A leader in a variety of fields who lends star power to the economics department’s study of finance, Shleifer confirmed his plans to stay in an e-mail yesterday.
“I decided to stay at Harvard because I have incomparable colleagues and students here,” Shleifer wrote.
Shleifer had been courted by Stern, which wanted to add him to their finance department.
The Chronicle of Higher Education reported in early January that the school had tried to lure Shleifer away from Harvard with an offer of nearly $500,000.
In January, a spokesperson for New York University (NYU) disputed the dollar amount of the offer but declined further comment.
Officials and professors from NYU could not be reached for comment yesterday.
Though Harvard officials said in January they would push hard to keep Shleifer, none would say yesterday whether Harvard had made him a counter-offer.
Chair of the Economics Department Oliver S. Hart wrote only that he was “delighted” with Shleifer’s decision.
Morris University Professor Dale W. Jorgenson—who was unaware of Shleifer’s decision to remain at Harvard—said that the University is fortunate not to lose one of its top economics professors.
“He’s one of the leaders at the core of a very strong effort that has attracted a lot of interest by undergraduates and by Ph.D. students,” Jorgenson said. “This is going to mean an enormous amount to our department.”
Shleifer, 41, is a winner of the John Bates Clark Medal, which honors the nation’s top economist under age 40 and is seen within the field as nearly as prestigious as the Nobel Prize.
But he also represents a colossal liability for the University. Shleifer, Harvard and former employee Jonathan Hay are defendants in a federal suit that alleges they defrauded the U.S. government while running an economic advising program in Russia.
The U.S. Department of Justice argues that personal investments Shleifer made in Russia constituted a breach of contract and undermined his program’s mission to help manage Russia’s transition to capitalism.
A “disregard for ethics,” the government argues in court papers, taught Russians a lesson that was “the exact opposite from the one Harvard was paid to promote.”
Shleifer’s lawyers deny that his investments were improper and argue that they did not technically violate any rules.