SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

VOLUME 20 . NUMBER I . MARCH 1966 230 PARK AVENUE· NEW YORK, N. Y. 10017

POLITICAL PARTIES AND POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT: OBSERVATIONS FROM A COMPARATIVE SURVEY*

IN recent studies of political development political sci­entists have tended to treat the political system as a dependent phenomenon, influenced in its stable or changing configurations by ecological and other environ­mental factors. From these studies we have come increas-

....iigly to understand that the structure of political insti­

.tions, their operation, and the political behavior found in any sample of nation-states are influenced in part by such broad conditions as the "political culture" and by more limited phenomena such as the educational systems or communications network of a particular so­ciety. Although these studies serve to alert the political scientist to the close interdependence of political, eco­nomic, social, and psychological factors, they also carry the danger of an unjustifiable implication, namely, that the political system is the outcome of environmental fac­tors that may be stable or changing through time. Aware of this danger, a number of scholars have called atten­tion to the utility of recognizing that aspects of the po­litical system itself do affect its evolution or change. The formulation is simple: it holds that environment and system, as well as major elements of the latter, are inter­related and that the process of political change or devel-

• This article is a greatly condensed version of the concluding chap­ter in Political PaTties and Political Development, the sixth volume of Studies in Political Development, the series sponsored by the Committee on Comparative Politics, copyright by Princeton University Press, with whose permission this version is printed here. The volume, edited by the authors of this article, is based on the papers and proceedings of an

~rnational conference held by the committee at Frascati, Italy, Janu­WI 6-9, 1964 (d. Items, December 196!!, pp. 47-48), and will be pub­

lished in the spring of 1966 (c. 472 pages; c. $8.50). For the membership of the Committee on Comparative Politics, see p. 9 infra.

by Joseph LaPalombara and Myron Weiner

opment is therefore best conceptualized as one in which the institutions of politics have a bearing on the broader environment and on each other.

Thus, the series of volumes, Studies in Political De­velopment, sponsored by the Council's Committee on Comparative Politics covers not merely the areas of com­munications, education, and political culture but also the impact of such critical institutions as the public bureaucracy. The sixth volume of the series deals with the relationship between political parties and political development. It brings together the theoretical and em­pirical contributions of American and European scholars who share an interest in this relationship and whose combined research includes experience in every conti­nent. Although the contributions range over many sig­nificant aspects of this important relationship, four prob­lems receive detailed attention: political participation, legitimacy, national integration, and the management of conflict. These problems, or historical crises of nation­hood, can and often do arise before the emergence of po­litical parties, as the papers included in the volume show. Our purpose in this article is to highlight some conclu­sions suggested in the volume regarding the impact of political parties and political party systems on the reso­lution of two of these problems-political participation and the management of conflict.

POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

The interdependence of parties and their environ­ment is clearly revealed in studies of political partici­pation. Whatever the stage of a country's economic or

1

social development, demands for and changes in po­litical participation profoundly affect the operation of the political system, and these demands are acceler­ated by increases in urbanization, communication, and education. These pressures for more effective participa­tion constrain any government, including authoritarian types, to search for means of responding to such de­mands. And, where some sort of party government­even the single-party variety increasingly associated with the new nations-has been established, the existence of one or more parties seems to intensify the problem of representation and the demands for participation. Au­thoritarian rule in countries like South Vietnam or Ghana has not succeeded in removing such pressures, nor have experiments, such as Pakistan's, in outlawing any kind of political party organization.

One can discern four over-all patterns of response of party governments to the demands of groups for greater political participation: repression, mobilization, limited admission to the party system, and full admission to the system.

Repression. This form of response by political elites is deeply rooted in history. As European political de­velopment amply demonstrates, repression has been jus­tified by these elites on the basis of economic self-interest and by appeal to the "natural" right of the elect to con­trol the reins of power. In practice one would expect to find rationales that combine many factors and, while some of these might be scored as masking "real" reasons, it seems simplistic to interpret repression as resulting from any single factor such as the mode of production, commitments to stratification systems, or the "will to power."

It seems to us that three factors may be associated with repression, whether historically in the West or currently in the developing areas. The first factor is the system of values held by the dominant elite when parties begin to emerge. If their emergence is viewed as a threat to the maintenance of basic and dominant values (economic, religious, social, etc.), there is likely to be strong resist­ance to additional political participation. The second factor, related to the first, is the degree of consensus in a society regarding the value of maintaining a representa­tive system. Although this proposition seems self-evi­dent, experience suggests a close relationship between dominant social and economic values, on the one side, and the rank-in a full hierarchy of basic values-of commitment to representation. Where the demand for representation openly threatens higher values, the prob­ability of repression clearly becomes very great. A third factor would be purely psychological: it involves the hy­pothesis that new elites operating under a party system find it difficult to share, with new claimants, the politi-

o

cal powers they themselves have succeeded in wresting from pre-existing systems. Such patterns can be detected not only in European middle-class reactions to later demands for participation by the proletariat, but also hilt the reactions of, say, Western-educated African elites to demands for a substantial expansion of participation.

Mobilization. It would be incorrect to assume that all one-party systems cope with demands for participation through repression. It is now apparent, for example, that many one-party states actually welcome demands for greater participation, if their elites are convinced that they can control or manipulate the participatory activi­ties. Where such elites accede to demands for greater participation within a context of mixed repression, ma­nipulation, and control, we speak of the existence of "mobilization systems."

We assume that the marked increase in instrumental uses of participation is explained by the fact that elites have come to understand the close relationship between certain "mass" activities and the resolution of such prob­lems as creating national identity, achieving national integration, and enlisting popular support for the goals of economic development. Thus, what we often find in "mobilization systems" is the fostering of a sense of in­creased political participation, without any substantive concessions that would markedly increase the number of persons who influence policy and administration, • who are involved in the selection of those who w govern.

It must be noted that the mass single-party in a "mobilization system" differs from the single parties that govern totalitarian states. In the latter the dominant party may be critically important as a channel of mo­bility and as an instrument for recruiting political lead­ership. In the former the party is likely to increase only marginally the members' objective opportunities for po­litical mobility. The distinction is real, although not always easy to maintain in practice. The use of single parties for purposes of mass mobilization always involves the risk to existing elites that the masses will gain con­trol of the party and convert it into something unantici­pated. The danger is reflected in the pendulous swings of such parties from organizations recruiting mass mem­bership to much smaller, purged membership units that present fewer problems of ideological purity and cen­tralized control.

Limited admission to the party system. Governments of course may permit parties to organize and even to be­come vehicles for expanded participation, but without ever intending that such parties should actually gain power or share i~ its. exercise. Attit~d~s of nineteene century bourgeOls ehtes toward soclalIst parties reflect such assumptions, as do, we think, attitudes of current

elites toward Communist parties in Italy and France, or toward other parties in some East European states.

It is precisely in prolonged situations of limited ad--'ission that we find alienated parties. Where these exist,

It is natural that the individual member or supporter is integrated not into the broad political system but into the party itself-and perhaps the subculture that it represents. Such parties of "social integration," to use Sigmund Neumann's felicitous phrase, are generally forged during periods of repression; they later come to encompass many facets of the lives of their members and also tend to institutionalize the alienation that the party symbolizes for its members and followers. Where this happens, the problem of national integration tends to remain indefinitely unresolved.

Full admission to the party system. Full admission to participation can be granted either through existing parties or permission to organize new ones. Which pat­tern is followed depends on the extent to which existing parties are rigidly ideological or broadly pragmatic. Ideological parties are not readily opened to large num­bers of aspirants to membership and followers who fail to satisfy the ideological criteria for these categories. Pragmatic parties primarily bent on winning elections, such as India's Congress party, are much more prepared to absorb new members and followers. Whether the first

~rties to emerge in a nation are of the ideological or _e pragmatic variety therefore should make a major dif­ference in subsequent political party development.

Wherever full admission to participation is the domi­nant pattern of adaptation, we may assume either that additional participation is not perceived as a threat to dominant values or that the value of participation or representation is so overriding as to supersede any con­cern for implied threats to the system. It is because neither of these conditions is likely to develop that most of the historical and contemporary examples we might cite fall short of achieving this type of adaptation.

We assume that the means of resolving the crisis of participation often will strongly influence the nature of the parties and the party systems that emerge. Whether the demand for greater participation is based on social class, religion, or geographic factors, the emergence of parties reflecting such narrow bases will tend to produce organizational countermeasures in the form of equally narrowly based parties. Industrial workers' parties stimu­late action by the middle class, or by the agricultural sector; parties based on one religious minority group give rise to other similarly based organizations. As these

~oups maneuver for a maximum share of political wwer, they tend to devise electoral systems that will

abet this tendency, or at least to guarantee conditions for their own minimal survival. Thus, whereas propor-

3

tional representation does not cause a multiparty sys­tem, it certainly both reflects political fragmentation and helps to perpetuate it. Given the infinite number of lines along which societies may be divided politically, it is the two-party system that appears as a curious and in­teresting aberration.

MANAGEMENT OF CONFLICT

Although parties as independent factors influencing political participation and other aspects of government (which cannot be treated here) direct attention to prob­lems that are generally viewed in long-range perspective, on a day-to-day basis the essence of politics seems to us to be the management of conflict, that is, the ability of a political system to manage constantly shifting kinds and degrees of opposing demands that are made on it. It seems appropriate therefore to examine the role of po­litical parties in relation to this vital and universal stand­ard against which any political system can be viewed.

How well parties deal with the problems of conflict management will obviously be affected by some of the conditioning variables we have already explored. Socie­tal cleavages, for example, may be so basic and intense as to make open and peaceful adjustment of conflict by political parties difficult. Since this is particularly the case where cleavages are ideological and translated into competing parties that are fundamentally "anti-system," it is reasonable to suggest that ideological parties in a competitive system are less able than pragmatic or "brokerage" parties to handle conflict effectively.

In any situation of societal cleavage, the attitudes and skills of party leaders are an important element in how conflict is managed. If we reflect on the early history of the United States, political leadership skills loom as critically important in the management of conflict; even so, many decades of bargaining and compromise were followed by a civil war. Nonetheless, it should be noted that in the developing areas a handful of men concerned with finding solutions to apparently insoluble disputes have sometimes been able to maintain stable systems. To assess the probable impact of any party system on the management of conflict, it is essential to know some­thing of the style of leadership involved, the degree of tolerance, the measure of trust, and the capacity of leaders to make realistic judgments about the behavior of other people in the system.

The background and experience of party leaders in dealing with conflict are of course important. Memories of past conflicts often condition current behavior. Indi­viduals brought up in a political system in which there have been coups, assassinations, political arrests, and un­derground movements will not readily adopt a political

style emphasizing peaceful and rational discussion. Vio­lent nationalist movements-particularly where the vio­lence is directed against competing countrymen as well as colonial rulers-do not generally produce a bargain­ing, pragmatic style of leadership. With few exceptions the party leaders of the developing states seem ill­prepared to respond in peaceful ways to pressures from potential counterelites or others.

The capacity of political leaders to manage conflict peaceably is also affected by failure. If a defeated poli­tician has no other occupation, source of income, or source of rewards than politics, an uncompromising des­perate style may characterize his political behavior. In contrast, a politician who knows that if he is defeated within the party or by the opposition other opportunities are open to him-that he may move into the House of Lords, become an ambassador, run for a lesser office, or return to a lucrative law practice--<:an afford to accept political defeat with some grace. Such differences may help to explain the violence that characterizes politics in many new nations. In this connection it is important to note the function of honorific positions of status withou t power as a compensation for defeated politicians. Power­less upper houses in bicameral legislative systems are not without purpose.

The role of parties and party systems in the manage­ment of conflict is also affected by their relationship to governmental structures. One should know, therefore, whether a single party-or the governing party or par­ties of a competitive system-does in fact control other sectors of government, such as the bureaucracy, and whether such control is balanced; for either too little or too much party control would appear to be unfavorable insofar as management of conflict is concerned.

Of the lack of party control, the Latin American situa­tion offers particularly striking illustrations. In some in­stances the short- and long-range policy-making proc­esses are hampered by the absence of a party system capable of performing certain functions. If available a party system could assist in articulating and aggregating interest or in the legitimation of public policy. How­ever, the separation of parties from governmental elites, including the executive, bureaucracy, and military, is such that those groups can operate largely as they choose, unchecked by the need to come to terms with the wishes or demands of parties.

Western governments provide some strikingly simi­lar examples of the consequences incident to failure of the party system to achieve adequate control over the bureaucracy. Weimar's Germany is often cited as a tell­ing case of the disruptive influence of a bureaucracy opposed to a particular political system and more or less committed to undermining it.

4

Theoretically, party control of the bureaucracy in competitive systems can also go too far and thus impede effective management of conflict. The typical situation would be a hegemonic system in which extended con. trol by one or several parties results in a colonization 0

the bureaucracy. When a single party enjoys hegemonic control in competitive systems, the threat of political colonization is even greater. Where it occurs-as in Italy since World War II under the Christian Democrats­the ability of the bureaucratic sector to aggregate de­mands on the basis of a national interest is severely cur­tailed. Loyalty to, even membership in, the hegemonic party becomes a critical determinant of promotion in the bureaucracy. Interest groups outside the party's pale have less opportunity to express their views to bureau­cratic decision-makers; indeed, outside groups may even be denied access to the latter. Such groups and the public come to view the bureaucracy as indistinguish­able from the dominant party and therefore unable or unwilling to act as an impartial implementer of pub-lic policy or arbiter among conflicting groups. Instead of reducing tensions (particularly in deeply fragmented societies), this pattern of control intensifies them.

In colonial areas, where the state apparatus was strong, nationalist parties often developed as parallel govern­ments, taking on at the local level certain functions of police, administration, education, and welfare. After i~ dependence was achieved the party might continue. perform some of these functions, but it could not in fact become a substitute for government. If the adminis­trative structures inherited from colonialism are ex­tremely weak-Guinea is a good example-the line be­tween party and government may be quite blurred, and the party will take on nearly the whole range of activi­ties that in most societies are considered to be govern­mental functions. An invariable consequence is that the existing bureaucratic structures become politicized by the dominant party-and possibly the full force of gov­ernmental apparatus can be used to prevent further democratic development.

However, the question of proper balance is not easy to deal with. The legacy in many ex-colonial areas is clearly that the strongest unit within the political system turns out to be an entrenched civil and military bureaucracy with its own elite, its own views of the new nation's des­tiny, and its own wishes regarding both the priorities and tempo of national development. Where the bureaucracy is strong, while the executive and legislative branches are new and not yet deeply entrenched and the political parties are essentially weak, conditions are ideal for the domination of the new state by the public bureaucraA

Strong bureaucrats, then, can become significant elitF competing with the political party leadership. In many

newly independent areas the bureaucracy has been hos­tile to the ideology and programs of political parties and has often tried to undermine governmental programs

Aor, in extreme cases, to destroy the party system. The -bureaucracy, as in Japan after the Meiji Restoration,

may see itself as the bearer of economic modernization, national integration, and political order and view politi­cal parties as expressions of parochial loyalties, personal ambition, and disorder. Its trenchant opposition to the parties may seriously impede pluralistic political devel­opment or actually bring about a one-party system.

On the other hand, in considering balance of power among emergent parties and authoritative governmental structures, we must note that in many developing areas a dominant or single party may well succeed in politi­cizing the bureaucracy. Where such fusion occurs, whether the party has absorbed the bureaucracy or vice versa is an open question.

"LOADS" ON NEW PARTY SYSTEMS

One of the great paradoxes of political development is that newly formed governments, those with the least experience, typically face the severest loads. A small iII­trained bureaucracy is often called upon to implement planning programs that would overtax the capacity of

~ome of the world's most highly developed administra­~ive systems. Newly organized armies which may never

have been in combat are often called upon to deal with the most complex and difficult military situation-an internal war launched by an insurgent movement. And elites which were once united by a common hostility to a reigning aristocracy, or to colonial rulers, suddenly must cope with decades of pent-up conflict and with fundamental disagreements over what ought to consti­tute the national framework of government.

Thus far we have discussed the roles of parties in particular crises of political development but have said little about the effects of these crises on the behavior of political parties. Once political parties emerge, for ex­ample, we have noted that they are often confronted by demands for broader participation. The crisis created by these demands frequently is accompanied by other crises. In what is now the classic British case, parties were com­pelled to cope with the issue of constitutional order (a legitimacy issue), but before the working class sought access to the political system and before the further crisis of socioeconomic distribution arose. Where the legiti­macy of authority has been settled and there is general agreement throughout the society on the appropriate

_ules for seeking and exercising power, the system tends to be capable of handling further demands for poiitical participation or for socioeconomic distribution. When

5

these demands materialize before prior crises have been laid reasonably to rest, great instabilities are introduced into the political system and, more often than not, the groups or parties in power resort to extreme solutions.

In most of the Asian and African states today there is an extraordinary accumulation of loads for the party system. In most places the problems of national integra­tion-of asserting and legitimizing the priority of the nation-state over tribal and traditional loyalties-are overwhelming. For those parochial and traditional ele­ments that are the objects of legitimizing and integrat­ing activities by party elites, as well as for some elements of the elite itself, what has been characterized as the "crisis of identity" is of paramount importance.

Long before any real integration has occurred, and certainly before the new political institutions have been able to penetrate the outer reaches of the new states, some social groups attempt to take part in the political process through political parties and interest groups. De­mands for social justice, in the form of a more equitable distribution of society's wealth and more consumers' as opposed to capital goods, and desires for greater social and economic opportunities are expressed before sub­stantial economic growth has taken place. The rate of growth that made it possible in the United States and in some European countries to satisfy the demands of the working class without substantial reduction in the wealth of the upper classes is absent in Africa; this is a reality that party leaders cannot escape. Despite this re­ality, the clamor for political participation and im­proved distribution is raised to deafening pitch. Party elites are often under enormous pressure to respond in a way that will permit them to retain power. In an emerging nation today it is the exceptional elite that ad­heres to democratic practices in responding to this chal­lenge, that does not ban or severely restrict parties, that does not attempt to make of interest groups abject instru­mentalities of the party of bureaucracy or to ride rough­shod over tribal, ethnic, communal, or other traditional groups in the society.

These examples suggest that the roles political parties play in handling the problems we have discussed depend upon (a) the sequence of issues and (b) their clustering. Closer examination may show that among the independ­ent variables that affect the kind of party system that de­velops, these two factors warrant great attention. There may be an "appropriate" or "optimum" timing of issues or of crises. It seems obvious, for example, that if prob­lems of distribution arise before economic development has made considerable progress, parties will have more difficulty managing such demands than they would if the problems arose after a period of rapid growth. Simi­larly, demands by new groups to participate in the politi-

cal system can be much more effectively managed when the constitutional order and procedures for influencing government have been clearly defined and accepted as legitimate by the general population. If the governing party must deal with demands for better distribution before governmental power itself has penetrated to all portions of the country, and before disparate and pre­existing centers of power have been integrated into a larger national framework, the ability of government to carry out its decisions will be slight. In such circum­stances party personnel are likely to be more concerned with influencing local bureaucratic and political struc­tures than with formulating and implementing the pub­lic policies of a national government.

We are well aware that emergent party elites cannot wholly dictate either the sequence or the clustering of the types of crises mentioned. One does not merely legis­late and thereby solve the crisis of identity-turning Bengalis into Indians, Hausa into Nigerians, Tamils into Ceylonese, or Chinese into Thais. Nor does one create a sense of legitimacy of government by promul­gating a new constitution and electing national leaders under it. In historical European cases, emergent parties were confronted with certain inescapable facts concern­ing the degree of integration and legitimacy that the political system had already achieved. However, parties have been more or less sensitive to these problems and more or less adept at handling them. A more systematic examination of the performance of parties regarding such crises in various settings and at different times might indicate how the party elites of the newer states could approach similar problems with some hope of success.

Moreover, emergent party elites can influence to some extent both the sequence and clustering of other types of crises. In societies where popular demands for greater economic distribution are not well developed, the domi­nant elite can choose to arouse expectations or to re­strain them.

It should be emphasized here that the attitude of the dominant party toward economic development can and usually will have important implications for the kind of political system that is viable or democratic. For ex­ample, because economic development aspirations are often accompanied by an ideological commitment to the role of the public sector, steps are frequently taken to harass or impede the private sector, thereby preventing it from becoming an important source of countervailing power. A single-minded commitment to economic growth leads the dominant party to be intolerant of op­position and disposed to eradicate it by legislation or otherwise. Trade unions may be viewed not as bargain­ing instruments for the working class, but as groups

6

whose demand for increased wages could reduce funds available for capital investment. However, a commit­ment by the dominant elite to use the power of the state to speed economic development need not mean repres­sive policies. Many policies which do not require coer­cion may be pursued by governments to hasten economic growth. That many governments of new states choose to stress controls and sanctions rather than incentives is a matter of choice, not a logical or functional prerequisite or consequence of a development-oriented policy. In any case there is little convincing evidence that the best or only road to economic modernity is that of an au­thoritarian or totalitarian regime dominated by a single party.

The question of political tutelage can be viewed in this context. Those who advocate a policy of tutelage­and it is invariably advocated by those who exercise power, not those in opposition-argue that it is not only a prerequisite for economic development but also a necessary stage in political development. They argue that authoritarianism is necessary to prevent elements of opposition from exploiting an illiterate and politically unsophisticated population, and also that the integra­tion of parochial groups, such as tribes and castes, can best take place under authoritarian auspices. Perhaps authoritarian regimes can be more skillful than plural­istic, competitive systems in coping with crises of inte­gration, but at this stage there is no clear-cut one way or another. There is even less reason to believe that viable democratic systems can be constructed on undemocratic foundations. The evolution of some West­ern democracies out of absolutist systems is clearly not analogous, if only because many of the tutelary systems in Asia and Africa are already experiencing crises of participation. Confronted by such crises, moderately authoritarian regimes must either widen the bases of their power or tum increasingly toward the ruthless instruments of mass control that we associate with totalitarianism.

CONCLUSION

Some scholars have suggested that the differences be­tween the party exercising power in an authoritarian or totalitarian state and the parties competing for power in a democratic system are so great that comparisons are meaningless. They have suggested that the one-party state be excluded from discussions of party systems (they point out that one cannot rightly speak of a one-party state as a party system) and regarded simply as one form of oligarchical system. e

In the volume briefly summarized here, we treat po­litical parties, whether in totalitarian or democratic sys-

terns, as a generic phenomenon-on the ground that parties, of many kinds and in many differing contexts, are a feature of politics in both the developed and de-

aveloping nations. The need for linking the individual ~itizen to the state, either by allowing him to participate

in the selection of governmental personnel or by con­trolling him, is greater among modern and modernizing nations than among traditional political systems, and this linkage is typically provided by parties. Moreover, there is much similarity in the ways in which the single party of an authoritarian system and the dominant party of a competitive system are organized, in the problems they confront, and the functions they perform.

Given the crucial role parties have often played in the establishment of (or failure to establish) viable po­litical systems in which the framework of government (whether authoritarian or democratic) is widely accepted as legitimate, it is important to note that United States programs of aid for the development of the military or bureaucracy can sometimes be politically destructive. Where the bureaucracy, for example, is the strong in­stitution and political parties are just being organized, a program to strengthen the bureaucracy through tech­nical assistance or to enlarge the military may serve to undermine a frail party system. Thus technical assistance to "modernize" the bureaucracies of Africa and Asia in the interest of maximizing economic development, but

eeglecting the problems of political development, may not help to create a viable political framework-and without that, economic development programs are likely to have little success.

It is by no means certain that political parties, either in an open competitive environment or in a one-party "system," can find solutions to the central problems of political development confronting most of the new nations. After all, parties may become the entrenched in­struments of powerful elites primarily concerned with resisting efforts of other groups to participate in the po­litical process. Or parties may be so closely identified with parochial groups and so unconcerned with a larger national identity that they facilitate political disintegra­tion. Or, finally, parties may become such effective means of expressing local sentiments and so concerned with converting demands for distribution into adminis­trative acts that they fail to serve the larger public pur­pose of mobilizing the population for the broader aims of modernization.

We do not know yet which types of parties or party systems will prove to be capable of dealing with the cen­tral tasks or crises of political development in the de­veloping areas. We have suggested here that these crises and problems existed in the West as well, and that the types of party systems-one might even say types of po~

litical systems-that ultimately emerged there grew in large part out of the sequence and clustering of these crises and the responses to them. In the majority of the developing nations that now live under party govern­ments, the effectiveness of those governments in dealing with the crises of political development is influenced by the character and performance of their parties, and the future of the parties in turn depends upon their success in coping with the crises.

RESEARCH ON THE LINKS BETWEEN MONETARY POLICY AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY: A PROGRESS REPORT OF A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC STABILITY

OVER the past two years the subcommittee on monetary research, whose interests were described in the Septem­ber 1964 issue of Items, has focused on planning and

• The author is Professor of Economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a member of the Council's board of directors, and of its Committee on Economic Stability. He has been co-chairman with James S. Duesenberry of its subcommittee on monetary research since its formation in the spring of 1964. Mr. Duesenberry has been succeeded by Bert G. Hickman as co-chairman; the other members of the subcom-

~ittee are Daniel H. Brill of the Board of Governors of the Federal ~eserve System, John H. Kareken of the University of Minnesota, and

Warren L. Smith of the University of Michigan.

7

by Franco Modigliani·

sponsoring a series of exploratory projects dealing with certain important links between monetary variables and components of aggregate demand. This exploratory work and other developments mentioned hereinafter have led the writer to propose a more ambitious frontal attack on the modus operandi of the tools of monetary policy, via both qualitative and quantitative approaches. A new grant to the Council by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System enables the subcommittee to launch this undertaking and to finance a number of smaller related projects.

In endeavoring to understand the mechanism con­necting monetary policy with economic activity, econo­mists have found it useful to distinguish between "in­side links" and "outside links." The inside links are those connecting the major tools of policy-open market transactions, changes in reserve requirements and redis­count rate, selective controls administered by the cen­tral bank-with changes in various assets and liabilities of the commercial banking sector and other financial and nonfinancial transactors. The outside links are those between financial variables and aggregate demand in the real economy. Aggregate demand consists of five basic components: current consumption; outlays on consumer durables; outlays for business investment, i.e., on plant, equipment, and changes in inventories; expenditures by federal, state, and local governments; and net exports. All these components in principle might be expected to respond to financial variables; consumer durables, business investment, and state and local government expenditures probably would be most significantly and systematically affected.

The nature of the inside links has been recently the object of a fair amount of research, including a number of econometrically oriented studies. In addition, the Federal Reserve System has in progress a good deal of research in this area which should be bearing fruit in the near future. Thus there is ground for holding that this part of the mechanism is beginning to be rather well understood both qualitatively and quantitatively. The problems of the outside links are much older and, in fact, comprise one of the fields in which econometric methods were first applied. Partly because of its great complexity, however, even in the most intensively stud­ied areas, views about the effects of financial variables have been in a state of flux (d. Items, September 1964, pp. 36ff.), and the subcommittee accordingly has been fostering exploratory research in this area. During 1964 it provided support for two studies, one by Robert Resek of the University of Illinois and one by Shirley Almon of Harvard University, on the effects of interest rates and other financial variables--which themselves are re­sponsive to monetary policy-on investment in plant and equipment and on the nature of the lags interven­ing between changes in these variables, and the response, as measured by actual outlays. Their reports have yielded valuable, though preliminary, information on both issues and have suggested that the impact of the variables studied is considerably greater than prevailing views would have led one to believe.

These contributions and those of related research in progress were presented and discussed at a second con­ference of specialists in the subcommittee's area, held at the offices of the Board of Governors of the Federal Re-

8

serve System in April 1965. In the course of this con­ference plans were laid for continuation of research and for exploratory studies in other areas. In pursuit of these plans the committee is currently supporting or con tributing to four small-scale research projects:

1. Continuation of the study by Shirley Almon of the time path of the response of investment to changes in financial and nonfinancial variables;

2. A study of the use of data on capital appropriations for understanding of investment behavior, by Albert Hart and Douglas Love of Columbia University;

3. A study of the impact of monetary variables on state and local government expenditures--a subject which has hardly been touched-by Charlotte Phelps of Yale University;

4. Research on developing measures of credit availa­bility and credit rationing and its impact on economic activity, by John Hand of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The results of these projects and related research else­where will be reviewed at a third conference to be spon­sored by the subcommittee next spring.

In addition to the studies and conferences just de­scribed, the subcommittee's work has been advanced by two recent important studies: one made by Frank de Leeuw of the Federal Reserve System in connection with development of the Econometric Model of the United States (initially sponsored by the Committee oe Economic Stability and now under the auspices of the Brookings Institution), and the other, by Stephen Gold­feld of Princeton University, soon to be issued by the North Holland Publishing Company as Commercial Bank Behavior and Economic Activity: A Structural Study of Monetary Policy in the Postwar United States. Both studies, even though carried out with relatively modest means, have suggested the feasibility of, and laid out useful foundations for, the new project being undertaken by the writer.

The purposes of this project may be broadly stated as follows:

1. To survey the state of knowledge about individual links, uncover major gaps, and attempt to fill them;

2. To develop models of the economy which incorpo­rate the various links and their interaction;

3. To establish the implications of the model for the qualitative and quantitative behavior of the various monetary tools, including the nature and stability of lags. Our tentative plan is initially to develop special purpose models, emphasizing the points of contact be­tween monetary tools and real variables, while treating other parts of the economy at the highly aggregativA level. The usefulness and feasibility of this techniqu~ are supported by earlier applications. In analyzing the

policy implications of the model, we can rely both on an~lytical techniques and on simulation techniques whIch have been recently developed and are still in the

.. course of development.

.. 4. To delineate major remaining gaps or uncertain­ties in current knowledge, thus pointing the way for fur­ther research.

The project will be carried out during the academic year 1966-67. Albert Ando of the University of Penn-

sylvania will be co-director. Some exploratory discus­sions are in progress, looking toward the establishment of close relations with a similar study to be sponsored by the Bank of Italy on the monetary mechanism in that country. In view of the substantial diversity in the mone­tary institutions and in the structure of capital markets in the two countries, it is believed that such parallel study may significantly enhance the usefulness of both projects.

COMMITTEE BRIEFS

AREAS FOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC STATISTICS

Karl A. Fox (0airman), Brian J. L. Berry, Lester R. Frankel, John Fnedmann, W. L. Garrison, Britton Harris Donnell M. Pappenfort, Conrad Taeuber '

Under the committee's auspices an exploratory con­ference on needed research on interrelations of human be­havior and spatial environment was held at the University of Chicago on October 22-23, 1965. The conference was planned by a subcommittee consisting of Messrs. Fried­mann (chairman), Berry, Garrison, Harris, and Robert W. Kates of Clark University; Mr. Harris served as director ef the program. The participants were drawn from the fiel~ of anthropology, city and regional planning, eco­nomICS, geography, psychology, and sociology. In addition to the chairman of the committee and members of the subcommittee, the participants included Robert Adams, University of Illinois, Chicago; William Alonso, Harvard University; Donald S. Appleyard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Roger Barker, University of Kansas; Robert Beck, New York University; F. Stuart Chapin, Jr., Uni­versity of North Carolina; Peter R. Gould, Pennsylvania State University; Edward T. Hall, Illinois Institute of Tech­nology; Everett S. Lee, University of Pennsylvania; Richard L. Meier, University of Michigan; Elbridge Sibley, Social Scie.nce ~esear~ Council; Robert Sommer, University of Cahforma, DaVIS; Joseph Sonnenfeld, University of Dela­ware; Sim Van der Ryn, University of Pennsylvania; Mel­vin. M. Webber, University of California, Berkeley; and Juhan Wolpert, Michigan State University. Formal papers were not prepared for discussion at the conference, but each participant reported on his own research relevant to ways in which behavior is influenced by the spatial setting or ways in which spatial structure is altered by behavior. A report on the conference is in preparation.

COMPARATIVE POLITICS

... Lucian W. Pye (chairman), Gabriel A. Almond, Leonard ~lllder, R. Taylor Cole, Tames S. Coleman, Herbert Hyman,

Jos~ph LaPalombara, Sidney Verba, Robert E. Ward, Myron Welller; staff, Bryce Wood

9

A conference on "Interdependencies of National and In­te:national Political Systems," jointly sponsored by the com­mittee and the Center of International Studies, Princeton University, was held on March 4-6, 1966 at the Princeton Inn. Two papers were prepared for the conference and cir­culated to the participants in advance: "National Political Systems and International Politics: Notes on the Need for R~search," by Harry Eckstein and Harold Sprout, both of Pnnceton University, and "Toward the Study of National­International Linkages," by James N. Rosenau of Douglass College, Rutgers - The State University. In the discussion of these papers, suggestions were invited from the participants, most of whom were specialists in international relations :md comparative politics, concerning strategies for compar­lllg th~ p~ocesses. whereby national polities, and developing countrIes III particular, respond to and deal with their inter­national environment. It was noted that in comparative politics little attention has been given to international vari­ables that contribute to the functioning of national institu­tions and the development of national political systems.

It is expected that a report of the proceedings will be pre­pared by the Center of International Studies, and that sev­eral papers relevant to the subject of the conference will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association in September 1966.

In addition to the authors of papers and Messrs. LaPalom­bara and Wood, the participants included: Chadwick F. Alger, Northwestern University; Adde Bozeman, Sarah Law­rence College; Bernard C. Cohen, University of Wisconsin; Robert A. Dahl, and Charles E. Lindblom, Yale University; Alexander Dallin, and Dankwart A. Rustow, Columbia University; Richard A. Falk, Klaus Knorr, and Nicholas Wahl, Princeton University; Samuel P. Huntington, Har­vard University; Morton A. Kaplan, University of Chicago; Herbert C. Kelman, and A. F. K. Organski, University of Michigan; Fred W. Riggs, Indiana University; Richard N. Rosecrance, University of California, Los Angeles; Stephen Viederman, Carnegie Corporation of New York; and W. Howard Wriggins, Washington Center of Foreign Policy Research, Johns Hopkins University.

CONTEMPORARY CHINA: LIAISON COMMITTEE ON STUDY OF CONTEMPORARY CHINA

(Joint with American Council of Learned Societies, As­sociation of British Orientalists, and British Academy)

A. Doak Barnett, Maurice Freedman, Pendleton Herring, John M. H. Lindbeck, C. H. Philips, George E. Taylor, D. C. Twitchett, Kenneth R. Walker; staff, Bryce Wood

The liaison committee, which was appointed as part of the expanded program of the Joint Committee on Contem­porary China to continue certain aspects of Anglo-American scholarly cooperation begun by the former International Committee on Chinese Studies (set up by Education and World Affairs), held its first meeting in New York on No­vember 1-2, 1965. It has undertaken to collect information, mainly through correspondence with scholars known by its members, about the status of studies of contemporary China throughout the world, including information on research and training centers, their personnel and programs, re­search plans and projects of individuals at such centers and elsewhere, course offerings, library problems and needs, and sources of support for research. It shares the joint commit­tee's interest in efforts to improve the availability of ma­terials for research on contemporary China, and will encour­age efforts in this direction in Great Britain.

ECONOMIC GROWTH

Simon Kuznets (chairman), Moses Abramovitz, Richard A. Easterlin, Bert F. Hoselitz, Joseph J. Spengler

Drafts of reports on the committee's studies of postwar economic growth in seven industrialized countries are being prepared in accordance with plans agreed upon at a con­ference of the collaborators and a few invited critics, held at Saltsjobaden, Sweden, on July 26-31, 1965. One group of preliminary papers prepared for the conference was intended to provide a common statistical framework, dealing chiefly with the historical record of production growth in each country and with the physical sources from which this growth had sprung-such as the growth of population and of the employment associated with it, the accumulation of capital, changes in the composition of output and of em­ployment, and in the quality of labor and other sources of progress in productivity. A second set of papers was con­cerned with growth problems of especial importance in the experience of particular countries. Kazushi Ohkawa and Henry Rosovsky discussed the "dual structure" of the Japa­nese economy and the effect of investment spurts. Giorgio Fua emphasized the relation of international competition and of labor supply to the rise of production and produc­tivity in the Italian economy. Edmund Malinvaud and other participants in the study of France and R. C. O. Matthews and his colleagues from the United Kingdom dis­cussed various aspects of the relation of demand to postwar experience in their countries. Gottfried Bombach and Har­ald Gerfin analyzed the relations of labor supply, price levels, and the balance of international payments in postwar Germany. Mr. Abramovitz and Paul David dealt with the

10

postwar upsurge of capital formation in the United States in the light of longer-term trends in capital accumulation.

EXCHANGES WITH ASIAN INSTITUTIONS

John K. Fairbank (chairman), George E. Taylor, Edward W. Wagner, C. Martin Wilbur, Mary C. Wright; staff, Bryce Wood

The committee has made one new appointment under its program to facilitate participation of American social scien­tists in the development of research at certain Asian institu­tions: Chong-Sik Lee, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania, for research at the Asiatic Re­search Center, Korea University, Seoul, and at the Toyo Bunko (Oriental Library), Tokyo, on party politics in con­temporary Korea and relations between Japan and Korea.

GOVERNMENTAL AND LEGAL PROCESSES

Austin Ranney (chairman), Philip E. Converse, Richard F. Fenno, Jr., Samuel P. Huntington, Victor G. Rosenblum, John C. Wahlke; staff, Bryce Wood

At a meeting on January 28 the committee, in addition to awarding the grants for research listed on pages 12-13, allocated the sum of $15,000 to assist the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan to meet the costs of continuing in 1966 its series of national sample surveys of electoral behavior, which have been made in all national elections since 1948, except that of 1950. A national sample will be interviewed immediately after the congressional elections, as part of a quarterly Omnibus Survey, to be car_ ried out by the Center's Economic Behavior Program. The data obtained on political behavior will be made available for research by students and faculty members of other institutions.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION

Inis L. Claude, Jr. (chairman), Lincoln P. Bloomfield, William Diebold, Jr., Leland M. Goodrich, Ernst B. Haas, H. Field Haviland, Jr., Stanley Hoffmann; staff, Bryce Wood

At a meeting on January 21-22 the committee, in addi­tion to making the grants for research listed on page 13, arranged for Robert O. Keohane, Instructor in Political Science at Swarthmore College, to spend the summer of 1966 in extending the research done for his doctoral disser­tation on influence in the General Assembly of the United Nations. In his study for the committee Mr. Keohane will pay particular attention to analysis and interpretation of voting by the General Assembly.

SOCIAL SCIENCE IN ITALY (Joint with Adriano Olivetti Foundation)

Francesco Alberoni, Norberto Bobbio, George H. Hilde­brand, Joseph LaPalombara, Manlio Rossi-Doria, Wilbert E. Moore; staff, Alberto Spreafico e

This new joint committee was appointed in December to administer a program, for which $400,000 has been made

available to the Council by the Ford Foundation for three years, to assist in strengthening the training of Italian social scientists and improving research in Italy on basic social and economic problems. The program will be supported also .y the Olivetti Foundation, and is expected to provide for research grants to individuals, conferences and institutes, and cooperation with government agencies, universities, and other institutions in both Italy and the United States. The committee will hold its first meeting in Rome on March 31- April 2, at which time a chairman will be desig­nated. Mr. LaPalombara will serve as liaison staff for the committee in the United States. Mr. Spreafico has spent January and February in this country in preparation for execution of the committee's program in Italy. Massimo Fichera, Secretary General of the Olivetti Foundation, and Pendleton Herring will be closely involved in development of the committee's plans.

LEARNING AND THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS

Lee J. Cronbach (chairman), Richard C. Atkinson, Elea­nor J. Gibson, Jerome Kagan, Evan R. Keislar, George A. Miller, Lloyd N. Morrisett; staff, Rowland L. Mitchell, Jr.

On February 7-9 the committee held a conference at the University of Chicago for review of practices and research in preschool education, with the purpose of ascertaining what needs to be known in order to improve early educa­tion. The conference was planned by a subcommittee, con­sisting of Mr. Morrisett (chairman), Alfred L. Baldwin of

~ew York University, and Robert D. Hess of the University ~f Chicago. Eight formal papers and other reports on re­

search under way were discussed by some 35 participants, from the fields of child development, education, medicine, psychology, and sociology. A more extensive report on the conference is expected to appear in an early issue of Items. The full proceedings are to be published in a volume, edited by Mr. Hess.

POPULATION CENSUS MONOGRAPHS

Dudley Kirk (chairman), Robert W. Burgess, John D. Durand, Ronald Freedman, Daniel O. Price, John W. Riley, Jr., George J. Stolnitz

Income Distribution in the United States, by Herman P. Miller, is expected to be published by the Government Printing Office about the end of March. This is the first of the monographs based on the 1960 census to be issued as a result of the program sponsored by the committee in co­operation with the Bureau of the Census. Editing of a sec­ond monograph, on the education of the American people, by John K. Folger and Charles B. Nam, is virtually com­pleted, and it is hoped that this may be published, also by the Government Printing Office, before the end of the cal­endar year. The manuscripts of two additional monographs -on rural America, by J. Allan Beegle, Dale E. Hathaway, ~d W. Keith Bryant, and on the Negro population, by ~~iel o. Price-are also being prepared for submission to

the printer.

11

SIMULATION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL PROCESSES

Bert F. Green, Jr. (chairman), Robert P. Abelson, James S. Coleman, Robert K. Lindsay, Philip J. Stone

The committee has made three additional grants for in­tensive study of computer simulation programs:

Santo F. Camilleri, Associate Professor of Sociology, Michi­gan State University, for study with John T. Gulla­hom and Jeanne Gullahorn, Visiting Scientists, System Development Corporation, of application of the gen­eral "Homunculus" model in testing a stochastic model of decision making

Robert J. Meyer, Professor of Management, University of Rhode Island, for study with Jay W. Forrester, Pro­fessor of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Tech­nology, of simulation of the experiences of industrial firms in attempts to determine factors explaining rates of investment and their impacts on achievement of management objectives

Sid Mittra, Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Detroit, for study with F. E. Balderston, Professor of Business Administration, University of California, Berkeley, on simulation of the behavior of the Vene­zuelan economy under varying conditions

Applications for grants under this program, which pro­vide for spending up to 15 days at a computer installation for intensive training arranged with a particular investi­gator, will be accepted at any time.

SOCIALIZATION AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE

John A. Clausen (chairman), Orville G. Brim, Jr., Alex Inkeles, Ronald Lippitt, Eleanor E. Maccoby, M. Brew­ster Smith; staff, Jerome E. Singer

Socialization after Childhood: Two Essays, by Mr. Brim and Stanton Wheeler, was published by John Wiley &: Sons in January (d. page 16, infra). The essays are revisions of papers originally prepared for the committee's Conference on Socialization through the Life Cycle, held in May 1963.

The Development of Sex Differences, the volume present­ing the results of the committee's work group on that sub­ject, by Mrs. Maccoby, Roy G. D'Andrade, Sanford M. Dornbusch, Walter Mischel, Lawrence Kohlberg, and David A. Hamburg and Donald T. Lunde, is to be published by Stanford University Press in June.

The following mimeographed reports of work groups supported by the committee are available to interested scholars, upon request to the offices indicated:

"Family Size and Birth Order as Influences upon Sociali­zation and Personality," by John A. Clausen with the assist­ance of Francena Hancock, Judith Williams, and Katherine Jako, from the Institute of Human Development, Univer­sity of California, Berkeley, California 94720;

"Peer Relations and Personality Development," by Rich­ard Schmuck and Anita Lohman, from the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michi­gan 48104;

"Social Structure and Socialization in the Elementary

School Classroom," by John C. Glidewell, Mildred B. Kan­tor, Louis M. Smith, and Lorene A. Stringer, from the senior author, Social Science Institute, Washington Uni­versity, St. Louis, Missouri 63130.

SOCIOLINGUISTICS

Charles A. Ferguson (chairman), Joshua A. Fishman, John J. Gumperz, Einar Haugen, Everett C. Hughes, Dell Hymes, Nathan Keyfitz, Stanley Lieberson, John Useem; staff, El­bridge Sibley

In two 2·day sessions, December 17-18 and February 25-26, the committee made plans for a series of research con­ferences on subjects of mutual concern to linguists and to sociologists and other social scientists. Language problems in developing nations, the social conditions giving rise to pidgin and creole languages, linguistic problems of Americans in personal encounters across cultures, and the acquisition of communicative competence by children of socially disad­vantaged groups are high on the list of topics. Other pro­jected conferences for which plans are less far advanced may deal with bilingualism in mature, industrial nations, the development and maintenance of standard national lan­guages, and analysis of linguistic interaction in small groups.

In addition to planning research conferences, the com­mittee is giving attention to social scientists' needs for lin­guistic training to qualify them for research on sociolinguistic problems, and to linguists' needs for better understanding of methods of social research.

At the instigation of members of the committee, there will be two sessions on sociolinguistics at the next annual meet­ing of the American Sociological Association, and a seminar for graduate students on opportunities for training and re­search in sociolinguistics is to be held at the meeting of th Ohio Valley Sociological Society this spring. Correspondence has also been initiated in the hope that the International Sociological Association may include sociolinguistics in its agenda in the future.

TRANSNATIONAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Leon Festinger (chairman), Jaap Koekebakker, John T. Lanzetta, Serge Moscovici, Ithiel de Sola Pool, Ragnar Rommetveit, Stanley Schachter, Henri Tajfel; staff, Jerome E. Singer

The committee's plan to cosponsor with the European As­sociation for the Advancement of Experimental Social Psy­chology a second summer training institute for European social psychologists has been modified. The proposed insti­tute will not be held at the University of Louvain in the summer of 1966, but it is expected that arrangements can be made to offer a comparable program at the same university in the following summer for mature European social psy­chologists who are engaged in research but need further methodological training. The subcommittee in charge of plans for the institute consists of Messrs. Moscovici (chair­man), Jozef M. Nuttin, Jr. of the University of Louvain, and Schachter.

PERSONNEL DIRECTORS OF THE COUNCIL

The following persons have been designated by the seven national social science organizations associated with the Council to serve as directors of the Council for the three­year term 1966-68:

Morton H. Fried, Columbia University, by the American Anthropological Association

Franco Modigliani, Massachusetts Institute of Technol­ogy, by the American Economic Association

Samuel P. Hays, University of Pittsburgh, by the Ameri­can Historical Association

David B. Truman, Columbia University, by the Ameri­can Political Science Association

Gardner Lindzey, University of Texas, by the American Psychological Association

William J. Goode, Jr., Columbia University, by the Ameri­can Sociological Association

Stanley Lebergott, Wesleyan University, by the American Statistical Association.

Their credentials as members are scheduled for acceptance by the board of directors of the Council at its spring meet­ing in New York on March 25-26, 1966.

12

GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON GOVERNMENTAL AND LEGAL PROCESSES

The Committee on Governmental and Legal Processes­Austin Ranney (chairman), Philip E. Converse, Richard F. Fenno, Jr., Samuel P. Huntington, Victor G. Rosenblum, and John C. Wahlke-at its meeting on January 28 made awards to the following 12 social scientists, under the pro­gram initiated by the former Committee on Political Be­havior:

Samuel H. Beer, Professor of Government, Harvard Uni­versity, for research on policy innovation in federal­state programs

Lewis A. Dexter, Belmont, Mass. (Ph.D. in sociology, Co­lumbia University), for research on the political aspects of selected programs of state governments

Charles S. Hyneman, Professor of Government, Indiana University, for an analysis of electoral and legislative behavior in Indiana, 1922-64

Richard M. Johnson, Assistant Professor of Political Sci­ence, State University of New York at Buffalo, for re­search on an empirical theory of legitimacy Goint wit. Lyman A. Kellstedt and A. Don Sorensen) •

Lyman A. Kellstedt, Assistant Professor of Political Sci­ence, Georgetown University, for research on an em-

pirical theory of legitimacy (joint with Richard M. Johnson and A. Don Sorensen)

Nelson W. Polsby, Associate Professor of Government, Wesleyan University, for research on the politics of the U.S. House of Representatives (renewal of grant awarded in 1962-63)

Ira Sharkansky, Assistant Professor of Government, Florida State University, for a comparative study of relationships between selected political variables and governmental expenditures in four states

A. Don Sorensen, Assistant Professor of Government, Indiana University, for research on an empirical theory of legitimacy (joint with Richard M. Johnson and Ly­man A. Kellstedt)

Peter W. Sperlich, Lecturer in Political Science, Uni­versity of California, Berkeley, for research on Presi­dents, the Presidency, and public opinion (joint with Aaron Wildavsky)

Kenneth N. Vines, Associate Professor of Political Science, Tulane University, for a comparative study of judicial roles in state courts

Aaron Wildavsky, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley, for research on Presidents, the Presidency, and public opinion (joint with Peter W. Sperlich)

James Q. Wilson, Associate Professor of Government, Harvard University, for a comparative study of the administration of criminal justice in New York cities

GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION

• The Committee on International Organization-Inis L. Claude, Jr. (chairman), Lincoln P. Bloomfield, William Diebold, Jr., Leland M. Goodrich, Ernst B. Haas, H. Field Haviland, Jr., and Stanley Hoffmann-at its meeting on January 21-22 made 6 grants for research:

Po-Wen Huang, Jr., International Division, Manufac­turers Hanover Trust Company, New York (Ph.D. in ~nternatio~al relations, Yale University), for research 10 the Umted States and the Far East on the formation of the Asian Development Bank

Leon N. Lindberg, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Wisconsin, for research in Europe and the United States on the European Community as a political system

Charles L. Robertson, Associate Professor of Government, Smith College, for research in Switzerland and the United States on the international political processes that led to the United Nations Conlerence on Trade and Development

James P. Sewell, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Yale University, for research in France on the policy­making process and programs of UNESCO

Jerome N. Slater, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Ohio State University, for research in the United States and the Dominican Republic on actions taken by the Organization of American States in that Republic

F. Roy Willis, Associate Professor of History, University of California, Davis, for research in Italy and Belgium on Italy'S participation in the postwar integration of Western Europe, 1945-65

GRANTS FOR AFRICAN STUDIES

The Joint Committee on African Studies, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies-William o. Jones (chairman), L. Gray Cowan, Philip D. Curtin, Alan P. Merriam, Horace M. Miner, Roy Sieber, and Benjamin E. Thomas-at its meeting on January 6-7 and by mail vote has made the following 16 grants for research relating to Africa south of the Sahara:

13

David W. Ames, Associate Professor of Anthropology, San Francisco State College, for completion in the United States of research on the social position and role of the musician among the Ibo and Rausa peoples of Nigeria (renewal of grant awarded in 1962-63)

Warren L. d'Azevedo, Associate Professor of Anthro­pology, University of Nevada, for research in Liberia on the production and distribution of s:pecialized goods and services of the prestational type 10 the Western Province and environs

Holger L. Engberg, Associate Professor of Finance, New York University, for research in Nigeria on money­market arrangements in a developing economy

Davi~ M. !-"oley, Lecturer i~ History, Fourah Bay College, Umversity College of SIerra Leone, for research in Liberia on its history and foreign policy during the European partition of Africa

Harry A. Gailey, Jr., Associate Professor of History, San Jose State College, for research in Nigeria on the appli­cation of indirect rule in the eastern provinces, 1926-31

Peter C. W. Gutkind, Associate Professor of Anthropology, McGill University, for research in Nigeria and Zambia on unemployment in urban areas

Robert Heussler, research scholar, St. Antony's Colle~, Oxford University, for research in England on BritISh colonial government in the period preceding inde­pendence (renewal)

Charles H. Kraft, Assistant Professor of African Languages and Linguistics, Michigan State University, for research in London and Nigeria on the Chadic languages of Northern Nigeria, with particular attention to the Higi language

Michael F. Lofchie, Assistant Professor of Political Sci­ence, University of California, Los Angeles, for research in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania on the respective roles and influence of bureaucrats and political leaders in planning for political and economIC development

Louis Molet, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Uni­versity of Montreal, for ethnographic research in the Malagasy Republic on the Mikea

Alexander Nekam, Professor of Law, Northwestern Uni­versity, for research in Uganda on sensitivity to foreign values in customary law

Robert M. Netting, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, for research in Nigeria on the cultural ecology of subsistence agriculture: pro­ductive technology, environment, and social organiza­tion in three societies of the Jos Plateau

Philip W. Porter, Associate Professor of Geography, Uni­versity of Minnesota, for research in Europe and Africa south of the Sahara on subsistence economies and en­vironmental potentials

Herbert L. Shore, Associate Professor of Theatre, Uni­versity of Denver, for research in East and West Africa on traditional and modern African drama and other theatre forms

Herbert Weiss, Assistant Professor of Government, New York University, for research in Belgium and the Congo on the Kwilu Rebellion

William E. Welmers, Professor of African Languages, University of California, Los Angeles, for research in Nigeria and the United States on Efik and other Ni­gerian languages

GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON CONTEMPORARY AND REPUBLICAN CHINA

The Joint Committee on Contemporary China, spon­sored with the American Council of Learned Societies­John M. H. Lindbeck (chairman), A. Doak Barnett, Alex­ander Eckstein, John K. Fairbank, Walter Galenson, Robert A. Scalapino, George E. Taylor, and Mary C. Wright-at its meeting on January 7-8 awarded 16 grants for research and 1 grant for combined study and research:

Research grants David C. Buxbaum, Fellow, Modern China Project, Uni­

versity of Washington (LL.B. University of Michigan), for research in Taiwan and Hong Kong on the legal institutions and social practices relating to marriage in China from the late Ch'ing period to the present

Chun-shu Chang, Assistant Professor of History, Wis­consin State University, River Falls, for research on Chinese Communist historiography concerning early Chinese traditions

Donald G. Gillin, Associate Professor of History, Duke University, for research in Taiwan and Japan on the influence of China's "North Sea" Army warlords on political, social, and economic life in North China, 1916-38, and Japanese influence on modern Chinese militarism

Walter E. Gourlay, Associate in Research, East Asian Research Center, Harvard University, for research on the history of the Kuomintang and the rise of Chiang Kai-Shek, 1922-27

Ting-jui Ho, Fellow, Folklore Institute, Indiana Uni­versity, for research on the nature and utilization of cur­rent folklore scholarship in Communist China

Paul V. Hyer, Associate Professor of History, Brigham Young University, for study in the United States of the Mongolian language, and for research in Taiwan and Japan on the development of Inner Mongolia and its role in modern China

John Israel, Assistant Professor of History, Claremont Men's College, for research on the Chinese student movement, 1937-49

Charles H. C. Kao, Assistant Professor of Economics, Wis­consin State University, River Falls, for research on the changing role of the agricultural sector in Taiwan's economic development since World War II

Frank H. H. King, Associate Professor of Economics, Uni­versity of Kansas, for research in the United States and England on money and banking in China, 1911-28

Truong-Buu Lam, Research Fellow, Southeast Asia Studies, Yale University (Ph.D. in modern history, Uni-

versity of Louvain), for research on the intellectual roots of Vietnamese modern nationalism

Donald M. Lowe, Assistant Professor of History, Uni­versity of California, Riverside, for research on aspects of recent Chinese intellectual history

Mary Backus Rankin, Ph.D. candidate in history, Harvard University, postdoctoral award for completion of re­search on student revolutionaries in Shanghai and Chekiang, 1902-07, and preliminary research on a roster of participants in the Chinese Revolution of 1911

John E. Rue, Visiting Associate Professor of Political Science, Stanford University, for research on relations between the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China

James E. Sheridan, Associate Professor of History, North­western University, for research in the United States and Taiwan on the Kwangsi warlords and the influence of "warlordism" in twentieth-century China

G. William Skinner, Professor of Anthropology, Stanford University, for research in the United States on Chinese youth in Indonesia, and sibling position and kinship in three Chinese communities

Ernest P. Young, Assistant Professor of History, Dart­mouth College, for research in England, Taiwan, and Australia on the politics of the early Republic in China, 1912-16

Study and research grant Maurice J. Meisner, Assistant Professor of History, Uni­

versity of Virginia, for study in the United States and Hong Kong of sociological theory and comparative analysis of processes of modernization, and research on the sociohistorical nature and economic influence orA)j contemporary Chinese Marxist theory "W1

GRANTS FOR LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES

The Joint Committee on Latin American Studies, spon­sored with the American Council of Learned Societies­Joseph Grunwald (chairman), Charles W. Anderson, David E. Apter, John P. Augelli, Robert N. Burr, Fred P. Ellison, Orlando Fals Borda, and Allan R. Holmberg-at its meet­ing on February 4-5 awarded 19 grants for research:

14

Robert H. Dix, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Yale University, for research in Chile on organization, leadership, and behavior of Chilean political parties

Norma Evenson, Assistant Professor of Architectural His­tory, University of California, Berkeley, for research in Brazil on urban growth, city planning, and architecture in Rio de Janeiro, Belo Horizonte, and Brasilia

Paul Friedrich, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Uni­versity of Chicago, for research in Mexico on the con­temporary language and culture of the Tarascans

Richard Graham, Assistant Professor of Latin American History, Cornell University, for research on Great Britain and the onset of modernization in Brazil, 1850-1918 (renewal of grant awarded in 1963-64)

Kenneth M. Kensinger, Instructor in Anthropology, Tem-ple University, for research in Peru on the CashinahuaA cultural domain of dau: ritual and medicine .,

James R. Levy, Assistant Professor of History, Pomona College, for research in the United States and Argentina

on the development and use of the heroic image of Jose de San Martin as a symbol of national values from 1840 to the present

Richard A. Mazzara, Associate Professor of Romance Languages, Franklin and Marshall College, for research on a critical history of modern Brazilian drama, 1940-65

Belden H. Paulson, Assistant Professor of Political Sci­ence, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, for research in northeast Brazil on political development at the municipio level

Phyllis J. Peterson, Assistant Professor of Government, Indiana University, for a comparative study in Brazil and Argentina of political party leadership: attitudes and recruitment patterns

Peter Ranis, Visiting Assistant Professor of Government, University of New Mexico, for research in the United States on the social background and political attitudes of the Argentine Chamber of Deputies

Stanley Rothman, Associate Professor of Government, Smith College, for research in Mexico on the Catholic Church and political development in Latin America

Thomas E. Skidmore, Assistant Professor of History, Harvard University, for research in Brazil on the "Old Republic," 1889-1930, with emphasis on its political history, 1902-10

David Stea, Fellow in Psychology and Environmental De­sign, Brown University (Ph.D. in psychology, Stanford University), for research in Mexico on the conceptions of three cities held by their inhabitants

Fred G. Sturm, Professor of Philosophy, Western College for Women, for research in Mexico on trends in Mexi­can philosophic thought since 1910

S. Samuel Trifilo, Professor of Spanish, Marquette Uni­versity, for research on Brazil, Chile, and Peru as seen by nineteenth-century British travelers (renewal of grant awarded in 1962-63)

Joseph S. Tulchin, Assistant Professor of History, Yale University, for research in Argentina, Chile, and Uru­guay on the foreign policy of Hip6lito Yrigoyen, Presi­dent of Argentina, 1916-22 and 1928-30

Arpad von Lazar, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Vanderbilt University, for research in Chile and Ar­gentina on the political role and attitudes of the young educated elite (renewal)

Morton D. Winsberg, Assistant Professor of Geography, Florida State University, for research in Argentina on the diffusion and distribution of purebred cattle in that country during the twentieth century

William Withers, Professor of Economics, Queens Col­lege, City University of New York, for research in Mexico on factors affecting the rate of capital forma­tion through saving and investment since 1939

GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON THE NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST

The Joint Committee on the Near and Middle East, spon­sored with the American Council of Learned Societies­Morroe Berger (chairman), Robert M. Adams, William M .

• rinner, Charles Issawi, Bernard Lewis, Herbert H. Paper, and Nadav Safran-at its meeting on January 13 awarded 12 grants for research:

15

Richard T. Antoun, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Indiana University, and Visiting Lecturer in Sociology, American University of Beirut (1965-66), for research in Jordan on social change, social control, and the re­lation of Islamic law to village customs

Haim Blanc, Associate Professor of Linguistics, Hebrew University, for research in the United States on the linguistic correlates of the sociocultural differentiation of sedentaries and nomads in the Arab world

C. Ernest Dawn, Professor of History, University of Illinois, for research in Lebanon and Syria on Syrian society and politics, 1920-58

Ragaei El Mallakh, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Colorado, for research in the United States on the economy of Kuwait

Robert M. Haddad, Assistant Professor of History, Smith College, for research in Europe and the Near East on the development and influence of the Uniate Churches in Ottoman Syria in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries

John Joseph, Associate Professor of History, Franklin and Marshall College, for research in the Near East on the history of the Jacobites since 1800 with particular reference to their relations with other groups in recent years

Majid Khadduri, Professor of Middle East Studies, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins Uni­versity, for research in Iraq on Iraqi politics since the Revolution of 1958

Wilferd Madelung, Assistant Professor of Islamic History, University of Chicago, for research in Europe on the history of the coastal regions south of the Caspian Sea

George Makdisi, Professor of Arabic, Harvard University, for research in the Near East on the historical develop­ment of Islamic legal theory

Sidney W. Mintz, Professor of Anthropology, Yale Uni­versity, for research in Iran on the internal market system in selected regions

Thomas Naff, Associate Professor of History, American University in Cairo, for research in the United States on Ottoman reform and diplomacy in the reign of Selim III, 1789-1807

Frank Tachau, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Rutgers - The State University, for research in Turkey on provincial politics: the role of political parties in the process of modernization (renewal of grant awarded in 1962-63)

APPOINTMENTS TO COMMITTEES

S. C. Tsiang of the University of Rochester has been ap­pointed a member of the Committee on the Economy of China.

Dewey W. Grantham of Vanderbilt University has been appointed a member of the Committee on Faculty Research Grants.

Gerald E. McClearn of the University of Colorado has been named chairman of the Committee on Genetics and Behavior.

Robert N. Burr of the University of California, Los

Angeles, has been appointed a member of the Joint Com­mittee on the Foreign Area Fellowship Program, cosponsored by the American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research Council.

Victor L. Urquidi of the College of Mexico has been ap-

pointed a member of the Committee on Manpower, Popu­lation, and Economic Change.

John J. Gumperz of the University of California, Berke­ley, has been appointed a member of the Committee Sociolinguistics.

PUBLICA liONS

The Brookings Quarterly Econometric Model of the United States, edited by James S. Duesenberry, Gary Fromm, Lawrence R. Klein, and Edwin Kuh. Sponsored by the Committee on Economic Stability. Chicago: Rand Mc­Nally & Company, and Amsterdam: North-Holland Pub­lishing Company, 1965. 791 pages. $9.00.

Communication Sciences and Law: Reflections from the Jurimetrics Conference, edited by Layman E. Allen and Mary Ellen Caldwell. Product of a conference held by the Jurimetrics Committee of the Association of American Law Schools, September 5-7, 1963, with the aid of the Council's former Committee on Political Behavior. In­dianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, February 1966. 462 pages. $17.50.

Comparing Nations: The Use of Quantitative Data in Cross­National Research, edited by Richard L. Merritt and Stein Rokkan. Revisions of papers prepared for the in­ternational conference held by the International Social Science Council and the Yale Political Data Program, September 1(~--20, 1963, with the aid of the Council's former Committee on Political Behavior. New Haven: Yale University Press, February 1966. 600 pages. $12.50.

Education and Economic Development, edited by C. Arnold Anderson and Mary Jean Bowman. Outgrowth of a con­ference, April 4-6, 1963, jointly sponsored by the Com­mittee on Economic Growth and the University of Chi­cago Comparative Education Center. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, August 1965. 446 pages. $10.75.

Education and Political Development, edited by James S. Coleman. Studies in Political Development 4, sponsored by the Committee on Comparative Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, June 1965. 632 pages. $10.00.

European Research in Cognitive Development, edited by Paul H. M ussen. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 30, No.2 (Serial No. 100),

September 1965. Report of a conference sponsored by the former Committee on Intellective Processes Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 124 pages. $3.00.

Learning and the Educational Process: Selected Papers from the Research Conference . .. held at Stanford Vniversity, June 22-July 31, 1964, edited by John D. Krumboltz. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, October 1965. 290 pages. $6.50.

Mathematical Learning, edited by Lloyd N. Morrisett and John Vinsonhaler. Monographs of the Society for Re­search in Child Development, Vol. 30, No.1 (Serial No. 99), July 1965. Report of a conference sponsored by the former Committee on Intellective Processes Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 150 pages. $3.00.

Political Culture and Political Development, edited by Lucian W. Pye and Sidney Verba. Studies in Political Development 5, sponsored by the Committee on Com­parative Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, July 1965. 584 pages. $10.00.

Quantitative Planning of Economic Policy: A Conferen of the Social Science Research Council Committee Economic Stability, edited by Bert G. Hickman. Wash­ington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, April 1965. 292 pages. $7.95.

Socialization after Childhood: Two Essays, by Orville G. Brim, Jr. and Stanton Wheeler. Revisions of papers pre­pared for the Conference on Socialization through the Life Cycle, May 17-19, 1963, sponsored by the Committee on Socialization and Social Structure. New York: John Wiley & Sons, January 1966. 125 pages. Cloth, $4.95; paper, $2.25.

The Study of Urbanization, edited by Philip M. Hauser and Leo F. Schnore. Sponsored by the former Committee on Urbanization. New York: John Wiley & Sons, July 1965. 562 pages. $9.75.

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

230 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017

IncoTpoTated in the State of Illinois, DecembeT 27, 1924, fOT the pUTpose of advancing TeseaTch in the social sciences

DiTectoTs, 1966: WIllIAM O. AYDELOTI'E, BERNARD BAILYN, ABRAM BERGSON, JOHN R. BORCHERT, DORWIN CARTWRIGHT, HAROLD C . CONKUN, LEE J. CRONBACH, KARL A. Fox, MORTON H. FRIED, WILLIAM J. GOODE, JR., MORRIS H. HANSEN, CHAUNCY D. HARRIS, SAMUEL P. HAyS, PENDLEfON

HERRING, GEORGE H. HILDEBRAND, DELL HYMES, THOMAS S. KUHN, STANLEY LEBERGOTT, GARDNER LINDZEY, QUINN McNEMAR, FRANCO MODIGUANI,

FREDERICK. MOSTELLER, J. ROLAND PENNOCK, DON K. PRICE, LEo F. ScHNORE, HERBERT A. SIMON, DAVID B. TRUMAN, RALPH H . TURNER, JOHN

USEEM, ROBERT E. WARD

OfficeTs and Staff: PENDLETON HERRING, PTesident; PAUL WEBBINK, Pice-PTesident; ELBRIDGE SIBLEY, BRYCE WOOD, Executive Associates; ELEANOR

C. IsBELL, ROWLAND L. MITCHELL, JR., Staff Associates; JEROME E. SINGER, Consultant; CATHERINE V. RONNAN, Financial SecTetary

16