive of the way the world functions in the 21st century. You want them to be smart about the world in which they live because they can capitalize on their knowledge in some fashion, either by becoming richer or becoming more contributory to society or just by doing their own thing, whatever it is.
BL: How do you see these social issues relating to Business School students, the future leaders of companies, etc.?
RH: They’re the people who will have to make those difficult choices about how you mix and match profits and social responsibility. It’s a difficult question, but I think it’s an important question and I don’t think it’s getting less important in the world. I think the students are smart and they understand that. There’s been a big increase in the number of business school students taking courses within the Social Enterprise program and a big increase in the number who enroll in Modern Political Economy.
BL: Why do you teach?
RH: If making as much money as possible is what turns you on, you don’t teach. You teach basically because you value intellectual growth and your intellectual growth is a function of your research, your colleagues, and the minds of the students you’re dealing with everyday. There are definitely things I’ve learned from this term’s students that will go into next term’s class. Definitely.
BL: You’ve mentioned travel a lot in your class and that you took trips to Central Asia in 1997 and 1999. How have your travels abroad affected your view of political economy and your view of America?
RH: I think I fully understood the appeal of free trade sitting in a camel market (or goat market) in Kashgar, China, that involved Afghans, Pakistanis, Uighurs, Kazakhs – all fractious people from different nations who got along just fine when they were buying and selling.
BL: So capitalism is sort-of a democratizer in a certain way?
RH: Well, maybe more of a peace inducer. Something that helps overcome more divisive characteristics that people carry with them.
BL: So for social reasons, do you believe that free trade is the best?
RH: Yeah, absolutely! I believe that free trade is a lot better than protectionism. What you are doing is drawing a line on that spectrum, so one of my major concerns right now is that this recession / terrorism thing will push nations in a more protectionist stance. And that’s never a good thing for the international political economy. I was happy to see the WTO talks go well from that perspective. It sort-of underscored the commitment of these nations to free trade.
BL: But do you believe in a totally free trade system?
RH: No, I don’t want to trade nuclear secrets with the Afghans.
BL: So more of a Smithian idea of free trade?
RH: Yeah, free trade within reason. It doesn’t make much sense to protect peanut farmers, though we do.
BL: September 11th has had a huge impact on students this semester and on our country’s views of international political economy. Do you see an affect on your students from the September 11th attacks? Do you see a change?
RH: (nods his head). I’ve seen some students who are obviously in a lot of distress, not so much from what goes on in class, but what goes on in my office. But I think that by and large most students seem to be coping with it pretty well. But I think there are some students for whom it has been devastating. Some faculty members too.
BL: Do you think this will be the defining event for our generation?
RH: I think that it could well be. Fortunately there are decisions still to be made that could minimize the damage of September 11th. It could work out that it’s not such a huge event or it could work out as an event that throws us into some sort-of horrible reaction. It may be a huge event that throws us into some sort-of positive action. Either path is a function of policy decisions that need to be reached as we go forward, by government officials and business managers. We’re at a place in time where the decisions we make going out, are going to have a huge impact on the effects of September 11th, good or bad. I believe that people make choices – people make decisions. I don’t believe that there is some sort-of inexorable process that causes business leaders to behave in a certain way or government officials to behave in a certain way. We make choices. I suppose that’s why, on one level, why I’m involved in teaching, particularly teaching would-be leaders, I think your choices are very important.
BL: So you believe that what you teach students here will help form them to make good decisions?
RH: I HOPE that what I teach them here will help them make good decisions. For themselves and for the organizations they serve.
BL: Do you have any advice for Columbia Business School students?
RH: Don’t take a job that you really don’t want in order to have a job by graduation. Extend your search. Hug your loved ones. I guess the other would be to raise your voice in the various settings that you have an opportunity to raise your voice. If you don’t raise your voice it’s exactly like not voting, somebody else’s voice gets stronger relatively speaking. It gets back to this idea that everybody’s got a responsibility. I really believe, ultimately, in free choice or free will – that we all have the ability to stand up in the face of whatever and assert our own way.
BL: Thanks for taking the time to talk with us Professor Horton.