SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

VOLUME 39 • NUMBER 4 • DECEMBER [985 605 TH[RD AVENUE. NEW YORK, N.Y. [0[58

American Foundations and the Social Sciences by Francis X. Sutton*

THE SUPPORT AND USE of the social sciences by Ameri­can foundations has been so extensive and pervasive that it is nearly impossible to give a comprehensive view of where it begins and ends. Modern philan­thropy has sought to do more than comfort the afflicted: It has aspired to be rational philanthropy, getting at the roots of human ills and deprivations. Judgment, experience, and common sense- are as much needed in foundations as elsewhere, but they need to be bolstered by the kind of specialized knowl­edge and orderly investigation that the social sciences supply. The large foundations that aspire to deal with national and international problems feel these needs particularly acutely. Whether they are trying to im­prove health services, to find better models of day care centers to help working women, or to improve thinking about international economic policy, they

* Mr. Sutton has been acting president of the Council since October I, 1985, replacing Kenneth Prewitt, who resigned the Council presidency to become vice president for program at the Rockefeller Foundation. Mr. Sutton received a Ph.D. in sociology from Harvard University in 1950 and taught af Harvard from 1949 to 1954. Hejoined the staff of the Ford Foundation in 1954 as an executive associate in the behavioral sciences program. In 1957, when that program was terminated, he shifted to the inter­national development program, becoming deputy vice president of the international division. a position which he held until his retirement in 1983. This article is adapted from his testimony before the Science Policy Task Force. Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, September 19, 1985. Although Mr. Sutton was at that time a consultant to the Ford Foundation. he testified as an individual, not as a representative

of the Foundation.

need some orderly analysis of the subjects to proceed in the confidence that they are doing something sen­sible. Characteristically, in dealing with any broad subject, there is a concern for the intellectual and professional resources there are in this country or in the world for dealing with it.

CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE

57 American Foundations and the Social Sciences -Francis X. Sulton

65 Giftedness in the Visual Arts - Ellen WiUfIt'T and David Pamer

69 Council Awards 23 MacArthur Foundation Fellowships in I mernalional Security

72 Council's Board Honors Kenneth Prewitt

73 Currem Activities at the Council _ Council initiates new advanced grants program for

research on U.S. foreign policy making (page 73) _ Research access (page 73) _ Access to public data (page 73) _ Case study methods (page 74) _ The 1986 SIPP panel (page 75) _ Council initiates new program in advanced German

and European studies (page 76) _ Cognition-emotion interrei:.Jlinnships (page 76) _ Selfhood in life-course perspective (page 77) _ The political economy of health and disease (page

79) _ Council seeks staff associate for its Japan program

I(page 81) _ The coordination of economic policies between

Japan and the United States (page 81 ) _ Media and politics in Japan (page 82) _ Regional seminars on Japan (page 82) _ Korean Buddhism (page 82)

83 Recent Council Publications

57

Use of the social sciences by foundations

Foundations thus use the social sciences a great deal whether they are consciously supporting them or not. But at the present time there are very few foun­dations with the declared purpose of supporting the social sciences-too few, in my personal judgment. There is, indeed, much less declared concern with the state of the social sciences than there has been in the past. While there is a continuing effort to deal ration­ally with a broad array of social and human problems, this does not lead to substantial concern with the state of the social sciences as such. Marshall Robinson, president of the Russell Sage Foundation, prepared some estimates in 1983 indicating that foundation funding for social science research had not declined significantly in nominal terms since the 1960s and had indeed increased enough as a percentage of total grant making to compensate for the overall decline in large foundation spending that went through the 1970s.' Such estimates are subject to grave uncertain­ties, but there was clearly a decline in constant dollars. Other evidence suggests that there has been no foun­dation retreat in the 1980s from the use of the social sciences in the topics that attract foundation interest, but this does not mean a sustained concern with and support of social science research as a professional and academic enterprise. 2

There is a serious historical argument to be made that the most distinctive contribution of the United States to the development of the sciences has lain in the social sciences. However distinguished American physical and biological sciences have become in this century, they have been offsprings and continuators of European pioneering. Our humanistic scholarship also has its roots in Europe. The social sciences as far-flung academic and professional enterprises seem to have been more natively American. While philan­throphy can claim some credit for this American flowering, it owes more to other influences-among them certain distinctive features of American higher education as it developed across the country; a pecu­liarly American disposition to think that large parts of human affairs are manageable by knowledge and

I Robinson calculated thal in 1964 "the big four in social sci­ence" - Carnegie. Ford, Rockefeller, and Sloan-made grants lOtaliing $320 million, of which about 11 per cent went for social science research; in 1980, these four foundations granted 17 per cent of a total of $160 million for social science research. See Items, September 1983, page 37.

2 d. Patricia Read. Foundations Today: Current Facts and Figures on Private Foundations. New York: Foundation Center. 1984.

58

techniques accessible to all people regardless of ultimate beliefs and affiliations, political or otherwise; and, finally, to our optimism about the perfectibility of human affairs through enlightened effort. Despite this natural American disposition toward them, the social sciences have not been easy to support, through either government or foundations. In the old days, when Americans kept the federal government limited in size and foundations like Andrew Carnegie's and John D. Rockefeller's had great opportunities to fill in where public monies were lacking, foundations found that education, libraries, and the health and natural sciences were easier to support than the social sci­ences. The Carnegie Institution of Washington spon­sored a department of economics and sociology in 1902 but later abandoned it; the Rockefeller Founda­tion briefly flirted with economics research under MacKenzie King, but was scared off by the Walsh inquiry of 1915. It took the special genius of Beardsley Ruml, using Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial monies in the 1920s, to make a significant and lasting foundation contribution to the develop­ment of the social sciences. By the 1920s, there was in American universities a group of leaders who wanted more objective and empirical study of society than the social reformers practiced and the Memorial's grants gave lasting impetus to the social sciences in American universities, the Social Science Research Council, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Brook­ings Institution, and the London School of Econom­ics? By 1929, when the Memorial was absorbed into the Rockefeller Foundation, its funds provided the base for a social science division which has continued to this day. It was not long, however, before the Rockefeller Foundation abandoned the block grants to universities for the social sciences that Ruml had favored. The social science division turned towards a more focused support of research, maintaining a concern with basic social science but gradually aban­doning direct funding for the improvement of the social sciences.

In Rockefeller's tradition, a strong concern for the sciences has favored more direct attention to aca­demic disciplines and basic research than Carnegie and Ford have had. Both these latter foundations have been more disposed to direct attention to a major national or international problem and to engage social

3 Martin Bulmer and Joan Bulmer. "Philamhropy and Social Science in the 1920's: Beardsley Ruml and the Laura Spelman Rocker eller Memorial, 1922-1929." Minerva, 19:347-407, Winter 1981.

VOLUME 39, NUMBER 4

•

<,ientists in it, often with important impacts on the >ocial sciences themselves but only incidentally to their major purpose. Hence, for example, Carnegie's support of the study of American race relations in Gunnar Myrdal's An American Dilemma (1944) and its initiation of the Russian Research Center at Harvard in the postwar period. When Ford came on the scene, at the turn of the 1950s, it was committed very broadly to the advancement of human welfare; the study group that set its program recommended that "improved scientific knowledge of individual behav­ior in human relations" was one principal way it should lI'Y to do so. A behavioral science program was estab­lished in 1951 that was looked to with hopeful ex­citement across the country-the label "behavioral sciences" was chosen because it could clearly embrace psychology and because it was thought to suggest a more firmly scientific approach than "social sciences" did. This program had a troubled career, however, and was terminated in 1957. Why this should have happened is a matter of some personal interest to me, and a little account of this bit of Foundation history may be helpful in understanding why foundations have not been more active in support of the basic social sciences.

The Ford Foundation's behavioral sciences program

There have always seemed to be ambivalences in American attitudes towards the social sciences and they were particularly marked at the time the Ford Foundation appeared on the scene with a new program for the 1950s. There was on the one side a surging optimism about America's strength and power. The contributions of science and technology to American strength were appreciated with new enthusiasm and some of this enthusiasm extended to the social sci­ences. The study committee report that laid out the new program for the Ford Foundation was only one among many examples at that time of faith being expressed in the necessary place of these subjects in a hopeful human future. But there were critics and suspicious doubters too, both within and outside the Foundation. The congressional hearings on the Na­tional Science Foundation in the 1940s showed some of these; others appeared in the Cox and Reece in­vestigations of foundations in 1952 and 1954. There was on the one hand the suspicion that the social and behavioral sciences could not be divorced from ideol­ogy or advocacy and as such made false or misleading claims to the status of objective sciences. Social scien-

DECEMBER 1985

tists were in particular thought to have liberal or leftish biases and in the tremulous anxieties over na­tionalloyalty that marked the time, they were thought by many to be "socialistic" or worse. There was also the doubt that these were or could be successful sci­ences, that their discoveries were few while they pon­tificated on the obvious, or obscured the familiar in clouds of jargon. Views of these sorts had their repre­sentation within the Foundation. The first president, Paul Hoffman, and his principal associate, Robert Maynard Hutchins, had little faith that the behavioral science program they were charged to develop would be fruitful. They thought the record discouraging and they were glad to turn over to Rowan Gaither -who had recommended the program in the first place-the responsibility for developing it. Gaither undertook to do so, first as an associate director and then as president of the Foundation. But the trustees were not happy with the program and it lasted only a few months after Gaither resigned the presidency in 1956 (to become chairman of the board). Basically, the demise of the program seems to have been due to the difficulties of making a program that had long­term academic and intellectual aims intelligible and credible to laymen. Ultimate lay control of any scien­tific or intellectually specialized endeavor always in­volves a delicate mediation between faith and au­thority, and the belated public support of scientific research in the United States suggests that it may have been particularly difficult in this country to or­ganize ourselves for such endeavors. The very self­reliant individualism in which we have prided our­selves has made us reluctant to surrender to the au­thority of experts, and such surrender has been par­ticularly difficult in matters that touch our intimate lives or seem to lie within the realms of practical judgment and experience. It has often been argued that the paroxysms of concern over national loyalty which marked the 1950s came from diffuse anxieties over changes that were diminishing Americans' con­fidence of being able to control their own existences with what they had learned at their fathers' and mothers' knees. I believe there is something in this argument. With the decline of traditional beliefs, we have all become more dependent in our individual lives and our society for guidance from the "best, up-to-date knowledge." Such dependence on knowl­edge possessed by specialists provokes resistances even in matters such as health, where we have had much more tolerance for unintelligible Latinities than we have had for the jargon of social scientists. While there was more widespread confidence in the 1950s than later that an objective, value-free social or be-

59

havioral science was a real possibility, the atmosphere had turbulence and instabilities from the sources I have been describing. They had their effects on Ford's behavioral science program, which was also handicapped by such organizational factors as the policy of requiring direct trustee approval of most grants; this policy meant that social science research projects had to be presented directly to a lay board. This procedure gave maximal opportunities for doubts and questionings that did not arise in some other foundation programs which were in fact sup­porting a great deal of social science research but which did not have to explain its substance to the trustees.

Declining Ford support for the social sciences

After the behavioral science program was aban­doned in 1957, no comparable program was revived by the Ford Foundation nor has any other of the large foundations come along to replace it. The Ford Foundation in fact continued to be a major supporter of the social sciences, and of social science research in particular, for many years thereafter. It did so di­rectly in economics throughout the 1960s. But the greater part of the support came indirectly, through massive support of universities and colleges, through fellowship programs for graduate students, and through its international programs. To determine how much of the $349 million the Ford Foundation provided in challenge grants to 84 colleges and uni­versities between 1960 and 1970 went to building up the social sciences would be a difficult investigation that no one has attempted, but the amounts were certainly substantial. Likewise, some historian of the social sciences in this country may want to know how many of the Woodrow Wilson fellowships went to budding social scientists or how much of the $41.5 million for graduate education given to 10 major uni­versities between 1967 and 1972 went to social scien­tists. I recall these programs not to celebrate what the Ford Foundation has done but to underscore a very important change that has occurred since the 1960s. After that decade, the broad support of major re­search universities that had been a part of Ford's programs fell away almost completely, and with this decline and fall a major source of foundation support for the social sciences passed away.

Ford support for international studies

A similar decline came about following the termi­nation of the International Training and Research

60

Program in 1967. This nrogram had been far and away the largest private f;)UrCe of support for the development of area studies and other types of inter­national studies in the American universities, with commitments of about $270 million by 1967. The great bulk of these funds went to support training and research in the social sciences and humanities. There was a bias toward emphasizing the social sci­ences over the humanities and the contemporary scene over the past, and it would certainly not be wrong to claim that more than half of these funds went to the social sciences.

Support for international studies continued during the 1970s, though at a lower level and with a rather substantial shift in character. It was the Ford Foun­dation's practice for many years to distinguish "inter­national studies" from "international affairs," the former being mostly concerned with the academic study of world areas, the latter more with policy analysis and other approaches to dealing with U.S. foreign policy and world problems in security, inter­national economics, and other fields. The adjacent table shows the very marked shift in the balance be­tween these types of support from 1965 through 1981. Note that 1965 was almost the peak year for international studies--support slightly increased in the next year, but the decline was then sharp and rapid with occasional revivals through special programs or terminal endowments that were made to preserve something for the future. International affairs in­cludes many activities that are academic in base and character and many that are not. It leans heavily on the social sciences but characteristically in their appli­cation to problems of security, international organi­zation, regional questions, or economic problems. Whatever the relative merits of these types of activity may be for the service of the public good, it seems probable that international studies have been more closely and generally related to the academic social sciences than the policy studies of international affairs have been. Thus, while the Ford totals for these types of support show an interesting constancy through the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s, the strong shift toward international affairs suggests a shift toward the more applied or specialized social sciences.

Two general observations arise immediately from an examination of the adjacent table. One is the very steep decline in the Ford Foundation's overall ex­penditures from the heights of the mid-1960s to the low levels in the latter half of the 1970s, with some recovery in the 1980s. The decline would be much more dramatic in constant dollars. Similar declines appeared in other foundations. Nearly all of the

VOLUME 39. NUMBER 4

Ford Foundation Commitments and Expenditures, 1965-84 (in millions of dollars)

International Total International Relations and Ford Foundation

Studies World Problems Total Expenditures·

1965 46.6 4.7 51.3 299.5 1966 47.2 4.4 51.6 362.2 1967 26.0 3.4 29.4 262.6 1968 6.6 4.2 10.8 210.2 1969 6.6 5.0 11.6 238.0

1970 13.2 5.2 18.4 236.8 1971 9.4 4.2 13.6 225.1 1972 11.6 2.9 14.5 218.5 1973 8.9 6.3 15.2 237.0 1974 9.6 7.4 17.0 251.6

1975 7.4 4.4 11.8 204.6 1976 5.9 8.0 13.9 159.4 1977 2.6 8.0 10.6 124.0 1978 4.6 7.8 12.4 129.9 1979 2.2 10.2 12.4 107.8

1980 3.7 8.0 11.7 114.1 198 1 2.5 9.9 12.4 122.4 1982 12.3 135.8 1983 10.4 127.9 1984 24.3 167.0

• Total expenditures as here summarized include program activities and program and general management COSLS, but not the costs of raising income or the federal excise lax. Such was the practice in public reponing of expenditures lO 1980; subsequent to that year, the reponing praClice changed and the figures have been adjusted accordingly. Since the reorganization of programs aflcr 198 1. international studies have been included in the totals for international relations.

Souru: Ford Foundation published and unpublished rcpons.

major foundations were damaged in their strength by the combination of inflation and adverse capital markets through the 1970s and early 1980s. Despite the fact that overall foundation philanthropy has grown in nominal terms in recent years, reaching some $3.6 billion in 1983, one must observe with melancholy a decline in the relative weight of foun­dations in meeting American needs. The Ford Foun­dation did not reduce the fraction of its total com­mitments to international matters. There was, how­ever, the sharp decline in "international studies" which was only partially compensated by fresh commitments of other foundations such as Mellon and Hewlett to these subjects. The funds the Ford Foundation put into the development of area studies programs in American universities in the 1960s con­tributed, along with federal funds under the National Defense Education Act of 1958, to what a recent report of the Association of American Univers;ties called "the creation of a network of institutions un­matched anywhere in the world , a national resource

DECEMBER 1985

whose loss would immensely impoverish the capacity of our democratic society and our government to understand the complex, interrelated world in which we live."4 With reduced foundation funding, the in­dispensability of federal funding for these institu­tions, now through Title VI of the Higher Education Act, is evident if they are to be preserved. The re­duced resources of Ford and other foundations in real terms means that these and other great invest­ments of the 1960s could hardly be repeated even if there were a strong disposition to renew them. A major new thrust in priv~te foundation support of area studies seems unlikely in the near future in any case. The disposition that the table shows for Ford to favor policy and other studies in international af­fairs is one that is paralleled in other foundations, as

4 Richard O. Lambert el a l. Beyond Growth: The Next Stage in Area and Language Studies. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Universities. 1984, page 9.

61

we see in the recent commitments of MacArthur, Carnegie, Rockefeller, and others in international­peace and security studies. We all have welcomed this upsurge of interest in the awesome security problems of the nuclear age, and the many fresh challenges to the social sciences they present, but we must re­member that they draw on at least as much as they nurture the disciplinary resources themselves.

The internationalization of the social sciences

One further aspect of foundation interest in inter­national matters remains to be nOled. A grt!'al inter­nationalization of the social sciences has occurred during recent decades, both in the range of American interests and in the growth of professional social sci­ence communities around the world. Assistance to the developing countries has required the growth of competences in the social sciences and this has been a particular interest of foundations. I am most familiar with what the Ford Foundation has done, but there have been major contributions by others, notably the Rockefeller Foundation through its Education for Development and other programs. The conception that indigenous competences in the social sciences are indispensable to developing countries has weathered many changes and disillusionments in development strategy. It is hardly conceivable that modern nations can cope with their national and international prob­lems without professional economists and other social scientists, and it is one of the more striking features of Ford Foundation policy in the 1970s that the building of such competences persisted vigorously through the painful budget reductions that had to be made during that decade. The great training resources of the American universities have been indispensable to this effort and a large fraction of the world's social science leadership has now had American training. I believe these relationships have intellectual importance as well as the evident value they have for the interna­tional relations of the United States. They help keep our social scientists from parochialism and they di­rect attention to large bodies of subject matter that have been threatened with neglect as the United States has become more preoccupied with its own problems and fewer Americans have been engaged in technical assistance. As I was preparing my remarks for this occasion, I happened to read a review by the great biological scientist, Max Perutz, of a book on the future of science. I was happy to find him criticizing the author for seeking "the future as a collection of technological fixes in the United States, but not [con-

62

sideringl how science might be used to eliminate pov­erty, ignorance and disease in the rest of the world. This surely is our greatest challenge.'" We have a tendency to neglect this challenge unless our atten­tion is forced by African famirie or by fears of inva­sion by destitute masses. We must not do so, and if experience with aid programs has taught us anything, it is that the problems of development are more diffi­cult than we thought and are not to be mastered without better research and analysis than we have thus far brought to them.

The social sciences, by their very nature, are and ought to be international enterprises, and it is very much in the interest of this country to sustain the resources which makes us attractive to both students and mature social scientists from abroad and that assure our capacities to work with them. I am proud and happy that the Social Science Research Council has an important role in these relationships, which it plans to sustain as well as its resources permit. But I have some serious disquiets over the decline in recent years of resources from the foundations and elsewhere, resources that make possible the graduate training of foreign social scientists here and that en­able our own social scientists to travel and engage in cooperative research abroad.

I must turn from these international aspects of American social science, important as they are, to a broader concern with the state of the social sciences and their needs.

Skepticism about the social sciences

There has undoubtedly been a weakening of faith in the capacities of the social sciences to guide us reliably toward solutions of society'S problems. The social sciences are not unique or special victims of contemporary skepticism. The questionings and mis­trust that have appeared in American society since the 1960s have reduced faith in government and in most of our other institutions. The sciences generally have not escaped questioning of their beneficence, and sometimes have had to face downright hostility. While we have nostalgia for the more trusting and optimistic America of the past, we cannot deplore the growth of the more critical and discriminating assessments amid which we now live. I believe that abundant contention

~ Review of Gerald Feinberg, "Solid Clues: QuanlUITI Physics, Molecular Biology and the FUlure of Science." NtuJ York Review oj Books, September 6, 1985, page 17.

VOLUME 39, NUMBER 4

is an inseparable consequence of that fundamental tendency of modern societies which the great German sociologist, Max Weber, called the process of ration­alization. As this process goes on, our governing in­stitutions come under more and more pressure to plan and justify actions as objectively and rationally as possible. I was impressed to read recently that $ I 22 billion or about one-fifth of the total federal budget obligations in fiscal 1979 was committed through statistical formulas, and that some 57 per cent of all budget expenditures in 1981 was indexed directly or indirectly to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and other indices, whereas in 1966 only two per cent of the budget was automatically indexed· Our relian",: on statistics and the research on which they are based grows awesomely, and will not be reversed whatever the criticisms over them that abound. In our private lives, magazines, newspapers, and even television tell us about the latest research findings · on how we should run our businesses, our families, and our­selves. We complain about the prevalence of these social and behavioral guides, just as we grumble about doctors, but we eagerly submit to them.

In such circumstances, one might suppose that there would be more anxious concern over the state of the social and behavioral sciences than in fact there seems to be. At the outset, I briefly described the decline of foundation attention to the basic social and behavioral sciences. There are a few bright spots, in the Sloan Foundation's attention to economics and in the Russell Sage Foundation's programs, but I am sure others will speak of these and I need not dwell on them. Newer foundations have brought important stimuli, as the MacArthur Foundation has done for international security and environmental studies, but there has been no evidence of a new general interest in the basic disciplines as such. Nor does one readily foresee a shift of policy in the older foundations in this direction.

Confusion in the disciplines

There is certainly no dearth of questions and con­cerns about the state of the behavioral and social sciences that need to be addressed. The growth of the fields and the professional communities in them has been enormous in the past generation and has brought such dizzying change that the journals bur-

8 James Bonnen. "Federal Statistical Coordination Today: A Disaster or a Disgrace?" The American Statistician, 37(3): 179-192, August 1983. See page 184 for references to the relevant sources.

DECEMBER 1985

geon with efforts to say what the fields now are. Clifford Geertz has recently tried to tell what the field of anthropology has become since the old days when it was comfortable as a holding company for physical anthropology, linguistics, archeology, and social and cultural anthropology. The old boundaries have burst

. at many points, the old objects of study in tribes and exotic communities have dissolved into the provinces that now belong to other disciplines, and a distinctive methodology becomes an uncertain refuge. With characteristic adroitness, Geertz eludes despair by ob­serving that anthropologists, whatever they are, still win the attention and esteem of wider intellectual communities,7 but he leaves much for others to dis­pute about his field.

Evidence of similar disquiets in sociology caught public attention recently in the rejection of a pro­posed tenure appointment at Harvard on the grounds that it would not serve the core of the disci­pline. Struggles over the accommodation of new tal­ents, new subjects, and new methods can certainly be viewed as signs of healthy growth. They are nonetheless perturbing and provoke conflicts that many have found dispiriting. The immense variety of activities that attempt to be important and authoritat­ive inevitably requires a sorting and evaluation in any field that aspires to the name of a discipline. The social and behavioral sciences, no less than others, must have agreed-upon standards of reliable knowl­edge and of what is important. The struggle to main­tain these standards without throttling variety and innovation is perennial and must be the responsibility of leaders in the discipline. It is not a process that can be legislated or controlled by outsiders. Beyond an uncertain minimum, the effects of money are proba­bly secondary. But the lack of money for devel­opments that look to be important for a discipline can seriously reduce the flexibility and geniality that ought to prevail as the leaders of disciplines balance contending standards and claims. The present dearth of foundation attention to matters that are important to the disciplines and not merely to their uses cer­tainly increases the importance of the federal gov­ernment's support of these fields through the Na­tional Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and other agencies. Kenneth Prewitt fre­quently emphasized, during his years as president of the Social Science Research Council, the importance of what he called "the national staff to the social sciences," which worries about the state and needs of

'TiffU!' Literary Supplement, June 7, 1985, pages 623-624.

63

the disciplines.· One of the losses from the decline of general foundation concern with these fields has been a diminution in the small band of people and organi­zations which has fulfilled this function.

Prospects for future foundation support

Looking to the future, there may be some glim­merings of hope that the foundations may be moved toward a broader concern for these fields. I often think we have been passing through a time reminis­cent of the Romantic Revolt at the beginning of the 19th century. There came in the turbulence of the late 1960s and early 1970s a passion for direct experi­ence and a reaction against rational deliberation that was like the Romantic turn against the grand visions of the Enlightenment. We still feel the force of this tide and I see in the programs of foundations more taste for action programs and a complementary distaste for "studies for the shelf' than was charac­teristic a couple of decades ago. There has even been a decline in enthusiasm for policy studies that has strengthened the taste for action and demonstration programs. But tides that rise also fall, and we will undoubtedly think differently in years to come. What our next hopes and enthusiasms may be can only be dimly discerned, but there is reason to think that foundations may again embrace the social and be­havioral sciences more warmly. Some of the disillu­sionment with these subjects that came along in the last decade and a half was a result of overconfidence. There was a naive positivism that marked much of what we did, domestically and internationally, in the years after World War II. We knew better than to believe that right knowledge would suffice for dealing with human problems. The then president of the Social Science Research Council told a congressional committee in 1954 that "the social sciences provide no complete answers to any practical problem.'" But in

8 See, for example, his "Annual Report of the President," Social Scie.~ce Research Council, 1984-85 AnnUld Report, pages xxv­XXVII.

S Pendleton Herring. Statement prepared for the Reece Com­mittee, June 15. 1954; Supplementary Statement B. page 8.

64

the heady self-confidence that marked the American ascendancy after World War II, we tended to forget such cautions. Now, in a more chastened mood, there is a prospect that we may be ready to tip the balance away from ready solutions and pursue deeper under­standing. One sees much evidence of this tendency in the more amicable relationship between the social sciences and the humanities that now prevails. This rapprochement seems to come, in part at least, from a renewed sense of the manifold diversity of human experience and the need to recognize its concreteness and complexity without abandoning the order of theory and generalization. Whether we are trying to know what to make of a militant Islam or of changes in family life in this country, there is an enlivened ap­preciation that we must understand a great deal about things we can do little about if we are to select sensible courses of action. The studies which envelop sensible courses of action must come from people trained in the ways of objective, disinterested knowledge. Cer­tainly not all of them will be professional social and behavioral scientists, but nearly all will have had their views touched by them.

In such a future, it is reasonable to expect more vigorous and comprehensive attention by the foun­dations to the social and behavioral sciences. The diminished strengths of the foundations vis-a-vis gov­ernment and indeed many other parts of our society mean that the foundations are not likely ever again to assume the prominence they had a few decades ago. The role of governmental support-particularly from the federal government, but also from the state gov­ernments through their support of universities and research activities-must be of critical importance in the future. On the other hand, the diminished scale of the foundations provides attractions for them to play intellectual and innovative roles. Foundations are not likely to abandon their efforts to foster ex­periments and innovations. But the reach of new knowledge and ideas and the need for varied sources of support to those who produce them have lasting attractions that one dares hope will grow in the future to the benefit of both the social sciences and society. 0

VOLUME 39, NUMBER 4

r

Giftedness in the Visual Arts

PSYCHOLOGISTS HAVE LONG CONCERNED THEMSELVES

with the study of exceptional ability, as is reflected by the longstanding interest in intelligence and intelli­gence testing (Binet & Simon 1908; Galton 1883; Spearman 1923; Sternberg 1977). The abilities mea­sured by intelligence tests usually fall into two categories: verbal and logical-mathematical. We do not have well-work ed-out stamidrdized tests of ability in other domains, such as interpersonal understand­ing, athletics, or the arts (Gardner 1983). Reasons for this lack are not difficult to find. To begin with, re­flecting the common Western prejudice, psycholo­gists have classified verbal and logical-mathematical skills as the preeminent cognitive abilities, and hence as the ones most worth investigating. Second, it is more difficult to devise standardized tests in areas as slippery to define as interpersonal knowledge or the arts.

Recently, however, psychologists have begun to explore development-both ordinary and excep­tional-in such nontraditional domains of compe­tence (cf. Feldman 1980; Gardner 1983). The Coun­cil's Committee on Development, Giftedness, and the Learning Process was formed in part to ex­plore the nature of exceptional abilities in a wide variety of domains, ranging from music, to moral knowledge, to the visual arts (Gardner & Dudai 1985). The structure and development of giftedness in the visual arts, one of the areas that the committee has explored, constituted the theme of a workshop held at the Harvard Graduate School of Education on January 4-6, 1985. (For a list of participants, see the adjacent box.)

Three issues dominated the discussion: (I) the components of visual giftedness in the adult artist; (2) the signs of visual giftedness in early childhood; and (3) the role of social factors, such as teachers, family,

* Ellen Winner is a developmental psychologist at Boston Col­lege; she is also a research associate at Project Zero, Harvard University. David Pariser is an art educator who teaches in the Faculty of Fine Ans at Concordia University in Montreal. They were the organizers of the Council workshop upon which this repon is based. Winner's work was supported by the Spencer Foundation. Pariser's research while on sabbatical leave was sup­ported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The order of the aUlhorship of this anicle was dete·r­mined by the toss of a coin.

DECEMBER 1985

by Ellen Winner and David Pmiser*

and the community, in the development of visual giftedness. In what follows, we highlight some of the major conclusions reached on each of these issues and end with a brief discussion of some unresolved issues meriting further investigation.

The components of giftedness in visual art

The attempt to specify the components of gifted­ness in visual art is problematic. While we all possess a tacit conception of what is meant by such giftedness, it is difficult to reach an explicit consensus about these criteria. A domain in which there exists a single, un­equivocal criterion (such as high jumping) submits more readily to scientific categorization. To compli­cate matters further, the term "gifted" reflects values which are an invisible part of our social fabric. Our

Workshop Participants

The panicipams in the workshop on giftedness in the visual arts were Howard S. Becker, Northwestern Univer­sity; George Bogardi, anist and art educator, Laval Univer­sity (Quebec); Margaret C. Clark, an educator, Project Zero, Harvard University; AI Hurwitz, an educator, The Maryland Institute, College of Art (Baltimore); Nathan KnobleI', anist and art educator, Philadelphia College of An (Philadelphia); Diana Korzenik, art educator, Massa­chusetts College of An (Boston); Walter E. Meinelt, an educator, Masconomet Regional High School (Topsfield, Massachusetts); Marilyn R. Pappas, artist and art educator, Massachusetts College of Art (Boston); Christophel- Pratt, artist, Ml. Carmel, Sl. Mary's Bay (Newfoundland); William T. Reiman, artist and an educator, Harvard University; Brent Wilson, art educator, Pennsylvania State University; Joachim F.Wohlwill, psychologist, Pennsylvania State Uni­versity; Dennie P. Wolf, psychologist, Project Zero, Harvard University; anu Crystal Woodwal-d, art educator, Vauclmf" (France). The members of the Council's Committee on De­velopment, Giftedness, and the Learning Process are David H. Feldman, Tufts University, chair; Jeanne Bamberger, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, University of Chicago; Yadin Dudai, The Weizmann I nstiLUte of Science (Rehovet); Howard Gard­ner, Veterans Administration Medical Center (Boston); Howard E. Gruber, University of Geneva; and Helen Weinreich-Haste, University of Bath. Lonnie R. Sherrod serves as staff.

65

conception of giftedness in any domain must be un­derstood as rooted in its particular 20th century, Western setting.

With this in mind, workshop members proposed two basic components of visual giftedness: cognitive and perceptual skills; and personality and motiva­tional attributes. These components may be neither necessary nor sufficient for giftedness; nor need they all co-occur in one individual. Instead, they were pro­posed as characteristic of giftedness in the visual arts-particularly in the subfield of painting and drawing.

Cognitive and perceptual factors _ There was general agreement that the most striking component of gif­tedness in visual artistry is virtuosity in graphic representation-the capacity to render the visual world accurately. The gifted artist is also able to in­vent novel, unexpected images. Visual problems are solved in new ways and new problems are proposed as subjects for visual exploration. As with virtuosity in rendering, this component coincides with common­sensical ideas about the components of creativity. Of course, it should be remembered that the high value placed on novelty by the Western artistic tradition is a relatively recent development--<>ne not shared by most other artistic traditions.

Not surprisingly, many visual artists report that they organize their experiences in visual terms, be­come extremely involved in the arrangement of their visual environment, and possess extraordinary visual memories. The artists present at the workshop re­called that they had excelled at any school subject with a visual component, such as biology, for example. They also reported vivid visual memories of the many rooms in which they had lived since childhood.

Personality and motivational factors. Personality and motivational factors may be as important to visual giftedness as cognitive- perceptual ones. Artists often need to display perseverance and toughness in order to achieve recognition. Such determination is neces­sary in a domain which is not highly valued or sup­ported by the mainstream of our society. The artists reported that they were possessed by a strong drive to make art, and could conceive of no other vocation for themselves.

Perseverance and drive are of course only possible if one has the energy for sustained and concentrated work. Most visual artists do seem to have high levels of energy. For instance, Pappas reported that she per­sisted in making art through births, marital separa­tion, and deaths. Pratt commented that he actually welcomed the drugdery of the academic training he received in art school. He simply enjoyed "sweating it

66

out," even though he felt that he learned nothing new from the academic exercises.

Artists display tenacity in going their own way de­spite constant messages from our society that the arts are a peripheral activity. Such firm belief in oneself is necessary if one is to succeed in a domain as uncon­ventional as the arts. Sometimes self-confidence is a great advantage, sustaining the person through many years of hardship and anonymity. The same trait may also be a tragic flaw--<>ne which renders the artist oblivious to potentially constructive criticism.

Such self-confidence may be characteristic only of artists in Weslern <..:ultures, where individuality is highly valued. Moreover, in the 20th century, there is a sharp separation between the art world (whose acclaim artists seek) and the rest of the population (whose acclaim artists are indifferent to or may even reject). Most contemporary artists do not expect a popular audience.

Finally, artists seek and enjoy the tension of chal­lenge. They are problem finders rather than problem solvers. Like other kinds of individuals who have reached a high level of achievement in their fields (e.g., surgeons, rock climbers), artists report "flow" experiences (Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi 1976). They often work at a level of challenge located strategically between boredom and anxiety and many sustain their intense involvement in work by creating obstacles or by inventing limitations. The artist Will em de Koon­ing, for instance, deliberately chose to use cheap, long-handled brushes which responded erratically to the canvas. It was precisely this quality of lack of control to which he was attracted.

Development of giftedness in the visual arts

After considering the major components of gifted­ness in the visual arts, participants turned to the issue of the development of such giftedness in childhood. Two developmental issues were debated: What (if any) are the early signs of talent in the visual arts? Does artistic ahility decline with age in the gifted child, as some psychologists claim occurs with the average child?

Early signs. While numerous tests have been devel­oped to identify children who are gifted in the visual arts, most participants agreed that such tests are un­necessary. Teachers feel that they can intuitively identify gifted children. Surprisingly, this kind of ready identification seems to be possible even during the preschool years.

According to the developmental psychologists at

VOLUME 39, NUMBER 4

•

the workshop, giftedness in the visual arts can be detected long before the child shows any ability to draw representationally. One early sign of visual gif­tedness, for instance, is an interest in visual patterns. Visually gifted children notice accidental forms, shadows, blots, etc., and engage in a sustained explo­ration of these visually interesting patterns. They also create their own visual patterns, deriving deep satis­faction from the careful and focused exploration of linear forms.

A second sign of precocious visual skill in very young children is the tendency to note visual similarities between objects not normally considered similar. Wolf described one visually gifted child who called a wire wisk with a stick through it "a crane"; shoes lined up in a box are called "peas"; and ocean waves with ear-like prominences, "bunnies."

Both the psychologists and the art educators felt that once children reach the age of four or five, skill in accurate graphic representation becomes the most reliable sign of incipient talent. Children who are able to render the visible world realistically on paper, or who are able to copy styles seen in adult art works, possess precocious skill in the visual arts. Such vir­tuosity is recognized by young children as a gift worth having: the "class artist" is often the child who can draw in a highly realistic fashion. However, not all children who show such skill in drawing become art­ists as adults; nor do all adult artists begin as child virtuosi. For instance, there is some debate as to whether Paul Klee's juvenalia is truly exceptional. Vincent van Gogh showed no special drawing ability until his mid-twenties.

The art educators present claimed that gifted chil­dren, much like adult artists, spend endless amounts of time drawing. These children turn to visual activity as an alternative to playing with peers. They often explore a single graphic theme, such as line, pattern, the human figure, or narrative depictions of motion and events.

Some of the art educators present stressed the im­portance of the experience of failure in the develop­ment of gifted artists. More often than not, such fail­ure is academic. Those most likely to continue in the visual arts seem to be those who have failed to achieve success in some or all traditional academic areas. In contrast, those who excel in both artistic and academic domains are likely to give up the former for the latter.

While the above mentioned proclivities were felt to be among the earliest indicators of giftedness, several caveats were issued. First, the signs that predict later artistry may differ for men and women. As Csiks­zentmihalyi pointed out, men who choose the arts

DECEMBER 1985

as a profession either achieve success fairly soon or change careers. Women, however, tend to drop out of the art world, have children, and then later find their way back. Hence, the characteristics of men in our society who successfully pursue careers in the arts may be quite different from those of women.

A second caveat was that early visual giftedness and an interest in drawing do not necessarily manifest themselves in drawing activity later on. For example, Wolf described a child who when young drew con­stantly and was fascinated by line. Although this child gave up drawing for writing at adolescence, her writ­ten work was filled with powerful visual descriptions. Thus, early proclivity for the visual arts may not pre­dict continuing involvement in the visual arts but may manifest itself in some genotypically (but not phenotypically) similar form-for instance, a literary style which highlights visual experience.

A third caveat is that visual giftedness may never manifest itself in drawing at all. Wolf described a child who was visually inclined, yet who never com­mitted himself to paper. The evidence that this child possessed an unusual visual gift was that he persis­tently noticed visual resemblances and he possessed an extraordinary visual memory. He could find a toy without searching for it, because he always remem­bered where he had last seen it. And perhaps because of his intense aesthetic reaction to the visual world, he insisted that his environment be neat and ordered, rather than haphazardly arrayed.

These caveats remind us not to define visual gif­tedness too narrowly. Such a gift may manifest itself in domains other than the arts, such as the sciences, where pattern recognition and fine visual discrimi­nations are important, or domains such as literary expression, where visual descriptions may play an important role. In brief, we must distinguish between visual gifts, which may take the child in several possi­ble directions, and skill as a visual artist, which may build upon some of the same abilities that lead as well to an interest in science, engineering, architecture, writing, etc.

Does artistic activity decline with age? A decline in the quality and quantity of drawings has been observed among ordinary children in the later childhood years (Gardner 1980; Winner 1982; Winner & Gardner 1981). Older children draw with less frequency, in­tensity, and involvement than their younger counter­parts. Moreover, with age, drawings become increas­ingly stereotyped and predictable, and less expressive and spontaneous. The average child never resumes drawing with any frequency after the early elemen­tary school years.

67

There is some evidence that a similar decline occurs in gifted children. The art teachers at the workshop cited several examples of gifted children who simply stopped drawing at about the age of 12. Pariser noted that both Toulouse-Lautrec and Klee passed through a stage during which their drawings displayed neither the spontaneity and expressive life of those produced in early childhood nor the accomplished control of those produced in late adolescence.

Authorities dispute the independent validity of this apparent decline, which may be an artifact of the current value placed on expressionist characteristics. In a culture in which accul'acy, care in execution, and conformity are valued, a decline may simply not be observed.

Even where a decline occurs, it is not at all clear whether it is due to schooling (formal or informal) or to inherent developmental factors. There is some evi­dence that schooling has a negative effect on visual giftedness. Hurwitz spoke about a child who drew exceptionally well at age three. He continued to draw with great intensity, but only outside of school. Once he began to enroll in art classes (at age nine), he began to make drawings that were much more conventional and less interesting than those he produced at home. The Wilsons' have observed that children's most in­teresting drawings are often done outside of school. Similarly, Bogardi noted that many of his art students either did not take art in high school or took art classes but did not do well.

Social factors: the role of teachers, family, and community

The final issue discussed was the role of social fac­tors in the development of giftedness in the visual arts. The central question concerned the role of teachers. Surprisingly, the artists present felt that the encouragement which they had received from their first teachers was far more important than any special instruction given by these teachers. In fact, most felt that they had received little in the way of skill cultiva­tion from their teachers. However, all had, at some early point, been singled out by a teacher for their special aptitude in the visual arts. This "tapping" served as a critically important crystallizing experi­ence in their self-recognition as artists.

Further evidence of the important role of early encouragement comes from the biographies of Picasso, Klee, and Toulouse-Lautrec. The first teachers of these artists functioned not only as in­structors but also as supporters. This pattern is con­sistent with Bloom's (1982) findings that the first

68

teachers of both world-class swimmers and piano players tend to be friendly and encouraging individu­als rather than outstanding practitioners. Such teachers are recalled by their pupils as empathetic and supportive rather than as particularly proficient in their field.

Factors meriting investigation

One methodological issue concerns the nature of the sample of "artists" to be studied. If one wants to understand visual giftedness, the pool of artists to be studied should include recognized artists as well as those who have ability but are less well known. Fame should not be the only criterion for entrance into the subject pool; we must develop less arbitrary and su­perficial criteria. Also of interest are individuals who show all of the traits of visual giftedness in their youth but then go on to other careers.

A second sampling issue concerns the subfield of artists to be studied. I t would be useful to look closely at the sorts of traits possessed by other kinds of visual artists besides painters (e.g., sculptors, weavers, ceramicists, photographers). It would not be surpris­ing to find that sculptors are less likely to show early signs of drawing ability, just as painters may be less likely to show early signs of spatial ability. On the other hand, one might find that early skill in drawing is a trait found in children who become diverse sorts of visual artists as adults. Whether drawing is the preeminent artistic skill-the cornerstone on which all other visual activities is based-was an issue of interest to most workshop members.

Participants remained divided over whether special programs were desirable for the visually gifted. Some pointed out that special programs have as much chance of succeeding with ordinary students as with the gifted. Moreover, findings which facilitate the identification and education of artistically gifted chil­dren could be used to rationalize further cutbacks in arts offerings for normal children. Research into gif­tedness is an inherently value-laden enterprise, and researchers should guard against the use of their fIndings as justification for a further erosion of arts programs for average children. It is also possible that art programs are more important for the average than the gifted child: the average child can benefit from instruction while the gifted child may simply "take off' on his own.

The gifted individual is but a more extreme version of the average person. An understanding of unusual development in a domain can thus more sharply de-

VOLUME 39, NUMBER 4

•

fine normal development in that domain. Moreover, giftedness is important to understand in its own right, even if such study focuses on an elite. The goal of such a focus is not to rank individuals but to recog­nize, understand, and if possible aid those with artistic potential. 0

References

Binet, Alfred, and Theodore Simon. The Development of Intelligence in Young Children. New York: Arno Press, 1973. First published in 1908.

Bloom, Benjamin. "The Master Teachers." Phi Delta Kappan, June 1982, pages 664-666.

Feldman, David. Bt)'ond Uni1JPr.~als in Cognitive Development. Nor­wood, New Jersey: Ablex, 1980.

GallOn, Francis. Inquiries Into Human Faculty and Its Development. London: Cassell, 1952. First published in 1883.

Gardner, Howard. Artful Scribbles: The Signifzcance oj Children', Drawings. New York: Basic Books, 1980.

Gardner, Howard. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelli­gtnces. New York: Basic Books, 1983.

Gardner, Howard, and Yadin Dudai. "Biology and Giftedness." i lems, 39(112):1-6, June 1985.

Getzels, Jacob, and Mihaly Csikszemmihalyi. The Creative Vision: A Longitudinal Study of Problem Finding in Art. New York: Wiley, 1976.

Spearman, Charles E. The Nature of "int.llig"zc<" and lhe Principle oj Cognition. London: Macmillan, 1923.

Sternberg, Robert J. Intelligence, Information Processing, and Analogical Reasoning: The Componential Analysis of Human Abilities. New York: Halsted Press, 1977.

Winner, Ellen. Invented Worlds: The Ps)'chology oj the Arts. Cam· bridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Un iversity Press, 1982.

Winner, Ellen, and Howard Gardner. "First IntilllaLions of An· istry." In Sidney Strauss, editor, U-ShapedBehavioraIGrowth. New York: Academic Press, 1981.

Council Awards 23 MacArthur Foundation Fellowships in International Security

THE FIRST 23 AWARDS in the Council's competition for MacArthur Foundation Fellowships-totaling

1,400,000-were made in 1985 by the Committee on International Peace and Security Studies. Seven of these awards were made to advanced graduate stu­dents and 16 to scholars who already hold the doc­torate or have equivalent experience in research. A comparable number of awards is expected to be made in both 1986 and 1987.

This program is funded by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation as a part of the Foundation 's broad program in international secur­ity, which aims to strengthen the nation's intellectual resources to deal with these problems. The fellow­ships are awarded to researchers throughout the world who hold doctoral degrees in the social and behavioral sciences (including history and foreign area studies), the physical and biological sciences, or the humanities, or to graduate students in these fields who are in the final stages of their doctoral programs. Applications are encouraged from eligible citizens or residents of any nation, and are reviewed by scholarly committees that are interdisciplinary and interna­tional in composition. Approximately 450 applica­tions were received during 1985, the first year of the competition.

The program's working premise is that the term "international security" must be more broadly under-

DECEMBER 1985

stood in research as well as in public discourse. This does not mean detaching it from its present concep­tual base involving such matters as geopolitics, deter­rence, verification, weapons systems, detente, and proliferation. It does mean extending and broaden­ing the term beyond its present base, in the realization that international security in the contemporary world has slipped away from the limited set of concepts that have been used to study it.

Developing a comprehensive understanding of factors that contribute to the initiation, maintenance, and reduction of global conflict requires the integra­tion of knowledge and insights from diverse disci­plines in the physical and biological sciences, the so­cial and behavioral sciences, and the humanities. With this program, the Council and the MacArthur Foun­dation seek to encourage the expansion of the con­ceptual base of peace and security studies and to broaden the range of disciplines, perspectives, and methodologies that are employed in research.

MacArthur Foundation Fellowships in Interna­tional Security provide financial resources for re­searchers and advanced doctoral students who wish to obtain training in a field new to them and then con­duct interdisciplinary research which draws on their current specialty and their newly-acquired training. The program encourages researchers who have an interest in peace and security issues, but who previ-

69

I:

II

ously have not specialized in these topics, to redirect their careers by obtaining training in international security. It encourages researchers who previously specialized in peace and security studies to broaden their research concerns and expertise by receiving training in a discipline new to them. The completion or continuation of previous studies is not supported by this program. In awarding the fellowships, prefer­ence is given to proposals that bridge disciplinary barriers, integrate disparate points of view, apply new theories or new methods to old problems, or formu­late new questions concerning such topics as conflict and dispute resolution.

A fellowship provides at least two years of support: one year of training followed by one year of research. The award is intended to support an integrated training and research experience: the training year is designed by the fellow with the assumption that the research in the following year will incorporate this newly acquired knowledge. Foreign area specialists may apply for an extension of the "research year" (up to an additional 12 months).

Fellowships awarded in 1985

MARK A. BOYER, a Ph.D. candidate in political sci­ence at the University of Maryland, will study mi­croeconomic theory, public finance, and defense eco­nomics, and then examine the budgetary and cost­sharing implications of a switch by NATO to a more defensive military posture.

MARIO E. CARRANZA, a Ph.D. candidate at the Uni­versity of Chicago in political science, from Argen­tina, will study technical and political aspects of nu­clear nonproliferation and then analyze similarities and differences between the Brazilian and the Argentine nuclear development programs, taking particular account of the effects of economic austerity measures recommended by the International Mone­tary Fund and of the transition from military to civi­lian rule in Argentina.

ARTHUR A. CHARO, Harvard University, a chemist, will study nuclear strategy and the politics of U.S. national security policy to contribute to his research on the effectiveness of proposed defenses against such "air-breathing" strategic weapons as cruise missiles.

HELENA COBBAN, a freelance journalist who has written extensively on the Middle East, will receive training in U.S. and Soviet foreign policies in the Mid­dle East and then will investigate the relationships among Syria, Israel, and the superpowers, focusing

70

on developments since the signing of the U.S.­sponsored Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty in 1979.

MICHAEL W. DOYLE, The Johns Hopkins Univer­sity, a political scientist, will study political philosophy and the geostrategic applications of game theory to anal yze how different constitutional structures and procedures contribute to differences in the conduct of a nation's security and foreign policies.

LEV DUDKIN, formerly of Moscow State University, an economist who emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1985, plans to study defense economics and West­ern theories about links between defense spending and economic growth. He plans to evaluate the role of defense industries in Soviet economic and political development and the "tradeoffs" faced by the Soviet Union between military and consumer industries.

LYNN RACHELE EDEN, who recently received her doctorate in sociology from the University of Michi­gan, will study the technical and organizational as­pects of weapons research and development to en­hance her research on the underlying strategic as­sumptions of military planners.

DIETRICH MAX FISCHER, formerly of the Depart­ment of Economics, New York University, will study the defense and foreign policies of the superpowers and-making use of his background in mathematics, game theory, and computer modeling-undertake a re-examination of game theoretic models of super­power behavior.

BARRY E. FRIDLING, Brown University, a physicist, will receive training in the political and strategic di­mensions of international security and arms control and then conduct research in areas of security and arms control policy in which technology assessments are particularly important.

PETER H. GLEICK, University of California, Berk­eley, an environmental scientist, will study the roles that resources and agriculture play in the interna­tional behavior of the Soviet Union and the United States; he will then compare how the superpowers might respond in the future to threats to their eco­nomic and political security posed by possible climatic changes.

DONNA U. GREGORY, University of California, Los Angeles, a scholar of English literature, plans to study the evolution of strategic doctrine in the postwar pe­riod and then conduct an analysis of the language of deterrence, focusing in particular on the principal writings of several important strategic theorists and what they may reveal about patterns of thought and perception within the strategic community.

DOROTHY V. JONES, The Newberry Library (Chicago), an American diplomatic historian, will re-

VOLUME 39, NUMBER 4

i

.

•

ceive traInIng in moral philosophy, applied ethics, bioethics, and public policy, and then investigate ethi­cal frameworks for analyzing strategic decisions (and their alternatives) made during the 1950s.

NANCY G. KANWISHER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a cognitive psychologist, will study the history and current status of superpower relations and arms control and the process of making national security policy, in preparation for research on how cognitive mechanisms affect the ways policy makers perceive, remember, and judge events.

JAMES M. LINDSAY, a Ph.D. candidate in political science, Yale University, plans to study congressional decision making and policy analysis and conduct re­search on the weapons procurement process in the United States and the role of Congress in formulating policies concerning the U.S. nuclear posture.

RONNIE D. LIPSCHUTZ, a Ph.D. candidate in energy and resources, University of California, Berkeley, will study international relations theory and political economy and-making use of his specialization in nuclear physics and energy policy--examine the relationships among access to natural resources, na­tional energy policies, and international conflict.

CARL B. PILCHER, University of Hawaii , an as­tronomer, will study defense policy and international relations and then conduct research into issues sur­rounding the peaceful and military uses of technol­ogy In space.

SCOTT PLOUS, Stanford University,,,, psychologist, plans to study international security issues, focusing in particular on accidental and inadvertent wars, to inform his research on social biases in decision mak­ing and the "utility of illogic and irrationality" in nuclear doctrine.

GRECORY B. POLLOCK, a Ph.D. candidate in evolu­tionary biology and mathematical anthropology at the University of California, Irvine, will receive training in game theoretic models of cooperative behavior and learning in mammals and then conduct research on patterns of cooperation and conflict in biological communities.

ROBERT LOWELL POWELL, who recently received his doctorate in economics from the University of California, Berkeley, will study deterrence and theories about the causes of war and-<:ombining this knowledge with insights he has gained from modeling economic systems-<:onduct an investiga­tion into the factors that lead combatants to establish limits to their behavior during war.

PAUL R. PUDAITE, a Ph.D. candidate in mathematics at the University of Illinois, will receive training in political science and international relations and then

DECEM BER 1985

develop and apply a mathematical model of conflict to relations among nations.

J UNE CHANDRA SANTOSA, a Ph.D. candidate in the psychology of religion at Boston University, from In­donesia, will train in political science and the sociol­ogy of religion, and then conduct research into the relationships among modernization, the emergence of religious neotraditionalism, and regional instabil­ity, focusing on the case of Indonesia.

TERUMASA NAKANISHI, Mie University, an interna­tional relations specialist, will receive training in as­pects of anthropology and social psychology relevant to the study of "rationality" in deterrence relation­ships, and then conduct research on culturally­conditioned differences in perception and rational behavior, with special emphasis on differences be­tween Japan and other societies.

MARC TRACHTENBERG, University of Pennsylvania, a historian, plans to study military policy and strategy and then conduct an investigation of attempts by the nuclear powers to derive political leverage from their arsenals during crises and bargaining situations.

Selection personnel

The 1985 members of the Screening Committee were:

Stephen P. Cohen, University of Illinois * Michael W. Doyle, The Johns Hopkins University * Lynn Rachele Eden, Harvard University * Dietrich Max Fischer, New York University

Ole Hosti, Duke University Cynthia S. Kaplan, University of Chicago James Leutze, University of North Carolina George A. Lopez, Earlham College Leo Sartori, University of Nebraska William P. Snyder, Texas A & M University Stephen W. Van Evera, Harvard University

The 1985 members of the Selection Committee were:

Francis X. Sutton, Social Science Research Council, chair

McGeorge Bundy, New York University Ashton B. Carter, Harvard University Richard A. Falk, Princeton University John L. Gaddis, Ohio University Arnold L. Horelick, Rand/UCLA Center for the Study

of Soviet International Behavior

* These awardees were appointed to the commiuee after the first round of the competition.

71

Robert Jervis, Columbia University Robert W. Kates, Clark University Catherine McArdle Kelleher, University of Maryland Uwe Nerlich, Science and Politics Foundation

(Ebenhausen)

Robert O'Neill, International Institute for Strategic Studies (London)

Condoleezza Rice, Stanford University

Richard C. Rockwell and Richard H. Moss served as staff to the committees. 0

Council's Board Honors Kenneth Prewitt

THE COUNCIL'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS honored Ken­neth Prewitt, who had been president of the Council from March 1979 through September 1985, at a re­ception held atJapan House in New York on Decem­ber 6, 1985. At a Special Meeting of the board, held earlier that day, a resolution honoring Mr. Prewitt for his achievements during the six years of his presi­dency was unanimously passed. The resolution was signed by Hugh T. Patrick, Columbia University, chairman of the board; Francis X. Sutton, acting president of the Council; Charles O.Jones, University of Virginia, chairman of the Executive Committee; and Sidney Verba, Harvard University, chairman of the Committee on Problems and Policy. The text, which was read to the guests at the Japan House reception, is as follows:

THIS BOARD BELIEVES that Kenneth Prewitt brought to the presidenq of the Council, and amply demonstrated in office, a critical intelligence, a seriousness of purpose, bound· less energy, skillful diplomacy, intellectual audacity, and an astonishing capacity for peripheral vision.

72

THIS BOARD ALSO BELIEVES that as a direct conse­quence of his thoughtful creativity. careful planning, and a talent for on-the-spot improvisations , the Council's scientific stature, financial stability. and organizational infrastructure have all improved visibly during the six years of his Lenure.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this board of direc­tors conveys to Kenneth Prewitt its great admiration, its deepest gratitude, and its warmest good wishes for the future.

In response both to a tribute to him delivered by Mr. Verba and to the board resolution read by Mr. Patrick, Mr. Prewitt spoke about his six years at the Council, noting that whatever he had accomplished had been possible because of the wisdom and generosity of the Council's funders, the intelligence and dedication of the Council's staff, and the judg­ment and time contributed to the Council by what he (following John Maynard Keynes) called "scrib­blers"-the board members, committee members, and other productive social scientists whose ideas are essential to the life of the Council. 0

VOLUME 39, NUMBER 4

Current Activities at the Council

Research access

Cosponsored by the Council and the Smithsonian Institution (Washington, D.C.), a conference was held November 18-19, 1985, at the Smithsonian, to con­sider problems surrounding the issue of "research access." This term is used to define the extent to which researchers from one country have the freedom to study topics of their choice in another country. The participants were both university-based scholars and scholars at the Smithsonian in the natural and social sciences who have had extensive experience in carry­ing out research in Third World countries, as well as staff members of a variety of organizations with expe­rience in the administration of academic activities that cross national boundaries. A full report on the con­ference will be published in the March 1985 issue of Items.

The participants In the conference were: Robert MeG Adams, The Smithsonian Institution, cochair Kenneth Prewitl, The Rockefeller Foundation. cochair Benedict R. Anderson, Cornell University Peter Shaw AshLOn. Harvard University Bernard Barber, Columbia University Elinor Barber, Institute of International Education (New York) Richard H. Benson, The Smithsonian Institution Paul R. Brass, University of WashingLOn Mary Brown Bullock, Committee on Scholarly Communication

with the People's Republic of China (Washington, D.C.) David Challinor, The Smithsonian Institution William K. Cummings, National Science Foundation Gretchen Gayle Ellsworth, The Smithsonian Institution Robert A. Fernea, University of Texas John D. Gerhart, Ford Foundation Allen F. Isaacman, University of Minnesota Allen H. Kassof, International Research and Exchanges Board

(New York) Herbert S. Klein, Columbia University Richard D. Lambert, University of Pennsylvania Betty J. Meggers, The Smithsonian I nstiLution Rhoau!! Murphey, UniversilY of Michigan Ashis Nandy, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies

(New Delhi) John Paul, U.S. Department of Education Cassandra A. Pyle, Council for International Exchange of

Scholars (Washington, D.C.) John E. Reinhardt, The Smithsonian Institution Walter Rosenblith, National Academy of Sciences Robert Rosenzweig, Association of American Universities

(Washington, D.C.) Susanne H. Rudolph, University of Chicago Frederic E. Wakeman, Jr., University of California, Berkeley Christen M. Wemmer, The Smithsonian Institution

DECEMBER 1985

Council Initiates New Advanced Grants Program for

Research on U.S. Foreign Policy Making

With support from the Ford Foundation, the Council has initiated a program of research grants that will assist both postdoctoral and senior scholars undertake comparative research on the processes of U.S. foreign policy making. Priority in the competition will be given to proposal~ that. seek to extend research in this area beyond its conventional focus on the foreign policy and national security agencies of the U.S. federal executive and which incorporate comparisons of historical time, institutions, processes, 01' events, as well as of other countries. The grants permit-although do not require-fellows to acquire additional training (say, in a language or in a general body of literature in which they are not currently trained), insofar as it would contribute to the proposed research.

Awards will be for up to two years of full-time support and may be accepted in addition to other grants, awards, and fellowships. Research may commence as early as September 1986. There are no citizenship or residency requirements and the research need not be conducted in the United States.

For further information, write or call :

Robert W. Pearson Social Science Research Council 605 Third A venue New York, New York 10158 (212) 661-0280

Access to public data

The number of publicly-collected microdata files. has increased in the past several years, and their vari­ety and richness have grown. These files contain both survey responses and data collected for administra­tive purposes. Many files contain information about individuals and organizations and carry with them the promise that the anonymity of responses will be protected. It is becoming increasingly difficult, how­ever, to reconcile the public's interest in gll~ranteeing the absolute confidentiality of individual records with the public's equally legitimate interest in scientific in­qUIry.

I n order to provoke a systematic discussion (and perhaps, subsequent research) on the general problems that arise in this area, the Committee on the Survey of I ncome and Program Participation spon­sored a conference on "Access to Public Data" on November 21-22, 1985, in Washington, D.C. The conference was held in cooperation with the National

73

Research Council's Committee on National Statistics Other participants included: under a grant provided to the Council by the National Science Foundation.

Three sets of related problems and solutions con­cerning the release to researchers of detailed, confi­dential data were discussed: (I) technical issues related to altering the data to reduce the possibility of direct or deductive disclosure while preserving the quality of the data, e.g., methods for deleting, truncating, blurring, and combining data; (2) legal and ethical is­sues concerning the laws that regulate the release of publicly-collected data and punish their violation, and the doctrines or theories concerning the privacy rights of individuals and organizations; and (3) bu­reaucratic concerns related to the current interpretation of acceptable disclosure risks, legislative intent, and the relationships among government statistical agen­cies and between these agencies and respondents to

survey and other forms of data collection.

The conference was divided into four sessions:

(1) Ethical Issues in the Access to and Linkage of PublicI y Collected Data

Joseph L. Gaslwirth, George Washington University Thomas B. Jabine, Washington, D.C.

(2) An Examination of Access Issues Related to Particular Data Bases

Brian Greenberg, U.S. Bureau of the Census (Survey of In­come and Program Participation [SIPP])

Robert H. Mugge, National Center for Health Statistics (Na­tional Health Imerview Survey [NHIS])

Fritz Scheuren, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (Survey of Income [501])

Discussants:

Terry Adams, University of Michigan Robert F. Boruch, Northwestern University Jerry Coffey, Office of Management and Budget

(3) The Technology of Releasing "Protected" Data

Tore Dalenius, Brown University, "Privacy and Confidentiality in Censuses anrl Surveys" .

Gerhard Paass, Institute for Applied Information Technology (Sankt Augustin, Federal Republic of Germany), "Disclosure Risk and Disclosure Avoidance for Microdata"

Discus.mnt: Wray Smith, Harris-Smith Research, Inc. (Washington, D.C.)

(4) What Is to Be Done? A General Discussion and the Deve!· opment of Recommendations

Chair: Joseph A. Pechman, The Brookings Institution (Washington, D.C.)

74

Murray Aborn Lois Alexander

Chester E. Bowie Ralph Bristol

George Carlson

Lawrence H. Cox Martin H. David Reynolds Farley David Flaherty Harvey Calper

Barbara Garner Edwin D. Goldfield William B. Griffith Daniel G. Horvitz

Daniel Kasprzyk Diane Lambert David Linowes Thomas J. Plewes Alice Robbin Willard Rodgers Daniel Rosa Jeffrey Roth James Smith Miron Straf Teresa A. Sullivan Harold W. WallS

National Science Foundation U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services U.S. Bureau of the Census U.S. Department of the

Treasury U.S. Department of the

Treasury U.S. Bureau of the Census University of Wisconsin University of Michigan University of Western Ontario The Brookings Institution

(Washington, D.C.) U.S. Bureau of the Census National Research Council George Washington University Research Triangle Institute

(Research Triangle Park, North Carolina)

U.S. Bureau of the Census Carnegie-Mellon University University of Illinois U.S. Department of Labor University of Wisconsin University of Michigan I nternal Revenue Service National Research Council University of Michigan National Research Council University of Texas Columbia University

The committee is currently preparing a report to the National Science Foundation that will outline a program deemed necessary in order to insure contin­ued access for secondary analysis by the social science community to the data now provided by the U.S. federal statistical community.

Case study methods

The Committee on Development, Giftedness, and the Learning Process held a workshop in New York on September 6-8, 1985 to examine the use of case study methods for research on extraordinary per­formance, particularly in the domain of moral re­sponsibility. The committee had held two previous workshops to explore the feasibility of examining moral development as a domain in which to study extraordinary or gifted performance. That work highlighted the importance of the case study as a method for studying gifted behavior, particularly for the study of individuals exemplifying extraordinary moral responsibility. The current workshop was organ­ized to examine the case study method generally: to

VOLUME 39, NUMBER 4

•

explore its past contributions to research in the social and behavioral sciences, to consider its strengths and weaknesses, and to develop some guidelines for its use, particularly in research on moral development.

The opening day's program consisted of introduc­tory comments on methods and concepts by Howard Gruber and Helen Weinreich-Haste, followed by a presentation, "The Case Study Method: Perspectives Gained Over My Own Life Course," by M. Brewster Smith. The second day focused on methodological issues, beginning with a presentation, "Introductory Overview of Methodological Issues," by Jennifer Platt, folluwed by five small workshop groups. The purpose of these groups was to give participants con­crete case study research examples as a point of de­parture for discussion of the methodological ques­tions surrounding the application of case study methods, particularly to the field of moral responsi­bility. The first discussions focused on the under­standing of the presented projects and their genesis. Later, discussions by the same working groups ex­tended more widely into general methodological is­sues.

The following workshops were organized and led by the respective participants: "The Concept of Ex­traordinary Moral Responsibility," Anne Colby and William Damon; "Oscar Schindler: Moral Develop­ment During the Holocaust," Luitgard Wundheiler; "Caring: Siblings, Family and Beyond," Edna Shapiro and Doris Wallace; "Moral Reasoning, Moral Respon­sibility, and Institutions," Anne Higgins; "Moral Re­sponsibility and Commitment to Peace Activities," Helen Weinreich-Haste. Workshop presenters spent half an hour presenting materials from their project in order to provide an introduction to the method­ological and conceptual issues of the work. A one­page outline of each workshop topic was provided by each organizer.

The third day of the meeting focused on v'llues, beginning with an "I ntroductory Overview to the Issues of Values," by John Mack. The preceding day, focused on methodological issues, set the stage for the examinaLion of values; on this final day of the meet­ing, the workshop mechanism was again used, now to focus on the problem of values.

The participants included: Molly Andrews

Jeanne Bamberger

John Broughton

Anne Colby

DECEM BER 1985

Harvard University, rapporteur

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Teachers College, Columbia University

Henry Murray Research Center (Radcliffe College)

William Damon Sara Davis Eva Fogelman

Howard Gardner

Howard Gruber Anne Higgins

Martin L. Hoffman Betty Jean Lifton John E. Mack

Kenneth Manning

Jennifer Platt Lucien Richard

Edna Shapiro M. Brewster Smith

Benson Snyder

Doris Wallace Helen Weinreich-Haste Luitgard Wundheiler Marta Zahaykevich

Clark University New School for Social Research The Graduate Center, City

University of New York Project Zero, Harvard

University University of Geneva Harvard Graduate School of

Education New York University New Vork City The Cambl-idge Hospital

(Cambridge, Massachusetts) MassachusetlS Institute of

Technology University of Sussex University of Geneva,

rapporteur Bank Street College University of California, Santa

Cruz Massachusetts Institute of

Technology Bank Street College University of Bath Long Island University University of Rochester

Lonnie R. Sherrod served as staff.

The 1986 SIPP panel

The Committee on the Survey of Income and Pro­gram Participation sponsored a symposium on "Plan_ ning for Changes in the 1986 SIPP Panel," held at the Carnegie 'Conference Center, Washington, D.C., June 27-28,1985. The symposium was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation. A summary of the proceedings will be published in the Winter 1985 issue of theJoumal oj Economic and Social Measurement.

The SIPP is the major new Bureau of the Census panel data collection program that is intended to meas­ure changes in economic well-being (see the March 1983 issue of Items, pages 26- 27, and the March 1984 issue, pages 16- 17, for further details).

The symposium included the following presenta­tions and participants:

(1) The Experience of Nonresponse and Attrition in the SIPP

Peter A. Morrison, chair David B. McMillen, "Nonresponse Rates in the SIPP" Daniel Kasprzyk, "Understanding the Nonresponse Rate" Chester E. Bowie, "Steps to Reduce Nonresponse" Martha Hill, Daniel C. Horvitz, and Stanley Presser, discussants

75

(2) 1986 Panel Planning

Harold W. Walls, chair Roger A. Herriot. "Changes in the Core Questionnaire" Arthur J. Nonon, "The Personal History Module" Chester E. Bowie, "Variable Topical Modules" Enrique Lamas, "Wealth and Year-end Roundup Modules" William P. Butz, informal remarks

(3) Using the SIPP

Denton R. Vaughan, chair Martin H. David, Franklin W. Monforl, and Alice Robbin, "Public

Use Products from the SI PP: Report from Users" Martin H. David, "The ISDP/SIP? Research Center at the Uni­

versity of Wisconsin" Katherine K. Wallman, "Statistical Planning: Involving the Aca­

demic Resea rch Community"

The participants were:

Murray Aborn Barbara Bailar Carolyn Shaw Bell Chesler E. Bowie Richard V. Burkhauser William P. Butz Constance F. Citro Robert Dalrymple

Evan Davey Martin H. David Pat Doyle

Harvey Galper

Dean R. Gerstein Arnold Goldstein Gordon Green Jeanne E. Griffith Roger A. Herriot Martha Hill Marjory Honig

Daniel G. HOI'vitz

George Jakubson Roben KaminsKY

Daniel Kasprzyk Bruce Klein Helen Koo

Enrique L,mas David B. McMillen Franklin W. Monfort Peter A. Morrison

Art Nonon Stanley Presser Alice Robbin Paul Ryscavage Thomas Scopp

76

National Science Foundation U.S. Bureau of the Census Wellesley College U.S. Bureau of the Census Vanderbilt University U.S. Bureau of the Census National Research Council U.S. Department of

Agriculture U.S. Bureau of the Census University of Wisconsin Mathematica, Inc.

(Washington, D.C.) The Brookings Institution

(Washington , D.C.) National Research Council U.S. Bureau of the Census U.S. Bureau of the Census Library of Congress U.S. Bureau of the Census University of Michigan Hunter College, City

University of New York Research Tri~ngle Institute

(Research Triangle Park, orth Carolina)

Cornell University U.S. Bureau of the Census U.S. Bureau of the Census Washington, D.C. Research Tri;mgle Institute

(Reseal'ch Triangle Park, North Carolina

U.S. Bureau of the Census U.S. Bureau of the Census University of Wisconsin The Rand Corporation (Santa

Monica, California) U.S. Bureau of the Census University of Michigan University of Wisconsin U.S. Bureau of the Census U.S. Bureau of the Census

Paul Siegel Raj Singh Timothy M. Smeeding James D. Smith Robert P. Strauss Teresa A. Sullivan Denton Vaughan

Katherine K. Wallman

Harold W. Watts Daniel H. Weinberg

Kennelh 1. Wolpin

U.S. Bureau of the Census U.S. Bureau of the Census University of Utah University of Michigan Carnegie-Mellon University University of Texas U.S. Social Security

Administration Council of Professional

Associations on Federal Statistics (Washington, D.C.)

Columbia University U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services Center for Human Resources

Research (Columbus Ohio)

Richard C. Rockwell served as staff.

Council Initiates New Program in Advanced German and European Studies

In collaboration with the Free University of Berlin, the Council has initiated a fellowship and grams program de­signed to assist doctoral candidates and postdoctoral schol­ars to undertake research on German and European af­fairs. The program, funded in Germany by the Volkswagen Foundation and at the Council by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, is open to social scientists, in­cluding historians working on the period since the mid-19th century and students of comparative and international law. Length of tenure is one or two years. The awardees are expected to reside primarily in Berlin for the duration of their fellowship or grant. Access to other research institu­tions in Berlin and throughout the Federal Republic of Germany will be provided through the Free University. A good command of German is required and intensive lan­guage refresher courses will be funded in certain cases. Citizens or permanent residents of the United States are eligible to apply.

For further information, write or call:

Berlin Program in German and European Studies

Social Science Research Council 605 Third A venue New York, New York 10158 (2 12) 661-0280

Cognition-emotion interrelationships

Two summer research training institutes, designed by Kurt W. Fischer and Joseph J. Campos, University of Denver, in consultation with the Committee on Social and Affective Development During Childhood (1976-85), are being held to examine research methods for the study of cognition-emotion inter­relationships during childhood. The first institute, funded by the ational Institute of Mental Health,

VOLUME 39, NUMBER 4

was held on August 18-23, 1985, in Winter Park, Colorado, cosponsored by the University of Denver and the committee. This institute and a subsequent one, of a similar nature, to be organized by Messrs. Campos and Fischer in the summer of 1986, will formally complete the committee's program.

The program of the 1985 institute included ses­sions on: (l) What are the basic emotional categories, and how do we characterize them cognitively? (2) What major methodological approaches are useful in the study of cognition-emotion interrelationships? (3) What is the role of emotion in information pro­cessing and cognitive development? (4) What roles do cognition and emotion play in social behavior and development? (5) What are the biological bases of cognition-emotion interrelationships? How can com­puters be used in the study of cognition and emotion? (6) Future directions for research on cognition­emotion interrelationships. Sessions were organized to include major presentations in each of these six areas by both senior level faculty participants and junior (predoctoral and postdoctoral) participants selected on the basis of applications submitted to the directors and reviewed by both the institute faculty and Council staff.

Participants in the institute included:

Karen Barrett loge Bretherton Helen Buchsbaum

Richard Davidson

Paul Ekman

Robert N. Emde

William Gaver

Reginald Gougis Susan Harter Martin L. Hoffman Alice M. Isen Carroll E. Izard Richard Lazarus

Linda Levine Marc Lewis

Michael Lewis

Carol Z. Malatesta Anthony Marcel

Meng Zhao-Ian Keith Oatley Kazimierz Obuchowski

DECEM BER 1985

University of Wyoming Colorado State University University of Colorado Medical

Sciences Center (Denver) State University of New York,

Purchase University of California, San

Francisco University of Colorado Medical

Sciences Center (Denver) University of California. San

Diego Hampton University University of Denver New York University University of Maryland l!niversily of Delaware University of California,

Herkeley University of Chicago Ontario Institute for Studies in

Education (Toronto) Rutgers University Medical

School (New Brunswick) New School for Social Research Medical Research Council

(Cambridge, England) Beijing University University of Sussex Polish Academy of Sciences

(Warsaw)

Bruce Pennington

Doreen Ridgeway Jon Rolf

Ira Roseman

Margot Schofield Jonathan W. Schooler Judith Schwartz Phillip Shaver Lonnie R. Sherrod

Craig Smith Ru~~ Thompson Andrew J. Tomarken Terence J. Turner Bernard Weiner

Tim Wilson

University of Colorado Medical Sciences Center (Denver)

University of Colorado National Institute of Mental

Health New School for Social

Research Macquarie University University of Washington University of Denver University of Denver Social Science Research

Council Stanford University University of Nebraska University of Wisconsin CSR (Champaign, Illinois) University of California, Los

Angeles University of Virginia

Selfhood in life-course perspective

On October 18-19, 1985, the Subcommittee on Child Development in Life-Span Perspective of the Committee on Life-Course Perspectives sponsored a conference on selfhood, held at the Center for Ad­vanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (Stanford, California).

Recent research and theory in human develop­ment, sociology, social psychology, and psychiatry have brought to the fore conceptions of self that had been relatively dormant since their former promi­nence in the writings of Charles H. Cooley, William James, George Herbert Mead, and Harry Stack Sulli­van. Thus, the purpose of the conference was to highlight issues that arise from a life-<:ourse perspec­tive on the emergence and development of selfhood. The strategy was to bring active contributors into communication with each other, contributors who have dealt with the phenomena of selfhood from different perspectives or who focus on different phases of the life span. A previous subcommittee con­ference on "Winning and Losing Over the Life Span" dealt productivly with certain aspects of the topic; from that point of reference, the present conference represented both continuity and change in the pro­gram.

"Selfhood" rather than "the self' was employed as a synonym for personhood, referring to essential fea­tures of being a person; "self" was used only in the hyphenated contexts of ordinary speech-as self­concept, self-understanding, self-awareness, self­esteem, self-presentation. This terminology is based on the idea that it is misleading to treat "the self" as somehow a distinguishable entity within personality

77

(which in turn is the theorist's formulation of the person). As in the familar hyphenated contexts just noted, the term "selfhood" focuses on the reflexive aspects of being a person, those that follow from characteristically human self-awareness. "Self' is sub­stantively synonymous with person, with connotations that emphasize these reflexive aspects.

Among the aspects of selfhood that seemed to merit examination from a life-course perspective were: (I) the emergence and transformation of self­understanding, including the sense of identity-i.e., the cognitive aspects of selfhood; (2) the emergence and transformation of affective-evaluative responses; and (3) dispositions toward self: self-esteem, shame, guilt, and the entire gamut of emotions and emo­tional dispositions. A central phenomenon of self­hood that was delineated and examined in its com­plex ramifications is the way in which the formula­tions that people arrive at about themselves via inter­active social processes often become actual determi­nants of their social participation as persons­whether active or passive, coping or defensive.

A number of relevant theoretical and methodologi­cal orientations have been brought to bear upon the emergence and development of selfhood, including: psychological attribution theory, the psychodynamic treatment of competence; symbolic interactionist theory; identity theory; psychoanalytic object­relations theory and self-theory; "hermeneutic" nar­rative theory; cross-cultural approaches; cognitive so­cial psychology; sociological labelling theory; and mainstream empirical developmental research, fo­cused primarily on early childhood and adolescence. There has been little mutual exchange or influence across the different traditions. In particular, there has been little interchange between workers at the empirical end of the spectrum and those at the more clinical end. The conference was organized to foster communication across as many perspectives as could be fruitfully brought together in a two-day confer­ence.

A life-course approach was considered useful in encouraging such interchange among approaches and in encouraging a specific developmental and contextual orientation where it has been lacking. A life-course approach brings to bear a recurring concern with aspects of continuity and change dur­ing the development and maintenance of self-un­derstanding and of basic attitudes toward self and the world, especially the concern with transitions and with the impact of nonnormative life events.

The program consisted of the following sessions and presentations:

78

Alternative Integrative Formulations

Kurt Fischer, "The Development of Skills Regarding the Self " Hazel Markus, "Possible Selves: The Relation Between Motivation

and the Self-Concept" John Meyer. "The Social Construction of the SeW'

Discussanl : Dale Miller

Infancy and Childhood

Michael Lewis, "The Role of the Self in Emotional Development" James Connell, "Self· Regulation as a Life-Span Process"

Adolescence

Jack Block , "Antecedents of Self Esteem <'Ind Aspects of the Self. Concept in Adolescence"

Richard Lerner, "On the Lore and Laws of Adolescence: The Self, Social Context, and Synthesis"

Robert Kegan, "The Child Behind the Mask: Sociopathy as De­velopmental Delay"

Discussant: Nancy Chodorow

Cross-Cultural and Cross-National Perspectives

Richard A. Shweder, "Cross-Cultural Study and the Interpreta­tion of 'Otherness' "

Janusz Reykowski, "Social Motivation and the SelP'

CLosing Discussants: Judith Dunn, M. Brewster Smith, and Orville G. Brim, Jr.

The participants included:

Paul B. Baltes

Jack Block

Lila Braine

Onlille G. Brim, Jr.

Nancy J. Chodorow

James P. Connell Sanford Dornbusch Judith Dunn

Glen H. Elder, Jr. David L. Featherman Kurt W. Fischer Per Gjerde

Anita Greene

Albert H. Hastorf E. Mavis Hetherington Kathryne Jacobs

Robert Kegan

Herbert Leiderman

Max Planck Institute for Human Development and Education (Berlin)

University of California, Berkeley

Barnard College (CASBS,* 198!;"'86)

Russell Sage Foundation (I 9S!;'"S6)

University of California, Santa Cruz

University of Rochester Stanford University Cambridge University

(CASBS, 198!;"'S6) University of North Carolind University of Wisconsin University of Denver University of California,

Berkeley West Virginia University

(CASBS, 198!;"'86) Stanford University University of Virginia University of Maryland

Medical School Harvard Graduate School of

Education Stanford University

• Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences.

VOLUME 39, NUMBER 4

•

•

Richard M. Lerner Michael Lewis

Hazel Markus John W. Meyer

Dale Miller Ross D. Parke Marion Perlmutter Janusz Reykowski

David Rosenhan Theodore Sarbin

Robert A. SCOtl

Martin E. P. Seligman Richard A. Shweder

M. Brewstel- Smith

Pennsylvania State University Rutgers University Medical

School (New Brunswick) University of Michigan Stanford University (CASBS.

1 98!>-86) Simon Fraser University University of Illinois University of Michigan Polish Academy of Sciences.

(Warsaw) Stanford University University of California, Santa

Cruz CASIlS University of Pennsylvania University of Chicago (CASBS.

1 98!>-86) ~

University of California. Santa Cruz

Lonnie R. Sherrod served as staff.

The political economy of health and disease

The joint committees on Africa and Latin America and El Colegio de Mexico cosponsored a conference on January 8-11. 1985 in Toluca. Mexico. on the political economy of health and disease in Africa and Latin America. Thomas j. Bossert. Sarah Lawrence College. Randall M ~ Packard. Tufts University. and Ben Wisner, Rutgers University, served as coor­dinators. Funding for the conference was provided by the two committees and by El Colegio de Mexico, the International Development Research Centre (Ot­tawa), tile Carnegie Corporation of New York, and UNICEF.

One of the principal aims of the conference was to promote a multidisciplinary perspective which would extend the traditional focus on the biological deter­minants of disease to a broader concern with the economic, social, and political contexts within which they occur. A political economy approach was chosen as a conceptual framework which would allow par­ticipants to explore the effects upon health and dis­ease of historical processes of change related to the uneven expansion of capitalist market relations. The participants included anthropologists, historians, political scientists, and sociologists, as well as health professionals working in diverse areas of medical health care.

A second major concern was to focus attention on linkages between global and local level health pro­cesses and thus to join two disparate bodies of health research , one primarily concerned with national and

DECEMBER 1985

international health care and food production, and the other with community and individual responses to health and disease problems. A collaborative project involving specialists in both Africa and Latin America was seen as providing an opportunity to examine the common historical experiences of these two conti­nents with colonialism and the wide-scale penetration of foreign capital, as well as their contrastive levels of capital development, industrialization, and market commoditization.

Four broad topics were selected as themes for pa­pers and discussion: Nutrition and the Commoditiza­tion of Food Systems; Workplace, Health, and Dis­ease; Women, Household, and Health; and State, Class, and the Allocation of Health Care Services. Of these topics, nutrition emerged as the most fully de­fined area of inquiry. Drawing on various disciplinary approaches and a wide set of empirical studies, primarily household surveys, the major papers on Africa and Latin America concluded that the transi­tion from subsistence production to commodity­market production, and the consequent increase in food commoditization, varies greatly according to class and region, with the greatest negative impact on nu­tritionallevels falling upon marginal populations with least access to land or capital and on those in the most insecure labor positions. Generalizations concerning the differences between Latin America and Africa proved to be less useful than the use of continua such as land scarcity, market penetration, or types of crops, by which different nations, or regional groupings of nations from both continents, cou ld be compared.

The second topic, on health and the workplace, revealed well-defined areas of research on both con­tinents, and conceptual agreement on the need to move beyond narrow definitions of the relationship between health and work represented by the traditional focus on "occupational health" to a broader formulation of what was termed "the social costs of production." This concept expands the health implications of the productive process to include those involved in the reproduction of the workforce as well as workers themselves . This expanded perspective pointed up some striking differences in the industrial health literature on the two continents: while Latin American studies have focused on the urban work­force and on the impact of industrialization, with some attention to pesticide use in rural areas, studies in Africa have tended to examine the mining industry and the impact of male migration on the health of workers, their families, and their social networks. Moreover, considerably more work on the "diseases of development," that is, on the health consequences

79

of large-scale development projects, has been done in Africa than in Latin America.

In the discussion of women and household health, fertility control was identified as the most advanced area of current research, in its probing of the com­plex social and economic factors which impinge upon the choices made. Discussants highlighted the im­portance of household studies for understanding women's roles as health care providers in the home, and as allocators of household resources devoted to health. The entrance of women into the market econ­omy has had very ambiguous effects upon household health: additional cash income must be measured against the low paying jobs most open to women, the "double day" which adds paid labor to continuing household responsibilities, and the potential expo­sure to special health hazards to female reproductive organs. The growing number of female-headed households was identified as having particularly negative health consequences for the health of household members. Examples of the efforts of women's organizations to promote changes in health conditions and health policy suggested strat­egies for success and revealed the many obstacles confronted.

The discussion of state, class, and health care re­vealed that despite considerable recent conceptual advances in this field, its application to specific issues of health care is still underdeveloped. The state was considered both as an institution that maintains and reproduces the existing social order through cooptive and coercive means and as an arena within which class struggle and alliances may occur. Thus, while the inequitable distribution of health services was viewed as a reflection of the broader social order, state health policies were also seen as alterable, both through popular demands and through paternalistic efforts to coopt popular legitimacy for the state. Much of the empirical discussion focused on primary health care involving basic village level services with community participation. While favoring an emphasis on primary health care, participants noted the frequency with which it may fall short of its goals, failing either to provide adequate services or to achieve desired levels of community participation.

Primary health care may also be used cooptively by Third World states at times of fiscal crisis to provide

80

inexpensive, and generally inadequate, health ser­vices. Experiences on both continents, even in the self-proclaimed socialist states, seemed to participants to reflect similar processes.

The participants in the conference were:

Carlos Amat y Leon

Neil Andersson Juliet Aphane Susana Belmartino

Carole Browner

Deborah Fahy Bryceson Kathryn Dewey Magdalena Echeverria

Jose Carlos Escudero

Steven Feierman j.V. Kreysler

Asa Cristina Laurell

Rene Loewenson Shula Marks Viviane B. Marquez F.M. Mburu Diana Medrano

Betty Mlingi

Eduardo Morales

Jonathan Myers Alanagh Raikes

Myriam Ribeiro

David Sanders Claudio Schuftan Mario Testa

Rodrigo Villar

University of the Pacific (Lima)

University of London Ministry of Health, Swaziland Center for Health and

Social Studies (Rosario, Argentina)

U nivc:rsilY of California, Lo:o. Angeles

Univel-sity of Oxford U niversiiY of California, Davis Economy of Labor Program

(Santiago) Autonomous Metropolitan

University (Mexico City) University of Wisconsin World Health Organization

(Nouakchott, Mauritania) Autonomous Metropolitan

University (Mexico City) University of Zimbabwe University of London EI Colegio de Mexico UNICEF (LuS<1ka) University of the Andes

(Bogota) Tanzania Food and Nutrition

Center Latin American Faculty of the

Social Sciences (FLACSO), Santiago

University of Cape Town Center for Development

Research (Copenhagen) Sao Paulo School of

Medicine University of Zimbabwe Louisiana Stale University Center for Development

Studies (CENDES), Caracas Center for the Support of

Women and the Family (Bogota)

The staff for the conference were Martha A. Gephart and Diana De G. Brown of the joint com­mittees on African and Latin American studies, re­spectively.

VOLUME 39, NUMBER 4

Council Seeks Staff Associate for Its Japan Program

Theodore,C. Bestor, the staff associate for the Japan and Kqrea programs, has resigned to accept a position in the Department of Anthropology at Columbia University, and the Council is searching for a replacement.

The staff associate is responsible for developing and ad­ministering innovative research programs related to Japan and Korea in a wide range of social scientific and humanis­tic fields of inquiry. The full-time position involves the planning of seminars, workshops, and conferences; ad­ministering fellowship and grants competitions; preparing and negotiating grant proposals; and maintaining relation­ships with acade mic institutions alll! ullit:l- organizations in Japan, Korea, and the United States.

Candidates for this position must have a Ph.D. in the social sciences or the humanities, must have carried out research on Japan, and must have a command of written and spoken Japanese. A knowledge of Korean studies would be desirable. The ability to relate Japanese studies to wider issues in one or more of the social science or humanistic disciplines is essential.

Applications are sought from scholars with several years of teaching, research, and/or administrative experience be­yond the doctorate, although recent recipients of the Ph.D. will also be considered. Council salaries are competitive with those at universities, and provisions are made to enable staff members to continue their professional development. The Council is seeking an applicant who can take up the position no later than the start of the 1986-87 academic year, al­though an earlier starting date is preferable.

Applicants should send a letter and a curriculum vitae to:

Japan Program Social Science Research Council

605 Third A venue New York, New York 10158

The coordination of economic policies between Japan and the United States

Concern about recent government budget deficits in the United States has enhanced interest in the domestic and international effects of fiscal policy. To examine in comparative perspective the effects of budget deficits and government spending on world interest rates, consumption, and wealth, Richard C. MarslOll, Wharton School, University of Pennsyl­vania, and Koichi Hamada, University of Tokyo, or­ganized a binational seminar, sponsored by the Joint Committee on Japanese Studies and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, as part of the U .S.­Japan Cooperative Program in the Humanities and Social Sciences. The National Bureau of Economic Research (Cambridge, Massachusetts) also served as a sponsoring organization. The seminar was held at the International House of Japan, Tokyo, March 25-27,

DECEMBER 1985

1985. The Japan-United States Friendship Commis­sion provided support for the American participa­tion.

The II papers presented included: "Fiscal Policies in the World Economy," by Jacob Frenkel, University of Chicago, and Assaf Razin, Tel Aviv University; "Monetary Policies in Interdependent Economies: A Strategic Approach," by Stephen Turnovsky and Vasco d 'Orey, both of the University of Illinois; "Ef­fects of Anticipated Real Supply Shocks and Coordi­nated Monetary Accommodation on the Interest Rate Differential and the Exchange Rate in a Two-Country Perfect Foresight Model," by Masanao Aoki, Univer­sity of California, Los Angeles; "Policy Coordination and Dynamic Games," by Marcus Miller and Mark Salmon, University of Warwick; "The Japanese Cur­rent Account Surplus: How Much is Structural?" by Kazuo Ueda, Osaka University; "International Transmission of Economic Policies: An Analysis by the EPA World Economic Model," by Toshihisa Toyota, Kobe University, and Masanori Hirano, Economic Planning Agency (Tokyo); "R & D Activi­ties and the Technology Game: A Dynamic Model of U.S.-Japan Competition," by Ryuzo Sato, Brown University; "Strategic Aspects of Macroeconomic Policy Making in Interdependent Economies: The Fundamentals," by Dale Henderson, Georgetown University (on leave from the Federal Reserve Board); "Strategic Aspects of Macroeconomic Policy Making in Interdependent Economies: Three Countries and Coalitions," by Matthew Canzoneri, Federal Reserve Board; "Strategic Aspects of Inter­national Fiscal Interdependence," by Koichi Hamada, University of Tokyo; and "Some General Charac­teristics of Exchange-Rate Unions," by Richard C. Marston, Wharton School, University of Pennsyl­vanIa.

Other participants included Kyoji Fukao, Seikei University; Mitsuhiro Fukao, Economic Planning Agency (Tokyo); Hajime Hori, Tohoku University; Ryutaro Komiya, University of Tokyo; Kazuhisa Kudo, University of Tsukuba; Takahiko Mutoh, Tokyo Keizai University; Michihiro Ohyama, Keio University; Ryuhei Okumura, Nagoya University; Yusuke Onitsuka, Yokohama National University; Kiyoshi Otani, Tokyo Keizai University; Miyako Suda, Senshu University; Akira Takayama, Kyoto University; and Hiroshi Yoshikawa, Osaka Univer­sity.

Kermit Schoenholtz, Yale University, and Frances McCall, Columbia University, attended as observers. Theodore C. Bestor attended as staff for the Joint Committee on Japanese Studies.

81

I ~

Messrs. Marston and Hamada plan to publish a selection of the papers in American and Japanese journals.

Media and politics in Japan

Although by many measures Japan is among the most media-saturated societies, lillie attention has been paid to the interaction of media and politics in contemporary Japan. Recognizing this as an impor­tant lacuna and as a significant opportunity to de­velop fields of inquiry comparing Japan with other advanced industrial societies, the Joint Committee on Japanese Studies has sponsored a project on Media and Politics in Japan. A group of American scholars has been organized by Susan J. Pharr, University of Wisconsin, to collaborate with a team of Japanese specialists, headed by Hiroshi Akuto, University of Tokyo.

With support from the committee, the Japan Soci­ety for the Promotion of Science, and the Nissan I nsti­tute, University of Oxford, a first meeting of the two teams of scholars was held at the Nissa" Institute on July 11-14, 1985. At the meeting, project partici­pants presented papers and research plans on the following topics: "The Media in Electoral Cam­paigning in Japan and in the U.S.: A Comparative Study," by Hiroshi Akuto, University of Tokyo; "The Press and Policy Change Within Government Pro­cesses in Japan," by John C. Campbell, University of Michigan; "Media Exposure, Political Attitudes and Participation: Some Media Effects on Mass Political Behavior in Japan," by Scott Flanagan, Florida State University; "The Media and Political Protest inJapan: The Anti-Bullet Train Movement," by David Groth, Colby College; "Creating the News at NHK," by Ellis S. Krauss, Western Washington University; "Media as Modern Trickster: Media and the State in Advanced Industrial Societies," by Susan J. Pharr, University of Wisconsin; "Framework for Content Analysis of Elec­tion News Coverage," by Hi·rohisa Suzuki, University of Tokyo; and "Japan's Mass Media System in Com­parative Perspective," by D. Eleanor Westney, Massa­chusetts Institute of Technology.

Other participants in the meeting included Olga Linne, University of Leicester; Michio Muramatsu, Kyoto University; Colin Seymour-Ure, University of Kent; and Arthur Stockwin, University of Oxford. Theodore C. Bestor attended the meeting as staff for the joint committee. Morio Watanabe, University of Wisconsin, served as rapporteur.

During the meeting, plans were laid for the col­laborative design and analysis of a survey of media

82

exposure and political attitudes that will be carried out by members of the Japanese team during 1985-86. A final meeting of the two teams will be held during the winter of 1986-87, at which the re­sults of the survey will be presented and final versions of the papers as well as papers by additional members of the Japanese team will be discussed. American participation in the collaborative survey and in the second meeting will be partially supported by the Japan- United States Friendship Commission.

Regional seminars on Japan

The Joint Committee on Japanese Studies has re­ceived support from the Japan Foundation to enable it to sponsor Regional Seminars on Japan throughout the country. The primary purpose of the program is to enable scholars at institutions other than the major Japanese studies centers to present research findings and meet with their colleagues in the field.

For the 1985-86 academic year, the committee is sponsoring the following five seminars. Scholars in­terested in participating in the activities of the re­gional seminars should contact the seminar coor­dinators, whose names and affiliations are listed after each seminar.

Florida Japan Seminar: John C. MaraJdo, Department of History and Philosophy, University of North Florida

Midwest Japan Seminar: Sally A. Hastings. Department of His­tory, Northeastern Illinois University

Rocky Mountain-Southwest Japan Seminar: Anne Walthall, De­partment of History, University of Utah

Triangle East Asian Colloquium: Gail Henderson, Department of Social and Administrative Medicine, Medical School, University of North Carolina

Washington-Southeast Regional Seminar on Japan: Philip C. Brown, Department of History, University of North Carolina, Charlotte

Korean Buddhism

To stimulate work by Western scholars on Bud­dhism in Korean history, and the role of Korean Buddhism in the development of East Asian Buddhist thought more generally, the Joint Committee on Ko­rean Studies sponsored a workshop on Korean Buddhism held at the University of California, Berkeley, January 11-13, 1985.

Peter H. Lee, University of Hawaii, organized the workshop with two goals: to provide a forum for the exchange of research findings, and to discuss those texts of the Korean Buddhist canon which most ur­gently require annotated translation and publication.

VOLUME 39, NUMBER 4

The titles of the papers presented, and their authors' names and affiliations, are as follows: "Sugi's Collation NOles to the KOfYO Buddhist Canon and Their

Significance for Buddhist Textual Criticism," Roben Buswell, University of California, Berkeley

"Word and Wordlessness: Hyuj6ng's Approach to Buddhism," Hee-Sung Keel. Sogang University

"Sample Buddhist Chapters for 'Sources of Korean Tradition' ," Peter H. Lee. University of Hawaii

"Shamanism and Reljgious Syncretism in Korea," Sung-bae Park, State University of New York, Stony Brook

"Through a Glass Darkly: Tos6n the Recognizant (827-898)," Michael C. Rogers, University of California. Berkeley

Mr. Lee is planning to hold a second workshop during the coming academic year, after which papers from both sessions will be edited for publication.

Recent Council Publications

Contents Between Slavery and Free Labor: The Spanish-Speaking

Caribbean in the Nineteenth Century, edited by Manual Moreno Fraginals, Frank Moya Pons, and Stanley Engerman (page 83)

Bringing the Slate Back In, edited by Peter B. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol (page 84)

Cohort Analysis in Social Research: Be,'ond the Identifu;ation Problem, edited by William M. Mason and Stephen E. Fienberg (page 85)

Depressi01l in Young People: Developmental and Clinical Per~;pectives, edited by Michael Rutter, Carroll E. Izard, and Peter B. Read (page 86)

Family and Population in East Asian History, edited by Susan B. Hanley and A,·thur P. Wolf (page 86)

Foreign Trade and Investment: Economic Growth in the Newly Industrializing Asian Countries, edited by Walter Galenson (page 87)

International Directory of Librarians and Library Speciaiisls in the Slavic and East European Field (page 88)

International Technology Transfer: ConctpL'i, Measures, and Comparisons, edited by Nathan Rosenberg and Claudio Frischtak (page 88)

Law and Society in Contemporary Japan, edited by John O. Haley (page 91)

Longitudinal Analysis oj Labor Market Data, edited by James J. Heckman and Burton Singer (page 91)

Lu Xun and His Legacy, edited by Leo Du-fan Lee (page 92) Popular r.nUure in utte Imperial China, edited by Davin

Johnson, Andrew J. Nathan, and Evelyn S. Rawski (page 92)

Property, Social Structure, and Law in the Modern Middle East, edited by Ann Elizabeth Mayer (page 93)

Racial Attitudes in America: Trends and Interpretations, edited by Howard Schuman, Charlotte Steeh, and Lawrence Bobo (page 94)

A Scholars' Guide to Hutlumities and Social ScUnces in the Soviet Union, edited by Blair A. Ruble and Mark H. Teeter (page 95)

DECEMBER 1985

Between Slavery and Free Labor: The Spanish­Speaking Caribbean in the Nineteenth Century, edited by Manuel Moreno Fraginals, Frank Moya Pons, and Stanley Engerman. Papers from a confer­ence held in June 1981, sponsored by the Foundation for the Advancement of the Social Sciences (Santo Domingo) and the Joint Committee on Latin Ameri­can Studies. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hop­kins University Press, 1985. xvii + 294 pages. Cloth, $30.00.

The transition from slave to free labor in the Americas was one of the most fundamental changes to occur in the world economy during the 19th cen­tury. It involved large-scale reallocations of capital and massive transfers of labor power, and resulted in major transformations in labor relations and forms of agricultural production. These changes have been the subject of many individual case studies but have re­ceived little comparative treatment.

This book offers a comparative analysis of this transition in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and' Puerto Rico, contrasting their common experiences as Spanish colonies with the distinctive features of the process in each of these countries. The volume fo­cuses on the sugar industry, the bastion of slave economies in the New World, and examines the im­pact of changes in sugar production upon the sources and character of plantation labor forces, the devel­opment of national social classes, and international economic relations. The contributors argue that Spain's long disinterest in developing the economic potential of its Caribbean colonies and its increasing weakness as a colonial power delayed the large-scale development of sugar plantations in its colonies until

83

the end of the 19th century, by which time sugar plantations were already in decline elsewhere in the Caribbean. Sugar production in these Spanish­speaking territories thus depended initially upon local, rather than international capital, and was linked to the emergence of a national rather than an inter­national bourgeoisie. These features in turn created greater vulnerability to rapid and massive U.S. influ­ence during the early years of the 20th century than occurred in either the English- or French-speaking Caribbean.

Against this backdrop, the essays in this volume examine the historical experiences of each of these territories. The sections on Cuba and Puertu Rico focus attention on the consequences of the late aboli­tion of slavery in these colonies for the evolution of class structures. The Dominican case examines the contrasting situation in which a highly modern in­dustrial form of sugar production was imposed dur­ing the late 19th century, after political sovereignty had already been achieved, upon free landowning subsistence cultivators. A final section of the volume develops an economic model of transformation in the Spanish Caribbean and sets it within a wider Carib­bean framework.

In addition to Manuel Moreno Fraginals, Univer­sity of Havana; Frank Moya Pons , Foundation for the Advancement of the Social Sciences (Santo Dominingo); and Stanley Engerman, University of Rochester, the three editors, the contributors and their affiliations are:

Patrick E. Bryan

Jose Curet Jose del Castillo

Fe Iglesias Garda Herbert S. Klein Franklin W. Knight Francisco LOpez Segrera

Sidney W. Mintz Benjamin Nistal-Moret

Andres A. Ramos Mattei Rebecca J. SCOll

University of the West Indies (Mona)

University of Pueno Rico Dominican Museum of Man

and Autonomous University of Santo Domingo

Academy of Sciences (Havana) Columbia University The Johns Hopkins University I nstitute of International

Relations (Havana) The Johns Hopkins University U.S. National Park Service

(A LIanta) U lIivt:rsity of Puerto Rico University of Michigan

Bringing the State Back In, edited by Peter B. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol. Spon­sored by the Committee on States and Social Structures and the joint committees on Latin Amer-

84

ica and Western Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985. x + 390 pages. Cloth, $42.50; paper, $14.95.

This volume is the first publication of the Commit­tee on States and Social Structures, which was estab­lished in 1983 to foster sustained collaboration among scholars from several disciplines who share in the growing interest in states as actors and as institutional structures.

Until recently, dominant theoretical paradigms in the comparative social sciences did not highlight states as organizational structures or as potentially autonomous actors. I ndeed, the term "state" was rarely used. Current work, however, increasingly views the state as an actor which , although obviously influenced by the society surrounding it, also shapes social and political processes. There is a recognized need, therefore, to improve conceptualizations of the structures and capacities of states, to explain more adequately how states are formed and organized, and to explore in many settings how states affect societies through their interventions-or abstentions-and through their relationships with social groups.

Most of the essays collected in the volume were originally drafted for a conference entitled "Research I mplicalions of Current Theories of the State" held in Mount Kisco, New York, in February 1982. The con­ference was sponsored by the joint committees on Latin America and Western Europe of the American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research Council. It brought together political sci­entists, sociologists, economists, and historians, in­cluding both scholars who are theoretical generalists and area specialists familiar with Europe, Latin America, and East Asia.

Like the conference out of which it grew, this book aims to encourage dialogue across areas of schol­arship that usually proceed in isolation from one an­other. Thus, each of its major parts poses a related set of analytical issues about modern states, which are explored in the context of a wide range of times and places, both contemporary and historical, and in de­veloping and advanced industrial nations. The first part examines state strategies in newly developing countries. The second part analyzes war making and state making in early modern Europe, and discusses states in relation to the post-World War II interna­tional economy. The third part pursues new insights into how states influence political cleavages and col­lective action. In the final chapter, the editors bring together the questions raised by the contributors and

VOLUME 39, NUMBER 4

suggest tentative conclusions that emerge from an overview of all the articles.

Not only does this volume bridge the concerns of area specialties delimited by time and place; it also attempts to mediate between general theoretical de­bates and the specific evidence that in-depth case studies and comparisons can provide about varia­tions in state organizations, public policies, and their roots and consequences.

The volume includes the following essays: "Bring­ing the State Back In," by Ms. Skocpol, University of Chicago; "The State and Economic Transformation: Toward an Analysis of the Conditions Underlying Effective I ntervention ," by Mr. Rueschemeyer and Mr. Evans, both of Brown University; "The State and Taiwan 's Economic Development," by Alice H. Amsden, Harvard University; "State Structures and the Possibilities for 'Keynesian' Responses to the Creat Depression in Sweden, Britain , and the United States," by Margaret Weir, Harvard University, and Ms. Skocpol; "War Making and State Making as Or­ganized Crime," by Charles Tilly, New School for Social Research; "Transnational Linkages and the Economic Role of the State: An Analysis of Develop­ing and I ndustrialized Nations in the Post-World War II Period," by Mr. Evans; "Small Nations in an Open International Economy: The Converging Balance of State and Society in Switzerland and Austria," by Peter Katzenstein, Cornell University; "Working-Class Formation and the State: Nineteenth-Century En­gland in American Perspective," by Ira Katznelson, New School for Social Research; "Hegemony and Re­ligious Conflict: British Imperial Control and Political Cleavages in Yorubaland," by David D. Laitin, Uni­versity of California, San Diego; "State Power and the Strength of Civil Society in the Southern Cone of Latin America," by Alfred Stepan, Columbia Univer­sity; and "On the Road Toward a More Adequate Understanding of the State," by Mr. Evans, Mr. Rueschemeyer, and Ms. Skocpol.

Cohort Analysis in Social Research: Beyond the Identification Problem, edited by William M. Mason and Stephen E. Fienberg. A volume sponsored by the Committee on Longitudinal Research (1976-80). New York: Springer-Verlag, 1985. viii + 400 pages, 44 figures. Cloth, $38.00.

One of the fundamental questions facing the study of social change is whether it can be appropriately understood by studying variations in the conditions

DECEMBER 1985

or behavior of cohorts of individuals or by studying differences in some other conceptualization such as age or period. A "cohort" refers to a group of indi­viduals defined by a shared point of entry into a social system; "age effects" are defined as those that are a result of individual maturation ; and "period effects" are those that result from a shared exposure to ex­ternal events. The "identification problem" to which the subtitle refers arises because age, period, and cohort effects are linearly dependent and thus impos­sible to separate, without certain restrictions , in the generalized linear models that are frequently used in the social sciences.

The purpose of this volume is to examine the range of methodological concerns about age, period, and cohort analysis that were evident in much of the social sciences by the late 1970s.

Chapter titles and authors are: "Introduction: Be­yond the Identification Problem," by William M. Mason, University of Michigan, and Stephen E. Fein­berg, Carnegie- Mellon University; "The Cohort as a Concept in the Study of Social Change," by Norman B. Ryder, Princeton University; "Specification and Implementation of Age, Period, and Cohort Models," by Stephen E. Fienberg and William M. Mason; "Age, Period, and Cohort Effects in Demography: A Re­view," by John Hobcraft, London School of Econom­ics, Jane Menken, Princeton University, and Samuel Preston, University of Pennsylvania; "Using Lon­gitudinal Data to Estimate Age, Period, and Cohort Effects in Earnings Equations," by James]. Heckman, University of Chicago, and Richard Robb, J r., The Chicago Corporation (Chicago); "Age-Period­Cohort Analysis and the Study of Deaths from Pul­monary Tuberculosis," by William M. Mason and Herbert L. Smith, Indiana University; "Analysis of Age, Period, and Cohort Effects in Marital Fertility," by Robert A. Johnson, Carnegie-Mellon University; "Dynamic Modeling of Cohort Change: The Case of Political Partisanship," by Cregory B. Markus, Uni­versity of Michigan; "Generations, Cohorts, and Con­formity," by Otis Dudley Duncan, University of California, Santa Rarhara; "Simultaneous Analysis of Longitudinal Data from Several Cohorts," by Karl C. Joreskog and Dag Sorbom, both of the University of U ppsala; "Statistics and the Scientific Method," by David A. Freed man, University of California, Berk­eley; "Reply to Freedman," by Karl C. Joreskog and Dag Sorbom; "Comments on and Reactions to Freedman, 'Statistics and the Scientific Method'," by Stephen E. Fienberg; and "A Rejoinder to Fienberg's Comments," by David A. Freedman.

85

Depression in Young People: Developmental and Clinical Perspectives, edited by Michael Rutter, Car­roll E. Izard, and Peter B. Read. Sponsored by the Committee on Social and Affective Development During Childhood (1976-85). New York: Guilford Press, 1986. xvi + 550 pages. Cloth, $37.50.

The conventional view of childhood as an un­troubled .time has until recently been largely unchal­lenged by theory and research. There is now a grow­ing awareness that many children and adolescents suffer from socially-handicapping depressive dis­orclers of a severity that amounts to mental illness. This problem has received considerable attention from researchers in both developmental and clinical areas, with each field generating its own literature on the topic. The goal of this volume is to integrate, for the first time, the contributions of investigators in both fields, in order to provide a state-of-the-art re­view of what is known about depression in young people.

In the introductory chapter to the volume, editor Michael Rutter comprehensively surveys the devel­opmental evidence to show that depressive disorders change in form and frequency as young people enter adolescence . . He also describes the clinical distinc­tions between "normal" distress and those psy­chopathological depressive disorders involving bio­logical and cognitive changes as well as alterations of mood. In the next section of the volume, contrib­utors examine theoretical approaches to the devel­opment of depression in social, cognitive, and biologi­cal terms, comparing childhood depression to some models of adult depression.

The following section of papers evaluates the risk factor of parental depression, both as a genetic influ­ence and as an environmental reality that alters pat­terns of family interaction. A subsequent section covers other risk factors for children, including pa­rental loss, stressful life events, and biological fea­tures. Two chapters on measurement constitute a separate section, with discussion of how devel­opmental changes. in children's understanding de­termine aspects of the clinical interview. A final sec­tion, based on the clinical-developmental approach that characterizes "developmental psychopathology," suggests areas of research that are needed to further understanding of depression in young people.

The contributors to the volume are:

William R. Beardslee

A. Bifulco G. W. Brown

86

Massachusetts General Hospital (Boston)

Bedford College (London) Bedford College (London)

Garbielle A. Carlson

Dante Cicchetti Leon Cytryn

Judy Dunn Leon Eisenberg Robert N. Emde Judy Garber Norman Garmezy Elliot S. Gershon

William V. Good T. O. Harris Robert J. Harmon Carroll E. lza rd Maria Kovacs Helen Block Lewis Donald H. McKnew

John M. Neale

Christopher Peterson Joaquim Puig-Antich

Peter B. Read

Michael Rutter Karen Schneider-Rosen Gail M. Schwartz

Martin E. P. Seligman David Shaffer Sheldon Weintraub

Ken C. Winters

Carolyn Zahn-Waxler

State University of New York, Stony Brook

Harvard University National Institute of Mental

Health University of Cambridge Harvard University University of Colorado Vanderbilt University University of Minnesota National Institute of Menlal

Health University of Colorado Bedford College (London) U niversily of Colorado University of Delaware University of Pittsburgh Yale University National Institute of Memal

Health State University of New York,

Stony Brook University of Pennsylvania Western Psychiatric Institut(:'

and Clinic (Pittsburgh) Social Science Research

Council University of London Boston College Medical College of

Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Columbia University State University of New York,

Stony Brook Amherst H. Wilder

Foundation (St. Paul, Minnesota)

National Institute of Mental Health

Family and Population in East Asian History, edited by Susan B. Hanley and Arthur P. Wolf. Sponsored by the joint committees on Chinese and Japanese studies. Stanford University Press. 1985. xiv + 360 pages. Cloth, $45.00.

The 13 papers in this volume represent a concerted effort to place the historical demography of East Asia on a firm quantitative basis. They utilize a wide range of Chinese and Japanese documentary sources and raise substantive questions about both family history and population change.

In their introduction, the editors argue that, most fundamentally, the papers reveal that the contrasts between Western and Eastern European family sys­tems, often seen as a crucial demographic demar cation, are comparable to those between China and

VOLUME 39, NUMBER 4

•

Japan-two societies which are often assumed to be demographically similar. Just as the grand family systems (the zadruga or the dvoT) of Eastern Europe differ radically in their demographic consequences from the stem family systems of Western Europe, so too does the Chinese grand family differ from Japan's stem family. The volume's papers demonstrate that the Japanese and Chinese systems have produced dif­ferences in marriage and fertility patterns that paral­lel the Western and Eastern European cases and sug­gest broader comparisons in family history and population change.

Contributions to the volume include an introduc­tion by Arthur P. Wolf, Stanford University, and Susan B. Hanley, University of Washington; "The Demography of Two Chinese Clans in Hsaio-shan, Chekiang, 1650-1850," by Ts'ui-jung Liu, Academia Sinica (Taipei); "Samurai Income and Demographic Change: The Genealogies of Tokugawa Banner­men," by Kozo Yamamura, University of Washing­ton; "The Rich Get Children: Segmentation, Stratifi­cation, and Population in Three Chekiang Lineages, 1550-1850," by Stevan Harrell, University of Wash­ington; "Rural Migration and Fertility in Tokugawa Japan: The Village of Nishijo, 1773-1868," by Akira Hayami, Keio University; "Urban Migration and Fer­tility in Tokugawa Japan: The City of Takayama, 1773-1871," by VOichiro Sasaki, Chiba University; "Fertility in Prerevolutionary Rural China," by Ar­thur P. Wolf, Stanford University; "Fertility in Rural China: A Reconfirmation of the Barclay Reassess­ment," by Ansley J. Coale, Princeton University; "Family and Fertility in Four Tokugawa Villages," by Susan B. Hanley, University of Washington; "Fertility and Mortality in an Outcaste Village in Japan, 1750-1869," by Dana Morris, Berkeley, California, and Thomas C. Smith, University of California, Berkeley; "Transformation of Commoner Households in Tennoji-mura, 1757-1858," by Robert]. Smith, Cor­nell University; "Marriage Among the Taiwanese of Pre-1945 Taipei," by Sophie Sa, Matsushita Founda­tion (Secaucus, New Jersey); and "On the Causes and Dcmographic Consequences of Uxorilocal Marriage in China," by Burton Pasternak, Hunter College, City University of New York.

The papers are based on those originally presented at a conference held at Wad ham College (Oxford) in August 1978. The conference was sponsored by the Joint Committee on Japanese Studies, the Joint Committee on Contemporary China (1959-81), and the American Council of Learned Societies' Commit­tee on Studies of Chinese Civilization (1963-81); in 1981, the two China committees were merged into the

DECEMBER 1985

Joint Committee on Chinese Studies, which, together with the Joint Committee on Japanese Studies, spon­sored the publication of this volume.

Foreign Trade and Investment: Economic Growth in the Newly Industrializing Asian Countries, edited by Walter Galenson. Sponsored by the Joint Com­mittee on American-Chinese (Taiwan) Cooperation in the Humanities and Social Sciences (1966-81). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985. xi + 390 pages. Cloth, $30.00.

During the past two decades, four countries­Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong­have registered the most rapid economic gains among the world's developing nations. In this study, a distin­guished group of Asian and American economists examine the development strategies-particularly the emphasis on foreign trade and investments­which have allowed these countries to far outstrip their neighbors. The result is a fresh and clearly written perspective that will interest scholars of eco­nomic development and of contemporary Asia; busi­ness people; and citizens of less-developed countries who are now struggling to achieve a modicum of economic growth.

One factor, it is argued, has been particularly cru­cial in allowing these four countries to become show­pieces of successful economic development. These nations have all maintained open economies and the relative freedom to import and export. Linked to this policy is their receptivity to foreign capital. Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong have con­sistently welcomed foreign firms and permitted them to operate with few restraints. They have thus avoided a major obstacle to economic growth in other developing countries-the fear of multinational cor­porations.

Equally crucial to the economic progress of these countries, the book demonstrates, is their relationship with the United States. Taiwan and South Korea in particular have benefited by adopting development strategies recommended by the United States. The sizable U.S. market for their goods has also provided a critical economic impetus and offers further justifi­cation for the open trade policy which has propelled their swift economic climb.

The book is dedicated to Simon Kuznets, who died earlier this year (see the September 1985 issue of Items, pages 49-50).

Walter Galenson, the editor, is Jacob Gould

87

Schurman professor of economics at Cornell Univer­sity. The contributors and their papers are:

Bela Balassa, The World Bank (Washington, D.C.) "The Role of Foreign Trade in the Economic Development of

Korea" Gary S. Fields. Cornell University

"Industrialization and Employment in Hong Kong, Korea. Singapore, and Taiwan"

Bohn Young Koo, Korea Development Institute (Seoul) "The Role of Direct Foreign Investment in Korea's Recent

Economic Growth" Lawrence B. Krause, The Brookings Institution (Washington,

D.C.) " Introduction"

Shirley W.Y. Kuo, The Central Bank of China (Taipei), and John C.E. Fei. Yale University "Causes and Roles of Export Expansion in the Republic of

China" Tzong-bi~u Lin and Victor Mok, The Chinese University of Hong

Kong "Trade, Foreign Investment, and Development in Hong Kong"

Gustav Ranis, Yale University, and Chi Shive, National Taiwan University "Direct Foreign Investment in Taiwan's Development"

S.C. Tsiang, Cornell University, and Rong-I Wu, National Chung Hsing University "Foreign Trade and Investment as Boosters for Take-off: The

Experiences of the Four Asian Newly Industrializing Coun­tries"

Chia Sio\\' Yue, National University of Singapore "The Role of Foreign Trade and J nvestment in the Develop­

ment of Singapore"

International Directory of Librarians and Library Specialists in the Slavic and East European Field. Prepared under the auspices of the Subcommittee on Bibliography, Information Retrieval, and Doc­umentation of the joint Committee on Soviet Studies. New York: Social Science Research Council, November 1985. 68 pages. Paper, free. Available from the Soviet program at the Council.

The librarians and library specialists listed in this directory represent the leading Slavic and East Euro­pean collections of Australia, Canada, China. Eu­rope, japan, and the United States. The directory contains the names, titles, addresses, and phone numbers of over 450 library personnel. It was pre­pared by Robert Karlowich of the Pratt Institute (Brooklyn, New York) and Eliott Isaac and Edward Kasinec of the :-lew York Public Library.

The directory is the fourth publication of its type in a series initiated more than a decade ago by the Bib­liographic and Documentation Committee of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic

88

Studies. Previous editions focused more upon orth American library specialists. The joint Committee on Soviet Studies anticipates further editions updating existing information and expanding the directory's scope to incorporate data on librarians and library specialists from countries not currently included in the guide.

The 1985-1986 membership of the Subcommittee on Bibliography, Information Retrieval, and Doc­umentation (BIRD) of the joint Committee on Soviet Studies is Edward L. Keenan, Harvard University, chair; Marianna Tax Choldin, University of Illinois; Th,,,,,, Gustafson, Georgetown University; Edward Kasinec, New York Public Library; David Kraus, Li­brary of Congress; and Hugh Olmsted, Harvard Uni­versity. Blair A. Ruble serves as staff.

International Technology Transfer: Concepts, Mea­sures, and Comparisons, edited by Nathan Rosen­berg and Claudio Frischtak. Based on a conference sponsored by the Subcommittee on Science and Technology Indicators of the Committee on Social Indicators. New York: Praeger, 1985. 329 pages: 7 figures; 34 tables. Cloth, $43.95.

In the last two decades, much has been written on the nature and impact of the international transfer of technology, particularly transfers to developing countries. Some years ago, it was believed that the opportunities offered by the availability of more ad­vanced technologies would greatly simplify and accel­erate the process of economic growth in developing countries. After all, an invention need be invented only once and may be acquired by others through purchase, license, or some other form of transfer. Received theory conceived technology as information that was necessary to design and produce a given good. This information was assumed to be public in nature: freely available and costlessly reproduceable; existing in an explicit form; and codified in designs, operating' manuals, and so on.

It is now broadly accepted that these sanguine ex­pectations and assumptions were naive and that an alternative conceptualization of technology is neces­sary. Technology transfer, we are now aware, is a much more complicated process. Not only are such transfers very costly, but their ultimate success is far more contingent on a larger number of technical and economic factors than was previously realized. Among the most important of these factors are the level and direction of indigenous technological effort

VOLUME 39, NUMBER 4

as well as numerous aspects of the institutional setting in the recipient country. Many chapters in this vol­ume argue that technology is more usefully concep­tualized as knowledge retained by individual teams of specialized personnel. This knowledge, resulting from their accumulated experience in design, pro­duction, and investment activities, is mostly tacit and rarely codified. It is acquired in problem-solving and trouble-shooting activities within a firm, and remains there in a substantially uncodified state. This ac­cumulated knowledge is acquired through a time­consuming and expensive process of learning; the technologies that are of use to a firm are only a limited subset of all technologies that are available at any time.

Keith Pavitt, for example, in Chapter I of the vol­ume, conceptualizes technology as a highly dif­ferentiated range of techniques and of related knowl­edge that cannot "easily be derived or reduced to first scientific principles; [itl depend[sl therefore on a range of acquired skills, practices and subtheories (or rules of thumb)". These reflect cumulative processes, where time enters in an essential way. As Jack Baran­son and Robin Roark state in Chapter 2, "the tens of thousands of elements required for a single industrial product, such as a high-speed diesel engine, are meticulously accumulated over time through research and development, through trial and error in equip­ment and factory methods, and in the detailed spe­cifications and procedures developed through pro­longed experiences."

What implications does such an alternative con­ceptualization hold for the transfer of technology? Insofar as technology is conceived as firm-specific information concerning the characteristics and per­formance properties of production processes and product designs, and to the extent that it is tacit and cumulative in nature, the transfer of technology is not as easy as the purchase of a capital good or the acqui­sition of its blueprint. It involves positive and signifi­cant resource costs, reflecting the difficult task of replicating knowledge across the boundaries of firms and nations. Recipients are normally obliged to de­vole subslantial resources to assimi l;ttc. adapt. and improve upon the original technology. Moreover, the geographical transfer of productive forms of physical capital may be of little use unless the appropriate human resources are simu ltaneously available in situ to provide for the operation, maintenance, repair, and upgrading of the facilities, as well as to interact and learn from foreign engineers and specialists.

AsJorge Katz argues in Chapter 5 of the volume, to the extent that the normal features of technical

DECEMIlER 1985

knowledge include "imperfect understanding, in­complete availability, imperfect imitability, tacitness, etc." its successful use tends to be dependent on firms and countries developing their own technological capabilities. The acquisition of such capabilities is a nontrivial matter. Baranson and Roark suggest that "none of these capabilities will accrue as a matter of course to passive recipients of technology; each re­quires an increasing level of technological effort."

Larry E. Westphal, Linsu Kim, and Carl J. Dahlman report in Chapter 6 substantial empirical evidence that "adaptations have been observed to take place through changes that stretch the capacity of existing plants, break bottlenecks in particular pro­cesses, improve the use of by-products, adjust to new input sources, alter the product mix, and introduce a wide variety of incremental improvements in pro­cesses and product designs."

The circumstances under which technologies are efficiently assimilated tend to be typified by periods of intensive search by the potential buyers, protracted negotiations, aggressive learning tactics, and a strat­egy focused on adaptation and upgrading of the original design so as to improve its performance characteristics. One sees this paltern of activity on the part of individual firms in Japan, for example, where Terutomo Ozawa notes in Chapter 7 that "although Japan's postwar technological miracle would have been impossible had here been no imports of ad­vanced industrial arts from the West, Japanese in­dustry itself exerted a great deal of effort to adapt and assimilate imported technologies. This assimila­tive effort initially stimulated adaptive R&D, which later turned more original in orientation."

In addition, the experiences of the Japanese and other successful adapters attest to the importance of the social environment. In particular, comprehensive educational systems have played major roles in the assimilation of industrial knowledge. The critical im­portance of education in the history of countries that have been successful both in generating and absorb­ing innovations is now recognized by most analysts. Korea provides expecially instructive testimony on the importance of the human resource factor in a country's ability effectively to assimilate and adapt foreign technologies. In a cross-country comparison among Argentina, Brazil, India, Korea, and Mexico it was clear that "what stands out about the Korean education pattern are the high proportion of post­secondary students abroad, the high secondary en­rollment rate, and the high percentage of engineer­ing students among postsecondary students. Even more remarkable is the rapid growth in the number

89

of scientists and engineers, such that by the late 1970s South Korea apparently had by far the highest per­centage of scientists and engineers in the populations of the five countries."

In exploring the less well-known case of the transfer of textile technology to some of the more industrialized African countries, Lynn K. Mytelka, in Chapter 4, unveils other considerations which relate to the important phenomenon of "non learning," even in the presence of a relatively favorable human and material environment. I ncreases in operating effi­ciency over time are hardly an automatic consequence of participation in production. Mytelka argues that learning in production and improvements in produc­tivity appear to be triggered "when persons in key de­cision-making positions within an enterprise are re­sponsive to their domestic environment, are suffi­ciently aware of technical possibilities, and are placed in a situation in which there are pressures to reduce production costs." When, on the other hand, there are market imperfections and structural rigidities in developing countries and managers of firms find themselves in a less competitive environment, they tend to commit fewer resources to the search for superior technological alternatives. Further, the high search costs in looking outside the firm's "domain of competence" or, alternatively, the increased variance of the results associated with unproven techniques, may also block the adoption of more economical technologies or the modification of the ones in use to suit local conditions better. In the latter case, manag­ers trade reduced profits for reduced risks, a problem not uncommon for multinational firms entering an unfamiliar landscape.

Technology is transferred through such mech­anisms as direct foreign investment, licensing, con­sultancy, technical agreements, and turnkey plant and project contracts, as well as trade in capital goods such as machinery, tools, instruments, and trans­portation equipment. Yet many of the modes of transfer are hard to detect, let alone measure, given the uncodified nature of technology. Account should be taken, for example, of the flows of public techno­logical information as well as of reverse engineering, the transfer of person- or institution-embodied know-how, visits to production facilities, and so on.

Moreover, the relative importance of each of these mechanisms and the role of state agencies change across nations and over time. Farok J. Contractor in Chapter 6 discusses in detail the circumstances under which firms would prefer licensing as opposed (or in addition) to direct foreign investment. Leonard H. Lynn notes that the Japanese Ministry of Interna-

90

tional Trade and Industry has at times used its con­trol over technology imports "to promote the use of advanced technology by Japanese firms to improve the bargaining position of Japanese firms dealing with foreign suppliers, to facilitate the diffusion of new technology within Japan, and to shape Japanese industrial structure." Nevertheless, it has not always been successful, and its role has changed markedly over the last three decades toward a more subtle and less openly interventionist one. If it is true, as Sanjaya Lall points out in the case of India in Chapter 3, that "a low reliance on imports of technology in the process of industrialization clearly contributes to the buildup of a diverse and deep technological capability," it seems to be equally correct that protection of both learning and production, if implemented at all costs, brings with it large static and dynamic inefficiencies in the form of outdated technologies, uncompetitive industries, and fragmented markets.

Not enough is known about the relation between technological policy and technological development, given the complex nature of the interactions between policy-induced decisions and the environment where they are implemented, and in light of the extended period during which those actions unfold and results appear. In spite of the recent progress made in understanding those connections, much still remains to be uncovered concerning appropriate policies to foster the international transmission of knowledge and its effective assimilation by recipient countries. This volume constitutes a significant step in this large intellectual enterprise.

In addition to an introductory chapter by Messrs. Rosenberg and Frischtak, from which this summary is adapted, the volume includes the following chapters:

Keith Pavitt, University of Sussex "Technology Transfer Among the Industrially Advanced

Countries: An Overview" Jack Baranson. Illinois Institute of Technology, and Robin Roark,

Developing World Industry and Technology, Inc. (Washing­ton, D.C.) "Trends in North-South Transfer of High Technology"

Sanjaya Lall, World Bank (Washington, D.C.) "Trade in Techllulogy by a Slowly Industrializing Country:

India" Lynn K. Mytelka, CarleLOn University

"Stimulating Effective Technology Transfer: The Case of Tex­tiles in Africa"

Jorge M. Katz, Buenos Aires "Domeslic Technological Innovalions and Dynamic Compara.

live Advantages: Further Reflections on a Comparalive Case-Sludy Program"

Larry E. Weslphal, World Bank (Washington, D.C.). Linsu Kim. Korea Advanced Inslitule of Science and Technology (Seoul). and Carl J. Dahlman, World Bank

VOLUME 39, NUMBE" 4

"Renections on the Republic of Korea's Acquisition of Tech­nological Capability"

Terutomo Ozawa, Colorado State University "Macroeconomic Factors Affecting Japan's Inflows and Out­

flows: The Postwar Experience" Leonard H. Lynn, Carnegie-Mellon University

"Technology Transfer to J apa n : What We Know, What We Need to Know, and What We Know That May Not Be So"

Farok J. Contractor, Rutgers University "Licensing Versus Foreign Direct Investment in U.S. Corporate

Strategy: An Analysis of Aggregate U.S. Data"

Law and Society in Contemporary Japan, special issue of Law in japan: An Annual (Volume 17, 1984), edited by John O. Haley. Papers from a conference sponsored by the Joint Commiteee on Japanese Studies. Published by the Japanese American Society for Legal Studies, c/o Asian Law Program, School of Law, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 205 pages. Paper, $12.50.

The papers in this volume focus on a basic attri­bute of the Japanese legal system in its social context: the function and limits of law as an instrument for social ordering and the weakness of legal versus social controls in contemporary Japan.

The eight papers in this special issue of Law in Japan include: "Introduction: Legal vs. Social Con­trols," by John O. Haley, University of Washington; "Japan's Constitutional System and Its Judicial In­terpretation," by Lawrence W. Beer, Lafayette Col­lege; "Discretionary Authority of Public Prosecutors in Japan," by B.]. George,Jr., New York Law School; "Marital Dissolution in Japan: Legal Obstacles and Their Impact," by Taimie L. Bryant, University of California, Los Angeles; "The Use and Non-Use of Contract Law in Japan: A Preliminary Study," by Whitmore Gray, University of Michigan; "Adminis­trative Guidance in the Courts; A Case Study in Doc­trinal Adaptation," by Michael K. Young, Columbia University; "Declining Public Ownership of Japanese Industry: A Case of Regulatory Failure," by Lawrence Repeta, Tokyo; and "Instrumental Violence and So­cial Change: The Buraku Liberation League and the Tactic of 'Denunciation Struggle'," by Frank K. Upham, Boston College.

The papers were originally presented at a confer­ence held at Lake Wilderness , Washington, in August 1983.

Longitudinal Analysis of Labor Market Data, edited by James J. Heckman and Burton Singer. A publica-

DECEMBER 1985

tion of the Committee on the. Methodology of Lon­gitudinal Research (1976-1980). New York: Cam­bridge University Press, 1985. xv + 410 pages. Cloth $49.50.

The essays in this volume assess the strengths and limits of longitudinal survey data; that is, data ob­tained from the same individuals at two or more time periods. Although the chapters focus on labor market phenomena, the methodological conclusions of the volume apply more generally to longitudinal data collected to study other phenomena as well. Chapters by Chamberlain, MaCurdy, and Heckman and Robb consider the tradeoffs in assumptions that are re­quired in different research designs. Chapters by Heckman and Singer, Hoem, and Andersen consider the analytical problems that are especially troublesome in longitudinal designs, e .g., measure­ment error, truncation, and selection bias. Essays by Frydman and Singer, Heckman and Singer, Heckman and Robb, and Andersen examine how robust estimators are to departures from the special assumptions that are required in analyses of lon­gitudinal data. Similarly, other chapters identify the minimal set of assumptions required to obtain inter­pretable models. Chapters by MaCurdy, Tuma, and Mare and Winship present empirical examples of longitudinal analyses.

Following an introduction by the editors, the vol­ume contains the following chapters: "Heterogeneity, Omitted Variable Bias, and Duration Dependence," by Gary Chamberlain, University of Wisconsin; "So­cial Science Duration Analysis," by James J. Heckman, University of Chicago, and Burton Singer, Vale University; "Interpreting Empirical Models of Labor Supply in an Intertemporal Framework with Uncertainty," by Thomas E. MaCurdy, Stanford Uni­versity; "Alternative Methods for Evaluating the Im­pact of Interventions," by James J. Heckman and Richard Robb, Jr. , The Chicago Corporation (Chicago); "Weighting, Misclassification, and Other Issues in the Analysis of Survey Samples of Life His­tories," by Jan M. Hoem, University of Stockholm; "Statistical Models for Longitudinal Labor Market Data Based on Counting Processes," by Per Kragh Andersen, Danish Medical and Social Science Re­search Councils (Copenhagen); "Assessing Qualitative Features of Longitudinal Data ," by Halina Frydman, New York University, and Burton Singer; "Effects of Labor Market Structure on Job Shift Patterns," by Nancy Brandon Tuma, Stanford University; "School Enrollment, Military Enlistment, and the Transition to Work: Implications for the Age Pattern of Em-

91

ployment," by Robert D. Mare, University of Wis­consin, and Christopher Winship, Northwestern University.

Lu Xun and His Legacy, edited by Leo Ou-fan Lee. Papers from a 198 I conference sponsored by the Joint Committee on Contemporary China (1959--81). Berkeley, California: University of California Press 1985. xix + 324 pages. Cloth, $32.50. '

Lu Xun [Lu Hsiinl (1881-1936) is the preeiminent Chinese author, thinker, intellectual leader, and lit­erary personage of the 20th century. No single figure III Western countries is comparable as a national cul­tural hero. His works, numbering more than 20 vol­umes, have been canonized; his posthumous fame is second only to that of Mao Zedong. Yet Lu Xun is little known outside Asia, and for more than three decades his reputation has been subjected to ideologi­cal control and manipulation in the People's Republic of China.

The year 198 I marked the centennial of Lu Xun's birth. Among the worldwide commemorative activities was a scholarly conference held at the Asilomar Con­ference Center, Pacific Crove, California, from Au­gust 23 to 28. More than 30 scholars and writers from Europe, Israel , Japan, the United States, and the People's Republic of China attended, and 17 papers were presented. This volume represents a major part of the intellectual harvest of that conference.

The conference was sponsored by the Joint Com­mittee on Contemporary China, with funds provided by the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Ford Foundation.

The conference was honored by the presence of four eminent delegates from the People's Republic of Chllla: two famous writers, Xiao Jun and Wu Zuxiang, and two leading Lu Xun scholars from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, Pu Liangpei and Ce Baoquan. The former presented a paper on the current state of Lu Xun scholarship in Chllla, and the latter gave a long survey of names and titles connected with Lu Xun translation and research all over the world. (An English version of Ce's paper, tilled "Lu Xun and World Literature," was published in Social Sciences in Chi,Ul, 3:62-90, 1981.)

The contributors and their papers are:

Marston Anderson, University of Tennessee "The Morality of Form: Lu Xun and the Modern Chinese

Short Story" Irene Eber, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

"The Reception of Lu Xun in Europe and America: The Politics of Popularization and Scholarship"

92

Howard Goldblatt, San Francisco State University "Lu Xun and Patlerns of Literary Sponsorship"

Merle Goldman, Boston University "The Political Use of Lu Xun in the Cullura) Revolution and

After" David Holm, Macquarie University

"Lu Xun in the Period of 1936-1949: The Making of a Chinese Gorki"

Theodore D. Huters , University of Minnesota "Hu Feng and the Critical Legacy of Lu Xun"

Leo Ou-fan Lee, University of Chicago "Tradition and Modernity in the Writings of Lu Xun"

Lin Yu-shellg, University of Wisconsin "The Morality of Mind and ImmOl·a lity of Politics: Reflections

011 Lu Xun, the Intellectual" Maruy<tm;J Noboru, Tokyo University

"Lu Xun in Japan" David E. Pollard, University of London

"Lu Xun's lawen" John C. Y. Wang, Stanford University

"Lu Xun as a Scholar of TI-aditional Chinese Literature"

Popular Culture in Late Imperial China, edited by David Johnson, Andrew J. Nathan, and Evelyn S. Rawski. Studies on China 4. Sponsored by the Joint Committee on Chinese Studies. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1985. xvii + 449 pages. Cloth, $40.00.

The essays in this volume consider how ideas values, beliefs , and attitudes were formed and transformed in late imperial Chinese society. Work­Ing from plays, novels, scriptures, almanacs, and other widely circulated and influential texts, the au­thors explore the movement of ideas and doctrines from one social group to another and the ways they were modified for presentation to different audi­ences.

The work presented here marks a first step toward the systematic study of popular culture as an integral part of Chinese history. The volume has been de­signed to highlight topics of special importance for future research: (I) the relationship between the audience of a work and its content; (2) attempts by the authorities to impose orthodox values on the pOPlllace; (3) popular drama and its social context­and (4) the content and spread of popular religiou~ teachings.

The January 198 I conference on which the volume is based was sponsored by the American Council of Learned Societies' Committee on Studies of Chinese Civilization, one of the two predecessor committees of the Joint Committee on Chinese Studies.

This is the fourth volume of a new series, Studies on China, sponsored by the committee. The first vol-

VOLUME 39, NUMBER 4

ume was Origins oj Chinese Civiliwtion, edited by David L. Keightley; the second was Popular Chinese Literature alld P"jonning Arts in the People's Republic oj China, edited by Bonnie S. McDougall; and . the third was Class and Social Stratification in Post-Revolution China,

edited by James L. Watson. The contributors and their papers are:

Judith A. Berling. Indiana University "Religion and Popular Culture: The Management of Moral

Capital in The Romance of the Three Teachings" James Hayes, Hong Kong Civil Service

"Specialists and Written Materials in the Village World" Roben E. Hegel, Washington University

"Distinguishing Levels of Audiences for Ming-Ch'ing Ver-

nacular Literature" David Johnson, University of California, Berkeley

"Communication, Class, and Consciousness in Late Imperial

China" Leo Ou-fan Lee, University of Chicago, and Andrew j. Nathan,

Columbia University "The Beginnings of Mass Culture: Journalism and Fiction in

the Late Ch'ing and Beyond" Victor H. Mair, University of Pennsylvania

"Language and Ideology in the Written Popularizations of the

Sacred Edict" Susan Naquin, University of Pennsylvania

"The Transformation of White Lotus Sectarianism in Late 1m·

perial China" Daniel L. Overmyer, University of British Columbia

"Values in Chinese Sectarian Literature: Ming and Ch'ing

Pao·chilan" Evelyn S. Rawski, University of Pittsburgh

"Economic and Social Foundations of Late Imperial Culture" and "Concluding Perspectives: Problems and Prospects"

Tanaka Issei, Tokyo University "The Social and Historical Context of Ming·Ch'ing Local

Drama" Barbara E. Ward , Newnham College (Cambridge) and Chinese

University of Hong Kong "Regional Operas and Their Audiences: Evidence from Hong

Kong" James L. Watson, University of Pittsburgh

"Standardizing the Gods: The Promotion of T'ien Hou ('Em· press of Heaven') Along the South China Coast, 960--1960"

Property, Social Structure, and Law in the Modern Middle East, edited by Ann Elizabeth Mayer. A pub­lication of the Subcommittee on Law and Social Structure of the Joint Committee on the Near and Middle East. Albany, New York: State University of :-Jew York Press, 1985. xv + 274 pages. Cloth, $34.50;

paper, $14.95.

The papers in this volume attempt to analyze the relationships among property, law, and social structure in the Middle East. The subject is older and

DECHIBER 1985

broader in scope than that of the nation-state legal systems now prominent in the political landscape. Mindful of this, scholars examining property draw on a variety of disciplines and are concerned with a con­tinuum of relationships at the local, regional, and national and international levels existing in the multi­ple contexts of customary, religious, and national systems of law. In analyzing the relation between property rights and social structure, they consider the legitimate and illegitimate uses of power by individu­als and groups within this continuum of relationships, in order to understand actual patterns and directions

of change. By virtue of the variety of relationships found to

exist between people and "things" in the Middle East, there are a number of legal systems that sometimes intermingle and are sometimes counterpoised. As a result, contributors to this volume often draw atten­tion to the distinctions between customary and statute law with respect to property, or between traditional and more recent concepts of property as they are perceived by the folk, by politicians, and by partici­pants in political movements and as they affect or are affected by enduring structures.

Distinctions between different modes of dispute resolution have been recognized. Disputes about water distribution, landholdings, or housing may be settled through either formal or informal channels. Behavioral studies of property and property rights that pay attention to what people actually do, irre­spective of what the law says and how it operates, give emphasis to actual use patterns of dispute resolution.

The relation between law and social structure in the Middle East has been shaped not only by historical, social, and cultural features of the various societies in this part of the world but also by foreign intervention. Because the Middle Eastern nations are young na­tions, the history of state and foreign intervention affecting property and property rights is particularly salient. Specific attention is increasingly being paid to state ownership and control of property, to technol­ogy transfer, to the effects of demographic policies, and to policies of oil regulation and oil revenue-all ol"which involve analysis of external as well as internal

actors. Middle Eastern countries have inherited from the

prevailing colonial context a law primarily shaped by the European legal systems. With colonial law there emerged a model of foreign intervention into legal procedure as an instrument of political management. This model is still present in contemporary Middle Eastern nations, and is still used in order to mold property rights to serve state interests. Governance is

93

an important function of law in the new nations of the Middle East. Scholars who point out the role of na­tional law in governing rights of property may em­phasize the continuity between colonial regimes and the new nations-a continuity of increased state power. This centralizing power of the state through the use of law is occurring in countries with social structures as different as Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia. In this context, property becomes a central issue. That which is per­ceived as threatening to the consolidation of the state, whether it be local control over water or kinship alliances and landholdings, is being undermined by national law.

In addition, there are instances in which law serves other functions. Hence, national law may merge with religious law, customary law, or even with interna­tionallaw in setting the boundaries of property rights and defining new properties. In the papers we see that the work of law in resolving conflict, distributing resources, or contributing to symbolic goal setting is crucial to analyses of property, power, and law.

The contributors and their papers are,

Habib Attia (Carthage) "Watn-Sharing Rights in the Jcrid Oases of Tunisia"

Tomas Gerholm, University of Stockholm "Aspects of Inheritance and Marriage Payment in North

Yemen" Ahdellah Hammoudi, Hassan II University (Rabat)

"Substance and Relation: Water Rights and Water DistribUlion in the I)ra Valley"

MiJad M. Hanna, Ayn Shams University "Real Estate Rights in Urban Egypt: The Changing Sociopoliti­

cal Winds" Pamela R. Johnson and Stephen F. Lintner, both of the United

Slates Agency for International Development "Centralism and Pluralism: Legal Issues in Three Near Eastern

Area Development Projects"

S;lInir Khalaf, American University of Beirut "Social Structure and Urban Planning in Lebanon"

Robert J. Lapham, National Research Council; Allan G. Hill, Centre for Population Studies (London); and Charles B. Keely, The Population Council (New York) "International Migration in the Middle East: Effects on Prop­

C;!ny and Social StrucLUre" ReillY Leveau, Center for Research and for Economic, Juridical,

and Social Documentation (CEDE.J), Cairo "Public Property and Control of Pmperty Rights: Their Effects

on Social Structure in Morocco" Ahraham Marcus. University of Texas

"Real Property and Society in the Premodern Middle East: A Case Study"

Ann Elizabeth Mayer, University of Pennsylvania "Preface"

Laura Nader, University of California. Berkeley "Introduction"

94

Racial Attitudes in America: Trends and Interpre­tations, by Howard Schuman, Charlotte Steeh, and Lawrence Bobo. Sponsored by the Committee on So­cial Indicators as part of a series, Social Trends in the United States, under the editorial supervision of James A. Davis and John Modell. Cambridge, Massa­chusetts: Harvard University Press, 1985. xi + 260 pages. Cloth, $22.50.

This book reports and analyzes changes in Ameri­can attitudes toward racial issues that have taken place between the 1940s and the 1980s. The authors report survey ,hta concerning attitudes of blacks and whites toward each other.

The data were collected by three major survey or­ganizations in the United States: the Gallup Organi­zation; the ational Opinion Research Center, Uni­versity of Chicago; and the Institute for Social Re­search, University of Michigan. The authors group these data into one of three major sets of questions concerning principles of racial equality, attitudes toward governmental implementation of those prin­ciples, and professed feelings and behavior toward the integration and interaction of the races. Questions are in turn used to judge the merits of three in­terpretations of change in racial attitudes in the United States during this period: (I) a consistent lib­eralization in the attitudes of white Americans toward blacks, (2) an eroding commitment to racial justice and the emergence of symbolic racism, and (3) some combination of these two interpretations which in­corporates both progress and resistance to racial tol­erance and equality. In the words of the authors, "the major change in the past four decades has involved rejection of absolute racial segregation and accep­tance of the principle of movement by blacks into previously all-white spheres of life .... This accep­tance goes beyond the single black individual ... so long as the number represents a clear minority. But as soon as questions indicate that blacks might constitute a majority of the neighborhood, school, or other sphere, open white objection becomes more pro­nounced. Moreover, a large proportion of whites ob­ject to any governmental action that might facilitate such a change from a white to a black majority, and ... this opposition has decreased very little since the 1940s. . .. I n sum, the change over the past four decades has been away from both the principle and, to an extent, the practice of absolute segregation­and in this sense it has been a genuine and large change-but is has not been clearly toward full inte­gration of blacks into white society."

In addition to presentinj!; and reanalyzing survey

VOLUME 39, NUMBER 4

data, the authors assess the sensitivity of survey re­sponses to the wording and placement of questions within a questionnaire and provide a useful general overview of the pitfalls involved in studying changes in attitudes through survey-based research methods.

A Scholars' Guide to Humanities and Social Sci­ences in the Soviet Union: The Academy of Sciences of the USSR and the Academies of Sciences of the Union Republics, edited by Blair A. Ruble and Mark H. Teeter; compiled by Robert Muivani, Viktor Pliushchev, and Vadim Milshtein , with the assistance of Viktor Cherviakov and Valerii Osinov. Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe, Inc., 1985. 310 pages. Cloth, $75.00.

This volume contains the findings of the most comprehensive survey ever made of the social sci­ence and humanities institutions of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the academies of sciences of the Union republics. A project of the American Council of Learned Societies-Soviet Academy of Sci­ences Commission on the Humanities and Social Sci­ences, administered in the United States by the Inter­national Research & Exchanges Board (I REX), A Scholars' Guide is the result of a five-year program of American and Soviet social scientists. The program was administered in the Soviet Union by the Institute of Scientific Information in the Social Sciences (INIO ) of the USSR Academy of Sciences and in the United States by the Kennan Institute for Advanced

DECE""E' 1985

Russian Studies of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

The guide includes basic information concerning the name, address, director, telephone number, in­stitutional history, staff size, research interests, publi­cations, and international contacts of 158 scientific research institutes as well as 59 scientific coordinating councils throughout the institutional hierarchy of the Soviet academies of sciences. The data were collected in the Soviet Union by Robert Mdivani, Viktor Pliushchev, and Vadim Milshtein, with the assistance of Viktor Cherviakov and Valerii Osinov. All Soviet participants are affiliated with the Moscow-based I n­stitute of Scientific Information in the Social Sciences. The Soviet scholars gathered information through a survey of all relevant institutions as well as through supplementary information searches. The survey in­strument was designed jointly by the Soviet and American participants. The preparation of the text was the sole responsibility of the Soviet participants.

The American editors, Blair A. Ruble of the Coun­cil and Mark H. Teeter, The Episcopal High School (Alexandria, Virginia), were responsible for the vol­ume's basic structure and conception. Translation, minor style and format editing, the compilation of the indexes, and publication were also the responsibility of the American participants.

Each institution's director, address, and phone number are up to date as of August 1985. More recent or fuller information on any institution or part of the USSR Academy of Sciences may be obtained by contacting the I nternational Research & Exchanges Board, 655 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10017.

95

•

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL 605 THIRD AVENUE, NEW YORK. N.Y. 10158

Incorporated in the State of Illinois, December 27, 1924, for the pwpose of advancing research in the social sciences

Directors, 1985-86: RICIIARD A. BERK, University of California. Santa Barbara; 5TH"EN E. FIEN8ERG, Carnegie-Mellon University; HOWARI)

GARDNER, Veterans Administration Medical Center (Boston): E. MAVIS HETHERINGTON, University of Virginia; CHARLES O. JONES, University of Vir~,'inia; ROBERT W. KATICS, Clark University; GARDNER LINOZH. Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences; HUGH T. PATRICK, Columbia University; JOSEPH A. PECHMAN, The Brookings Institution (Washington. D.C.); SVD.t:I. F. SILVERMAN, The Graduate Center, City University of New York; RODOI.FQ STAVl:NIIAGEN, El Colegio de Mexico; STEPHEN M. STIGLER, University of Chicago; FRANCIS X. SUTTON, Social Science Research Council; LoUISE A. T ILl.Y, New School for Social Research; SIDNEY VERBA, Harvard University; HERBERT F. YORK, University of California, San Diego.

Officers and Staff: FRANCIS X. Sun'oN, Acting President; DAVID L SILLS, Executive Associate; RONALD J. PELECK, Controller; VIRGINIA FEURy.GAGNON, A.nistanl to llu President; THEODORE C. BESTOR,JOAN DASS IN, P. N IKIFOROS DIAMANDOUROS, YASMINE ERGAS, MARTHA A. GEPHART, RORERT W. PEARSON. RICHARD C. ROCKWEI.L, BI.AIR A. RUBLE, LONNIE R. SHERROD, DAVID L SZANTON.

Social Science Research Council 605 Third Avenue New York, N.Y. 10158

ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED

96

NONPROFIT ORG.

u. S. POSTAGE

PAID ALBANY, N. Y. Permit No. 31

VOLUME 39, NUMBER 4