Page 1

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

VOLUME 22 . NUMBER 3 . SEPTEMBER 1968 230 PARK AVENUE· NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017

THE STUDY OF POLICY CONTENT: A FRAMEWORK FOR CHOICE· by A ustin Ranney POLITICAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY is a book addressed to political scientists and to those outside the discipline who may look to political science for help in dealing with the great public problems and issues of our time. It proceeds from the conviction that at least since 1945 most American political scientists have focused their professional attention mainly on the processes by which public policies are made and have shown relaAI tively little concern with their contents. Its authors at.,-tack, from many angles and with a wide variety of weapons, the central question: Should political scientists in their research and teaching pay substantially more attention to policy contents than they have in recent years? Our discussions revolve mainly about four component issues: (1) What is likely to be the net gain or loss from more study of policy contents for the theoretical sophis• This is a condensed version of the introductory chapter in Political Science and Public Policy, a volume sponsored by the Council's Com· mittee on Governmental and Legal Processes and edited by its chairman, Austin Ranney. The volume is to be published in September 1968 by the Markham Publishing Company, with whose permission thia article is printed here. The volume contains the following papers prepared for two conferences held by the Committee on Governmental and Legal Processes, the first at Princeton on June 15-17, 1966, and the second at Cape Newagen, Maine on August 28-29, 1967: Process and Policy as Focal Concepts in Political Research, by Vernon Van Dyke; The Categorization of Policy Contents, by Lewis A. Froman, Jr.; The Political Economy of Efficiency, by Aaron Wildavsky; Selective Service and Military Manpower, by James W. Davis. Jr. and Kenneth M. Dolbeare; Water Resource Development, by Vincent Ostrom; The Analysis of Public Policy. by Robert H. Salisbury; The Political Sci· entist and Foreign Policy. by Lincoln P. Bloomfield; Moral Fervor, Systematic Analysis, and Scientific Consciousness in Foreign Policy Research, by James N. Rosenau; Description, Analysis, and Sensitivity to a. Change, by Lucian W. Pye; Political Feasibility, by Ralph K. Huitt; . , The Social Sciences: Maturity, Relevance, and the Problem of Training, by David B. Truman.

tication and empirical validity of the special body of political science knowledge? (2) What problems of conceptualization, data collection, and analysis must be resolved if studies of policy contents are to meet high standards? (3) What is likely to be the net gain or loss from more study of policy contents for the relevance and utility of political science for policy makers and policy critics? (4) What professional expertise and obligation, if any, have political scientists to contribute directly to the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of public policies in the United States? My purpose in this introduction is to set forth my conception of the intellectual and moral framework within which these questions should be pondered, discussed, and decided. Let us begin with the last. THE POLITICAL SCIENTIST AS EXPERT AND ACTIVIST Our concern is with the political scientist's proper scientific and professional approach to all aspects of public policies, whether he focuses on contents or processes, and whether he describes, analyzes, evaluates, or prescribes. We are not concerned with his extraprofessional attitudes, activities, or obligations in policy making. I do not mean to imply that the latter are unimportant. Obviously they are of great importance for all Americans, and the social and moral problems they raise for those who happen to be political scientists do not differ essentially from those they raise for other Americans, Any political scientist who thinks the nation should get out of Vietnam or abolish the income tax has the same right and obligation as any other citizen to press his position.

25


In my view we can most usefully consid~r the ~olitical scientist's skills and obligations to deal wIth pol~cy contents if we always keep in sight the basic distinctions between his scientific, professional, and nonprofessional obligations. In this regard Price's formulation is most helpful.1 In the American political system, Price says, there are four "estates," each with its special function in and approach to the making of public policy: the sci~nti~c, concerned solely with discovering truth, not WIth Its governmental application or social. ut!!ity. or moral effects; the professional, concerned wIth taking the abstractions of science (or other systematic knowledge) and applying them to the concrete and practical affairs of men"; the administrative, whose members "must be prepared to understand and use a w.id~ ~ariety of professional expertise and scholarly dlsclplmes [to help their] political superiors attain their general purposes"; and the political, whose practitioners "~ay make use ~f the skills of administrators, and engmeers and SCIentists" but must "make their most important decisions on the basis of value judgments or hunch or compromise of power interests." A number of sciences provide the intellectual bases for well-established, distinctive professions whose members apply scientific knowledge to the so!ution o~ practical problems but, as David Truman pomts out m. our concluding chapter, political science has not yet. bl~r­ cated into a distinctive basic science and a denvatIve profession. Many political scientists ~ove £re~ly ?etween "basic research," seeking to dIscover sClentIfic truth regardless of its utility, and "applied resea~~h," seeking solutions to practical problems. If pohtlcal science is in part a true profession, and not just an agglomeration of persons interested in politic~ affair~, then what qualifies political scientists as professlOnals IS their special knowledge and skills, not their common sense or their good will or their passion for social justice. And if that is so, then the political scientist may legitimately speak as a professional on matters of public policy only when what he says rests on his discipline'S ., special body of knowledge. Accordingly, Political Science and Publtc Pollcy does not deal with the host of important and vexing questions about what public causes persons who happen to be political scientists should support and oppose, by what means, and to what ends. It deals with what, if any, professional contribution political scientists can and should make to the formulation and evaluation of public policies in the United States. And that is at least as tough a problem. 1 Don K. Price, The Scientific Estate, Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1965, esp. pp. l22-1!l5.

26

SOME KEY CONCEPTS Wherever the issue is debated, it is clear that the discussants do not all mean exactly the same things by "public policy," "policy process," "policy content," and. "policy outcomes." It seems appropriate therefore t~ suggest some meanings for these key concepts, although I have no illusion that all political scientists or even all the authors of this book employ them just as I do. At least one set of explicit concepts may be helpful as an instrument for identifying the nature and degree of variation in the concepts used by others. Public Policy. The term policy is commonly used to refer to whatever is being done by some actor in a broad area of activity, e.g., American foreign policy, General Motors' styling policy, a state's educational policy. For purposes of designing, conducting, and reporting research it is better to give the term somewhat more limited referents, e.g., American policy toward Vietnam, a city's policy on open housing, the Selective Service System's policy on draft deferments for college students. In this more limited sense it seems to me that what we generally mean by a "public policy" has the following main components: a particular object .or set of objects-some designated part of the population or environment (an aspect of the society or physical world) which is intended to be affected; a desired course of events or sequence of behavior in the particular object or set of objects; a selected line of action deliberatelye chosen by those responsibly concerned to bring about the desired course of events; a declaration of intentwhether communicated publicly to all who will listen or communicated secretly to a special few, some statement by the policy makers as to what they intend to have done, how, and why; an implementation of intent -the actions undertaken vis-a.-vis the particular set of objects in pursuance of the choices and declaration. These are elements of any kind of policy toward anything by any social actor, and a public policy is one special case, of central importance for political scientists. It is adopted and implemented by what Easton calls "the authorities" in a political system-those who "engage in the daily affairs of a political system," are "recognized by most members of the system as having the responsibility for these matters," and .whose actions are "accepted as binding most of the time by most of the members so long as they act within the limits of their roles""elders, paramount chiefs, executives, legislators, judges, administrators, councilors, monarchs, and the like." 2 Policy Content. Vernon Van Dyke correctly points out in his chapter that there is no perfect Aristotelian 2 David Easton, A Systems Analysis of Political Life, New York: John Wiley &: Sons, 1965, p. 212.

VOLUME

22,

NUMBER

S


dichotomy between a policy's content and the process by which it is adopted and implemented, for one can study process only by studying conflict over the content • of an actual or proposed policy. Moreover, Lewis .Froman and others have suggested that the United States (and, by implication, every "developed" nation) has no single process by which all policies are produced but, rather, several different processes each of which is operative in a particular policy-content arena. Without denying the validity of such comments, it is still possible to focus on certain aspects of reality's seamless whole at any given time, to abstract process from content and look mainly at one, giving minimal attention to the other. Indeed, many political scientists have done just that in their post-1945 concentration on process over content. The distinctions between these two aspects of public policies implicit in our literature seem to me to be as follows: Policy content includes each of the components defined above-the particular object or set of objects that is intended to be affected, the course of events desired, the line of action chosen, the declaration made, and the actions accordingly taken-in each case as actually chosen from among the alternatives which might have been selected. This conception of policy content seems very similar to what Easton calls a political output: "a stream of activities flowing from the authorities in a _ystem" that "set the goals toward which the energies and resources of the system may be directed." 8 Policy Process. This concept includes the actions and interactions which produce the authorities' ultimate choice of a particular policy content over its rivals. It is similar to the concept of decision making, developed most notably by Lasswell and by Snyder and associates. This is said to include such elements as intelligence (gathering information, assessing relative desirability of conflicting values, setting goals), recommending (proposing a particular ordering of values and a course of action designed to promote the goals as arranged), prescribing (official promulgation of the chosen course of action), invocation (provisionally using a prescription to characterize a set of circumstances in which a person or group is thought to act contrary to policy), application (employing the prescription with finality against transgressors, e.g., by a court), appraisal (evaluating the prescription's effectiveness and social costs), and termination (abandonment or alteration of the original prescription).~

81bid., pp. 348-350. 'Harold D. Lasswell, The Decision Process, College Park: University Maryland Press, 1956; and Richard C. Snyder, H. W. Bruck, and Sapin, "Decision.Making as an Approach to the Study of International Politics," in Snyder, Bruck, and Sapin, eds., Foreign Policy Decision-Making, New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1962, pp. 1-185. SEPTEMBER

1968

Policy Outcome. Outcome is a term suggested by Easton to distinguish the consequences of a political output or policy (as defined above) from the output itself. Thus, to adapt his usage for present purposes, a policy outcome includes the way or ways in which the course of events is affected by the authorities' actions implementing the policy they have chosen. The consequences may be wholly or partially unintended by the authorities, and assessments of them play an important part in the appraisal stage of the policy process. PROCESS AND CONTENT AS FOCI FOR POLITICAL SCIENCE How much political scientists should focus on the study of policy processes or contents is not a new question. The useful short history of the discipline by Somit and Tanenhaus shows that ever since its beginnings in the late nineteenth century American political science has encompassed three distinct and continuing strains, two of which-scientism and activism-represent opposing stands on the desirability of studying policy contents. At various times one strain has predominated over the other, but neither has yet driven its rival beyond the limits of disciplinary respectability. Scientism is identified by Somit and Tanenhaus as the conviction that political scientists should concentrate on describing and explaining, by methods and with a precision as near as possible to those of the natural sciences, how political systems do operate. Most who have held this view have also believed that political scientists should focus on policy processes, not contents, and that in their professional roles they should certainly avoid making evaluative and prescriptive statements about public policies. John W. Burgess, A. Lawrence Lowell, Arthur F. Bentley, and such post-1945 behavioralists as Gabriel Almond, Herbert Simon, and David Truman are listed among the more prominent advocates of this position. II Activism, the rival strain, consists mainly of the belief that political scientists should concern themselves with how political systems should operate, and the corollary that scholars should evaluate and prescribe both policy processes and contents. Thus political scientists of this persuasion, e.g., Herbert Adams, Simeon Baldwin, John Fairlie, and such post-1945 scholars as E. E. Schattschneider and James MacGregor Burns, were active and influential in movements for such reforms as the direct primary, the council-manager form of municipal government, the short ballot, centralized budgeting, and DAlbert Somit and Joseph Tanenhaus, The Development of Ameri¡ can Political Science: From Burgess to Behavioralism, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1967, pp. 27-29.

27


more disciplined and cohesive parties. Many were also active in the public debate of substantive policy issues. For example, in contrast to the American Political Science Review's silence on the merits of the Vietnam war in the 1960's, the Political Science Quarterly in the late 1890's published a number of papers severely critical of American policy before, during, and after the Spanish-American War, and others attacking the freesilver doctrine.o A third strain, education for citizenship-the belief that the main task of political scientists is to train students for the responsibilities of democratic citizenship and inspire them to become active in public affairshas also persisted. But this position, most prominently advanced by Thomas H. Reed, is only indirectly relevant to the process vs. content debate. Few would dispute the characterization of political science since 1945 as increasingly dominated by "the behavioral persuasion," partly because of the growing number and prestige of its adherents, but even more because most intradisciplinary controversies about where political science can and should go have been either expositions of or attacks on behavioralism.? By no means all behaviorally oriented scholars have ignored policy contents. Robert Salisbury points out in his chapter that various works on domestic policies, notably by Robert Dahl and C. E. Lindblom, Vernon Van Dyke, Gilbert Steiner, and Alexander Heard, have not only dealt with policy contents but have evaluated present policies and offered suggestions for changing them. James Rosenau reminds us that many specialists on foreign policy have been not only willing but eager (too eager, in his view) to advise the nation about how to conduct its foreign affairs. And Lucian Pye makes clear that most experts on politics in developing nations, many of whom are surely regarded as leading members of political science's behavioralist wing, have felt impelled by the urgency and difficulty of those nations' problems to evaluate and prescribe policies for them despite the absence of well-d_eveloped scientific theory as a basis for doing so. Nevertheless, it seems fair to say that the dominant mood of behavioral political science has been highly "scientistic." There is considerable evidence for this judgment in what political scientists in recent years have and have not done in their professional journals and organizations. Somit and Tanenhaus point out that "if we take the really 'big' issues of the past twenty years-foreign policy, nuclear policy, civil rights (including McCarthyism), the relationship of government to the economy-

there is little in the pages of the [A merican Political Science] Review which suggests that American political scientists have had much to say about the direction which national policy should take." 8 Substantially same can be said of the other professional journals am. more recent "big" issues, including the Vietnam war, black power, the Arab - Israeli conflict, and so on. Evidently, then, if political scientists have pressed their views on policy questions, they have not done so in their journals or in the programs of the meetings of their national and regional associations. Moreover, the Constitution of the American Political Science Association, adopted in its present form in 1953, stipulates: "The Association as such is non-partisan. It will not support political parties or candidates. It will not commit its members on questions of public policy nor take positions not immediately concerned with its direct purpose [to encourage the study of political science]." No doubt there are many reasons for the behavioral political scientists' emphasis on process over content. Let me mention two of the more obvious. First, many such scholars evidently think that focusing on content is likely to lead to evaluations of present policies and exhortations for new ones; and these, they believe, not only have no place in scientific enterprise but are likely to divert attention and energy away from true scholarship. Second, many behavioral political scientists are concerned that the advance of the discipline not spread too thin by attempts to do too much. 9 They think that tackling policy content is bound to be too much, for it would require the political scientist to become an expert in his content specialty, e.g., a hydrologist to study water resources policy, an economist to study tax policy, an astronautical engineer to study space policy. In the past few years political scientists of all persuasions have shown signs of increasing discontent with the discipline's focus on process. A growing number are urging more attention to policy contents, but they are not all saying the same things. They disagree about why political scientists should study policy contents, how these should be studied, and what proportion of the discipline'S scarce resources of talent, time, energy, and research funds should be spent on such studies. These of course are the critical questions in deciding what, if any, scientific and professional effort political scientists should give to studying policy contents.

Ibid., pp. 43-44. For a brief but balanced summary of this dispute, see ibid., pp. 183-194.

Ibid., p. 200. Cf. Charles S. Hyneman, The Study of Politics, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1959. Chapter 7. "Have We Tackled Too Much?"

8

1

28

th.

be

WHY STUDY POLICY CONTENTS? The arguments of the growing number who advocate giving more attention to policy contents are based

I

8

9

VOLUME

22.

NUMBER

5


mainly on one or another of three distinct sets of reasons-scientific, professional, and political. Some political scientists argue that more study of ~olicy contents will add significantly to the breadth, .ignificance, and reliability of the discipline's special body of knowledge. They expect improved understanding of policy processes or of policy outcomes, or of both, to result. All studies of process except those of formal mathematical theorists (such as Kenneth Arrow, Duncan Black, Anthony Downs, and William Riker) have been based largely on observation of the making of actual policies-the Employment Act of 1946, Medicare, foreign aid, racial desegregation of public schools, and the like. The policy content or "governmental output" typically has been the dependent variable, and investigators have sought to explain variations in policy outputs by such independent variables as the distribution of power among pressure groups and governmental agencies, and the tactical techniques and skills of political actors. So they have identified the principal competing interests, groups, and actors; analyzed their objectives, techniques, support, opposition, and interactions; estimated their impact on the authorities; and thus accumulated materials for generalizations about factors determining the distribution of power in whatever part ~f the political system concerned them. Few have chal_lenged this familiar approach to studying policy processes, and such studies are likely to continue in abundance and show improvement in technique. On the other hand, some scholars-notably Lowi and Froman-have recently argued that we can greatly enrich our understanding of policy processes by reversing the orthodox explanatory relationships. They propose that we consider policy content as the independent variable and observe the varying ~mpact of different contents on policy-making processes. As Lowi puts it, "There are three major categories of public policies . . . distribution, regulation, and redistribution. . . . Each arena tends to develop its own characteristic political structure, political process, elites, and group relations." 10 His particular categories mayor may not be generally accepted, but his proposal that policy processes be approached through the different content areas seems likely to be adopted by some scholars. The objective is still to understand the nature of policy processes, and policy contents are relevant insofar as they improve understanding of the processes associated with them. Lowi's proposal is for a change in technique, not focus, and does not represent a radical departure from what process-oriented political scientists have been doing.

It

10 Theodore J. Lowi, "American Business, Public Policy. Case路 Studies, and Political Theory," World Politics, July 1964. pp. 689-690.

SEPTEMBER. 1968

Other scholars have argued that we should use policy contents as independent variables to learn more about policy outcomes, that is, the impact of public policies on the political system and its environment. Some propose, as Aaron Wildavsky and Vincent Ostrom do in their chapters, that political scientists develop the vague notion of "impact" into a political equivalent of the economists' cost-benefit calculus. Ideally, they say, we should be able to calculate what a particular policy "costs" not only in dollars, but also in terms of other policies foregone or truncated, increases in internal social hostility and instability, increases in demands on and decreases in supports for the system, narrowing the range of future policy options, and so on. This is a broader notion than that of "political feasibility," analyzed in a later chapter by Ralph Huitt, although the latter would certainly be a major element in it. After calculation of the political "costs," the policy's "benefits" should be calculated in dollars, decreases in social hostilityand instability, increases in supports, opening up new possibilities for future action, etc. After all, some argue, policy processes and outputs are significant only as they influence the conditions of people's lives; and we need to know much more about the relation of process to outputs and of outputs to outcomes. Earlier I borrowed Price's distinction between the scientific and professional estates, and noted that political science has not yet developed as a distinct science and profession, and that many political scientists move freely between the two estates. It is therefore not surprising that some who advocate greater attention to policy contents give professional reasons as well as, or instead of, scientific reasons. They hope for major improvements in political scientists' technical skills for performing either or both of the professional tasks of evaluating present and past policies, and advising policy makers. The logical next step beyond calculating political costs and benefits is to strike a balance-to determine whether a policy's political benefits were or are "worth" its political "price." Nearly every scholar who discusses this possibility is acutely aware of how difficult the determination would be even if an accurate and reliable way of assessing costs and benefits were available. The greatest difficulty is that it would require the political scientist to make professional value judgments, e.g., as to whether an increased supply of water and electric power for the people of the Southwest is worth damaging the natural beauties of the Grand Canyon, or whether increasing the number of artificial-kidney machines to keep some adults alive is worth decreasing public health measures to reduce infant mortality. This, of course, plunges us into perhaps the most bitterly disputed issue of the controversy between

29


behavioralists and antibehavioralists: what professional skills and obligations have political scientists to make and advocate value judgments? I have no illusion that I can settle that controversy, but I suggest that empirical political scientists can make a substantial contribution to the study of values without going beyond their professional expertise. I see no general agreement as to whether political philosophers, or historians of political philosophy, have special skills beyond those of ordinary men to determine which values are good, better, and best, but I do see general agreement that empirical political scientists have no special skill of that kind-that their skills relate solely to the framing and testing of hypotheses about the actual interrelations of observable phenomena. Hence they are professionally equipped to deal only with "if ... then" statements: if A is introduced into situation X, then situation X will change in manner Y. However, perhaps most value statements are instrumental rather than ultimate: A is good not in itself, but because it maximizes X. And any statement about the instrumental value of something has a major empirical component appropriate to the hypothesis-testing techniques of the political scientist. A third possibility has been suggested by Snyder and Robinson in their stimulating portfolio of ideas for future research: to develop and improve criteria for evaluating policy processes and contents. They suggest, among other things, that political scientists make case studies of policies generally agreed to be good (e.g., the Marshall Plan) and also of policies generally regarded as bad (e.g., the Bay of Pigs invasion). These case studies should ascertain what criteria have been applied to these policies by decision makers, nongovernmental elites, scholars, and others to arrive a& these judgments. They also suggest sample surveys of the attitudes of governmental decision-makers and nongovernmental elites toward the values, notions about relations of ends and means, and other criteria used in making and evaluating policy in general.l l And I would urge more survey studies of the public's value hierarchies so that we may gain a firmer basis for determining to what degrees and in what respects policies and policy proposals accord with the values of "the people." In some respects dispute over whether political scientists should advise policy makers seems like a kind of scholasticism. Numbers of political scientists do advise policy makers and are seldom publicly charged with unprofessional conduct for doing so. They serve as members of presidential commissions and task forces, as staff

of congressional committees, as consultants to various executive agencies; some testify before congressional committees; and so on. We know all this in a general way; but we have little information on such questions as: How many political scientists are currently advising. policy makers? In what capacities? On what subjects? What kinds of advice are they asked for and what do they give? What, if any, expertise do policy makers think political scientists have? What cognitive differences disturb their communications with policy makers? Answers to these questions would not answer the questions whether and how political scientists should advise policy makers, but certainly would provide some highly relevant materials. To the extent that political scientists are perceived to have special professional knowledge and skills they will, and should, in my opinion, be called upon to advise policy makers. If all we can offer is common sense or a passion for social justice, then we have no claim to-and will not receive-any special attention not paid to any other citizen enjoying these assets. And we can hardly hope to outdo subject-matter experts in their own fields by becoming especially skilled hydrologists or welfare economists or astronautical engineers! On the other hand, political scientists may develop, for example, a reliable and valid system for calculating political costs and benefits, or an extension of ends-means analysis to specifying the interrelations and priorities of instru-e mental values. If so, their professional knowledge and skills will become visibly useful in the identification, comparison, and evaluation of competing policy proposals; and policy makers inevitably will call on them for advice and possibly even pay it serious attention. 12 For political purposes and not primarily or at all for scientific or professional reasons, a third segment of political scientists urge the profession to write and talk more about the content of public policies and to do all that we can to see that the nation adopts the right policies to achieve the right goals. One group has long argued that behavioralism, by its insistence on an arid value-free stance and its obsession with techniques over substance, has rendered political science mute and impotent in the face of the great political and moral crises of our time. It is not clear, however, what form of political activity these scholars advocate beyond publishing hortatory articles in journals of opinion. Another group, closely related to the "New Left" in American politics, is clearer about the line of political action political scientists should take. Members of this group do not want political scientists to advise policy

11 Richard C. Snyder and James A. Robinson, National and Intet'national Decision-Making, New York: Institute for International Order, 1961, p. 29.

12 For a similar conclusion presented nearly a quarter-century ago, , see Pendleton Herring, "Political Science in the Next Decade," Ameri路 can Political Science Review, August 1945, pp. 757-766.

~O

a

VOLUME

22,

NUMBER

5


makers in any of the ways outlined above, but believe that much of American society and the policy-making system it supports are hopelessly corrupt. Hence, if a Apolitical scientist works within the system, he can only - b e corrupted by it. The proper moral stance for a political scientist, they feel, is to stand outside the system, criticize it, and press for radical changes in it. Accordingly, they want political scientists to make policy, by direct political action to force the "power elite" to mend its ways or to overthrow it. PRIORITIES IN POLITICAL SCIENCE If the distinction, made earlier, among the scientific, professional, and extraprofessional obligations of political scientists is accepted, then the kind of political activism just described is not legitimate for political scientists acting as political scientists) though it may be entirely legitimate for them as citizens. No doubt colleagues of the "activist" persuasion will deny the validity of any such distinctions and judgments; but most political scientists, I believe, do accept these distinctions and try to conduct themselves accordingly. They are

e

likely to agree with me that, while the political reasons for concern about policy contents exceed proper scholarly bounds, the scientific and professional reasons do not; to consider the prospect that the anticipated gains advanced as reasons for studying policy contents will be forthcoming; to want to know whether such study will improve our understanding of policy processes and policy outcomes, enable us to evaluate past and present policies more objectively, and advise policy makers competently about the effectiveness of means and the interrelations of goals. Perhaps many will believe, as do the authors of this book, that studying policy contents is worth a hard try before we make any final judgments about its utility. In sum: our professional skills and utility depend upon the scientific quality of our special body of knowledge. Hence, our primary obligation as scholars and teachers is to improve that knowledge. If frequent trips to Washington or the state house or city hall keep many of our most creative minds from that nuclear task, political science and the students and policy makers who hope to profit from it will be the poorer.

INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH AND EXCHANGES BOARD APPOINTED BY AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LEARNED SOCIETIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL THE American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research Council in July announced the establishment of an International Research and Exchanges Board under their joint sponsorship. The board will assume responsibility for several academic exchange programs with the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Yugoslavia, and it will attempt to facilitate new patterns of exchanges and arrange new forms of international scholarly cooperation as opportunities permit. It will undertake broad liaison functions and explore ways to develop intellectual relationships between individual scholars and research and educational institutions in this country and abroad. The new board has initiated its administration of those portions of the Ford Foundation's East European Program that have dealt with exchanges of individual scholars, and has accepted responsibility for the Academic Exchange Program that the American Council of Learned Societies has maintained with the Soviet Academy of Sciences. At the request of the fifty-five universities that compose the Inter-University Committee SEPTEMBER

1968

on Travel Grants, the board has also agreed to assume administrative responsibility for that committee's several exchange programs no later than July 1, 1969. Transfer of activities will be made during the coming year. Plans also call for close cooperation between the National Academy of Sciences and the board in all matters of common concern. This restructuring is the result of factors that stem from experience, from financial necessities, and from a desire to take advantage of anticipated opportunities in the years ahead. The International Research and Exchanges Board will attempt to assess the needs of the field, determine what objectives the Ministries of Education and Academies abroad seek in international research and exchange programs, and work out mutually satisfactory arrangements. The basic purposes of the board are to enable United States scholars-humanists, social, physical, and biological scientists-to study and conduct research in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, and in such other countries as may be appropriate; to provide opportunities for scholars from those countries to undertake re31


search and study in the United States, to acquire training in academic disciplines, and to learn more about United States history, literature, and civilization; and, in general, to foster mutual understanding and better relations between the countries involved. Frederick Burkhardt, President of the ACLS, serves as Chairman of the board. Allen H. Kassof, Princeton University, is its Executive Director. The other members appointed by the two Councils are: John C. Campbell of the Council on Foreign Relations, Chauncy D. Harris of the University of Chicago, Pendleton Herring and Henry W. Riecken of the SSRC, and Gordon B. Turner of the ACLS. The board will be responsible for general policy questions and administrative matters. The Councils will also appoint a Program Committee

which will be concerned with the substantive aspects of exchanges and research plans, and the National Academy of Sciences will appoint a representative to this committee. The Ford Foundation has provided . . financial support, and the ACLS serves as fiscal agent. • The universities have agreed to support the board's programs as they have those of the Inter-University Committee on Travel Grants in the past, and it is expected that the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the Department of State will do the same. The Executive Director of the board will be assisted by a staff and various committees of specialists on Soviet and East European affairs. The office of the International Research and Exchanges Board is at 444 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022.

PERSONNEL FOREIGN AREA FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM In the sixth year of administration of the Foreign Area Fellowship Program by the Social Science Research Council and American Council of Learned Societies, fellowships have been awarded for study of five major world areas. As of August 1, the following 161 appointments have been accepted for 1968-69 (a few additional appointments are expected): African Studies Program Robert H. Bates, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for preparation of a dissertation on the role of the Zambian mineworkers' union in the communication of government labor policy (renewal) Fremont E. Besmer, Ph.D. candidate in ethnomusicology, Columbia University, for Hausa language training, guided reading in history and political science relating to Africa, and research in the United States, Nigeria, and Ghana on Hausa traditional music in northern Nigeria Beverly A. Bolser, Ph.D. candidate in African history, Boston University, for research in Tanzania and Western Europe on a history of the town of Ujiji Robert B. Charlick, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of California, Los Angeles, for course work in agricultural economics, rural sociology, and agriculture, guided reading relating to Africa, and research in the United States, France, and Niger on social and political factors in agricultural innovation Philip E. Chartrand, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Syracuse University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in England, Rhodesia, and the United States on determinants of British policies toward Rhodesian independence (renewal) Lucie A. Colvin, Ph.D. candidate in history, Columbia University, for research in the United States, England, France, Senegal, and Ghana on nineteenth-century West African diplomacy in relation to African kingdoms

32

Alison L. Des Forges, Ph.D. candidate in history, Yale University, for completion of research in Rwanda on social and political change in Rwanda (renewal) Fredric L. Dubow, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, University of California, Berkeley, for intensive Swahili language training, guided reading in African history, and research in the United States and Tanzania on legal change and its impact in Tanzania Philip Ehrensaft, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Columbia University, for research in Nigeria on entrepreneurial. politics ., David R. Evans, Ph.D. candidate in international development education, Stanford University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Uganda and the United States on characteristics of East African secondary school teachers (renewal) Harvey M. Feinberg, Ph.D. candidate in history, Boston University, for preparation of a dissertation on the history of Elmina and relations between its Dutch and African populations, 1700-1815 (renewal) David R. Giltrow, Ph.D. candidate in communications, Syracuse University, for intensive Swahili language training and research in Tanzania on school children's comprehension of basic motion picture elements Anita J. Glaze, Ph.D. candidate in African art history, Indiana University, for Dyula language training and research in Western Europe, Senegal, and Ivory Coast on Senufo art Bruce T. Grindal, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Indiana University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Ghana and the United States on education and culture change among the Sissala of Northern Ghana (renewal) Margaret J. Hay, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Wisconsin, for intensive Swahili language training and historical research in Kenya on economic change at the village level Kennell Jackson, Jr., Ph.D. candidate in history, Uni- , versity of California, Los Angeles, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation on an ethnohistory of the oral traditions of the Akamba of Kenya VOLUME

22,

NUMBER

S


Susan B. Kaplow, Ph.D. candidate in history, Columbia University, for intensive Fante language training and research in England and Ghana on sociopolitical relations of nineteenth-century Gold Coast traders in Ghana Michael D. Levin, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Princeton University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in West Cameroun and the United States on the indigenous economy of a Bakossi village (renewal) Bernth O. Lindfors, Ph.D. candidate in English, University of Califo~nia, L?s Angeles,. for resear~ a~d p~epa足 ration of a dIssertation on a hIstOry of NIgerIan lIterature in English (renewal) Joseph C. M~ller, Ph.D. candidate in hi~tory, Uni:versity of Wisconsin, for research and preparatIon of a dIssertation in Portugal and Angola on a history of the Imbangala state of Kasanje to 1900 Thomas D. Moodie, Ph.D. candidate in sociology of religion, Harvar~ .University, for research in ~??t!t Africa on the OrIginS and development of the oVII religion" of Afrikaner nationalism August H. Nimtz, Ph.D. candidate in government, In~i足 ana University, for research in England and Tanzama on the contribution of the Muslim tariqa to development, 1880-1967 George N. Preston, Ph.D. candidate in fine arts, Columbia University, for gui~ed reading in hi~tory, anthropology, and sociology relating to West AfrIca, and research In the United States, Europe, and Ghana on Akan funerary terracottas, wood sculptures, and other symbols of leadership Lucy G. Quimby, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Wisconsin, for Bambara language training and research in Paris, Dakar, and Mali on the history of the Hamalliyya in Mali John B. Riddell, Ph.D. candidate in geography, Pennsylvania State ~niversity, for preparation of a disse!tati?n on the spatial development of the transportation infrastructure of Sierra Leone (renewal) Dov Ronen, Ph.D. candidate in government, Indiana University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Paris and the United States on education and the role of the educated in the process of modernization (renewal) Joel Samoff, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of Wisconsin, for research in Tanzania on the political process in a single-party state Harold E. Scheub, Ph.D. candidate in African languages and literature, University of Wisconsin, for preparation of a dissertation on the oral and written literature of the Nguni languages of South Africa (renewal) Edward J. Schumacher, Ph.D. candidate in government, Columbia University, for pre:paration of a dissertation on bureaucracy and politics In Mali and Senegal (renewal) Francis G. Snyder, LL.B. candidate, University of Paris, for Arabic language training and course work and guided reading in Paris in law, anthropology, history, and sociology relating to West Africa Charles C. Stewart, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Oxford, for research in Senegal and Mauritania on the Islamization of the Senegal basin SEPTEMBER

1968

Heidi S. Tauss, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Northwestern University, for research in Ghana on relations between elites and constituencies at different governmental levels in urban areas of Africa Louis W. Truschel, Ph.D. candidate in history, Northwestern University, for Herero language training and research in Botswana on a history of the HereroTswana relations in Botswana Thomas W. Waltz, Ph.D. candidate in economics, Northwestern University, for Swahili language training and course work and guided reading in London in history, political science, sociology, and political geography relating to East Africa

Asia and Near East Studies Program Gary D. Allinson, Ph.D. candidate in history, Stanford University, for Japanese language training and research in Japan on the social and political history of Nagoya, 1890-1940 Lewis C. Austin, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for research in Japan on patterns of political socialization and culture Richard B. Barnett, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of California, Berkeley, for Persian language training and research in the United States, England, and India on a social history of Nawabi Awadh Damel G. Bates, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, University of Michigan, for research in Turkey on economic and social relations between peasants and pastoral nomads in southwestern Turkey Stephan V. Beyer, Ph.D. candidate in Buddhist studies, University of Wisconsin, for completion of research in India and Jafan on the ritual and artistic development of the cult 0 the goddess Tara (renewal) Karen W. Brazell, Ph.D. candidate in Japanese literature, Columbia University, for preparation of a dissertation on Towazugatari (renewal) John A. Brim, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Stanford University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Hong Kong and the United States on Chinese social organization and its psychological concomitants in the New Territories, Hong Kong (renewal) John C. Campbell, Ph.D. candidate in government, Columbia University, for preparation for oral examinations, and research in the United States and Japan on the budgetary process of Japan Robert L. Canfield, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, University of Michigan, for preparation of a dissertation on social and economic adaptive patterns in selected Afghan villages (renewal) Byron D. Cannon, Ph.D. candidate in history, Columbia University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Egypt and the United States on the development of the Egyptian judicial system during the nineteenth century (renewal) Edward C. Clark, Ph.D. candidate in history, Princeton University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Turkey and the United States on the Ottoman ancestors of contemporary Turkish industrialists (renewal) Donald R. De Glopper, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Cornell University, for completion of research and

33


preparation of a dissertation in Taiwan and the United States on contractual relations and voluntary associations among businessmen in a Taiwanese market town (renewal) Jerry P. Dennerline, Ph.D. candidate in history, Yale University, for research in Taiwan on the social and intellectual history of seventeenth-century China Dale F. Eickelman, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, University of Chicago, for research in Egypt, Iran, and Iraq on social organization in Baghdad Province and adjacent regions David J. Elkins, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of California, Berkeley, for research in India on recruitment of state legislative candidates for the 1967 general elections (renewal) Donald K. Emmerson, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Yale University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Indonesia and the United States on education and social development (renewal) Joseph W. Esherick, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of California, Berkeley, for research in Taiwan and Japan on the Chinese Revolution of 1911 Carter V. Findley, Ph.D. candidate in history, Harvard University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Turkey, Europe, and the United States on the transformation of Ottoman bureaucracy, particularly in the Foreign Ministry, 1839-76 (renewal) George E. Gruen, Ph.D. candidate in international relations, Columbia University, for preparation of a dissertation on Turkish - Israeli relations, 1948-60 (renewal) James A. Hafner, Ph.D. candidate in geography, University of Michigan, for preparation of a dissertation on the mechanics and structure of inland water transport in Thailand (renewal) Susan B. Hanley, Ph.D. candidate in history, Yale University, for research in Japan on the population of Tokugawa Japan, 1600-1886 Stanley J. Heginbotham, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for preparation of a dissertation on the incorporation of traditional Hindu concepts of duty into the work ethic of contemporary civil servants in Madras State (renewal) George C. Hurst, Ph.D. candidate in history, Columbia University, for research and preparation of a dissertation in Japan and the United States on the rise and development of the Insei, 1086-1185 E. Alun Jones, Ph.D. candidate in history, Yale University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in England on the British administration of the Federated and Unfederated Malay States, 18851914 (renewal) Frank S. Kehl, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Columbia University, for Chinese language training and research in Hong Kong on ecology and community in a squatter area Stephen L. Keller, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in India and the United States on the attitudes and personalities of Indian refugees from Pakistan (renewal) 34

Thomas G. Kessinger, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Chicago, for a comparative study in England, Pakistan, and India of the social and economic history of two villages in two districts of Pakistan and India Steven I. Levine, Ph.D. candidate in government, Har- _ vard University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation on political integration in Manchuria, 1945-54 (renewal) Richard J. Lynn, Ph.D. candidate in literature and intellectual history, Stanford University, for research in Taiwan on the Ch'ing statesman-poet-critic, Wang Shih-chen, 1634-1711 Ronald J. Maduro, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, for research in India on creativity in India as culturally influenced symbolic thought and expression Joseph A. Massey, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Yale University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Japan and the United States on political socialization in Japan (renewal) Julia B. Meech, Ph.D. candidate in art history, Harvard University, for Japanese language training and research in Japan on the twelfth-century Taira clan and the arts they stimulated Colin Meredith, Ph.D. candidate in history, Princeton University, for research in England, France, and Iran on the initial stages of Iranian modernization Ronald C. Miao, Ph.D. candidate in linguistics, University of California, Berkeley, for research in Taiwan and Hong Kong on modern Chinese literary criticism, 1917-42 Donald A. Nelson, Ph.D. candidate in oriental languages _ and civilization, University of Chicago, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in India and the United States on the Tamil Perunkadai as a source for reconstruction of the lost Paisaci Brhatkatha (renewal) Philip K. Oldenburg, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of Chicago, for course work in sociology, statistics, mathematics, and quantitative methodology and research in India on urban politics Stephen M. Olsen, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Cornell University, for preparation of a dissertation on occupation, family, and education in urban Taiwan (renewal) Patrick A. Peebles, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Chicago, for Sinhalese language training and research in Ceylon and England on the roles of education and religious controversy in social change in Ceylon, 1860-85 William V. Rapp, Ph.D. in economics, Stanford University, for Japanese language training and multidisciplinary course work relating to Asia Thomas G. Rawski, Ph.D. candidate in economics, Harvard University, for Japanese language training and research in Japan on the industrial development of China from the 1930's to the present Merle C. Ricklefs, Ph.D. candidate in history, Cornell University, for research in the Netherlands and Indo- • nesia on the reign of the first Sultan of Jogjakarta • Clifton W. Royston, Ph.D. candidate in Japanese literature, University of Michigan, for research in Japan on VOLUME

22,

NUMBER

3


the poetics and poetry criticism of Fujiwara Shunzei (1114-1204) Gilbert F. Rozman, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Princeton University, for research in the United States, Japan, and Taiwan on urbanization in China and Japan in the Ch'ing and Tokugawa periods Jon L. Saari, Ph.D. candidate in history, Harvard University, for course work and guided reading in social relations and related disciplines and research in the United States, Taiwan, and Hong Kong on the impact of Western education on Chinese intellectuals, 19001937 Clinton B. Seely, Ph.D. candidate in South Asian languages and civilization, University of Chicago, for study of English literature and criticism and research in the United States, India, and Pakistan on the Bengali poet, Jibanananda Das Susan S. Shin, Ph.D. candidate in history, Harvard University, for research in Korea on its land tenure system, 1600-1800 Mark S. Slobin, Ph.D. candidate in ethnomusicology, University of Michigan, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Afghanistan, the Soviet Union, and the United States on Tajik and Uzbek musical materials (renewal) Stephen F. Tobias, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, University of Chicago, for Thai language training and research in Thailand on religion in a Chinese community in Thailand Royall Tyler, Ph.D. candidate in history, Columbia University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Japan and the United States on Suzuki Shosan (1579-1655) (renewal) Howard J. Wechsler, Ph.D. candidate in history, Yale University, for preparation of a dissertation on Wei Cheng (580-643) at the Court of T'ang T'ai-tsung (renewal) Franklin B. Weinstein, Ph.D. candidate in government, Cornell University, for research in Indonesia on its foreign policy since 1963 Martin E. Weinstein, Ph.D. candidate in international relations and government, Columbia University, for preparation of a dissertation on japan's postwar defense policy (renewal) Martin K. Whyte, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Harvard University, for research in Hong Kong on the role of different kinds of small groups in Communist Chinese society in Hong Kong Edwin A. Winckler, Ph.D. candidate in government, Harvard University, for Chinese language training and research in Taiwan on small voluntary associations and formal organizations Latin American Studies P1"Ogram

Mario Barrera, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of California, Berkeley, for research in Argentina on executive communications Guy Benveniste, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Stanford University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Mexico and the United States on educational planning (renewal) SEPTEMBER.

1968

Ralph L. Bolton, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Cornell University, for research in Peru on social and political processes among Quechua villagers of Highland Peru Marta Cehelsky, Ph.D. candidate in government, Columbia University, for research in Brazil on two cases of decision making David M. Davidson, Ph.D. candidate in history, Yale University, for preparation of a dissertation on the integration of the Amazon in the eighteenth century (renewal) David A. Denslow, Ph.D. candidate in economics, Yale University, for research in Brazil on sugar production in the Colonial Period G. Robertson Dilg, Ph.D. candidate in history, Indiana University, for research in Spain and Peru on merchants in eighteenth-century Lima: the effects of conservative reform Stuart I. Fagan, Ph.D. candidate in history, Indiana University, for research and preparation of a dissertation in Venezuela and the United States on interest group articulation and aggregation patterns in Venezuela (renewal) Cornelia Flora, Ph.D. candidate in rural sociology, Cornell University, for research in Colombia on the structural causes and consequences of the Pentecostal religious movement in the Cauca Valley Jan Flora, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Cornell University, for research in Colombia on its regional and subregional development Gary A. Fuller, Ph.D. candidate in geography, Pennsylvania State University, for intensive Spanish language training, interdisciplinary course work relating to Latin America, and research in Mexico and Chile on the spatial diffusion of birth control Louis W. Goodman, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Northwestern University, for preparation of a dissertation on the impact of industrialization on workers in Santiago (renewal) Stanley E. Hilton, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Texas, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Brazil, Argentina, England, Germany, and the United States on Brazilian foreign policy, 1934-39 (renewal) Jane S. Jaquette, Ph.D. candidate in government, Cornell University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation on the impact of the United States on development policy in Peru (renewal) Peter T. Knight, Ph.D. candidate in economics, Stanford University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Brazil and the United States on import substitution, export promotion, and comparative advantage in Brazilian agriculture (renewal) Norris B. Lyle, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of California, Los Angeles, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Brazil and the United States on Janio Quadros: a case study of personalism, populism, and regionalism in Brazil since 1945 (renewal) Richard L. Meyer, Ph.D. candidate in agricultural economics, Cornell University, for research in Chile on the role of beneficiary payments in land reform Christopher Mitchell, Ph.D. candidate in government, Harvard University, for research in the United States 35


and Bolivia on the history and operations of the Movimiento Nacional Revolucionario, 1952-64 Bernard Q. Nietschmann, Ph.D. candidate in geography, University of Wisconsin, for research in the United States, Guatemala, and Nicaragua on the cultural ecology of subsistence diets along a tropical coast Liisa L. North, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of California, Berkeley, for research in Peru on the formation of Apra as a radical political party and its later de-radicalization Thomas G. Powell, Ph.D. candidate in history, Indiana University, for research in the United States and Mexico on the Indian question in Mexico from the mid-1850's to 1911 Reid R. Reading, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of Wisconsin, for preparation of a dissertation on political socialization in Colombia (renewal) John F. Scott, Ph.D. candidate in art history, Columbia University, for preparation of a dissertation on preclassic art of Monte Alban, Oaxaca, with emphasis on its position as transition from Olmec to Izapan styles (renewal) Ron L. Seckinger, Ph.D. candidate in Latin American history, University of Florida, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Brazil and the United States on political power in Cuiaba, 182151: a case study in the dynamics of municipal and provincial government in Imperial Brazil (renewal) Floyd L. Tullis, Ph.D. candidate in government, Harvard University, for preparation of a dissertation on urbanrural cleavage in Peru (renewal) Peter E. Winn, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Cambridge, for preparation in England of a dissertation on British economic expansion into Latin America in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and the Latin American reaction (renewal)

Soviet Union and East European Studies Program James D. Armstrong, Ph.D. candidate in linguistics, Indiana University, for preparation for examinations and research on Russian semantics Raymond W. Baker, Ph.D. candidate in government, Harvard University, for intensive Russian and Arabic language training (renewal) Russell H. Bartley, Ph.D. candidate in history, Stanford University, for preparation of a dissertation on Russian responses to Latin American independence, 1808-26 (renewal) Victoria F. Brown, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Washington, for multidisciplinary course work or reading, Romanian language training, and research in the United States and Romania on the political integration of Transylvania into Greater Romania, 1918-40 Lenard J. Cohen, Ph.D. candidate in government, Columbia University, for intensive Serbo-Croatian language training, directed reading in South Slav history and culture, and research in the United States and Yugoslavia on the latter's educational system (renewal) Robert D. Givens, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of California, Berkeley, for course work in social theory and sociology, intensive Russian language training, and research on the social origins of the Russian bureaucracy 36

William W. Hagen, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Chicago, for course work in Polish history, Polish language training, and research in Poland on the rise of its National Democratic Party, 1890-1914 Michael H. Haltzel, Ph.D. candidate in history, Harvard University, for research in Finland and West Germany on the Baltic Germans in the Russian Empire, 18811914 Oli Hawrylyshyn, Ph.D. candidate in economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for multidisciplinary course work and guided reading, and Serbo-Croatian language training Thomas W. Hoya, J.S.D. candidate, Columbia Law School, for completion of residence and degree requirements and preparation of a dissertation on the legal framework of Soviet foreign trade (renewal) Donald R. Kelley, Ph.D. candidate in government, Indiana University, for Russian language training and research on decision making and group politics in the Soviet Union (renewal) Linda L. Lubrano, Ph.D. candidate in government, Indiana University, for preparation of a dissertation on the effects of Soviet science policy on the social and political status of natural scientists, 1957-67 (renewal) Inga S. Markovits, LL.M. candidate, Yale Law School, for course work in London in Russian, Marxist economics and philosophy, East European law, and Soviet government and society John S. McConnell, Ph.D. candidate in economics, University of Michigan, for completion of requirements for the Certificate in Russian Studies, Russian language training, and research on Russian economics Bruce W. Menning, Ph.D. candidate in history, Duke University, for research in Finland and the Soviet Union on the Don Cossacks in the reign of Nicholas II Lorraine F. Millard, Ph.D. candidate in government, Columbia University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Poland and the United States on the emergence of national democracy in Poland (renewal) Max J. Okenfuss, Ph.D. candidate in history, Harvard University, for research in Finland and the Soviet Union on Russian education in the eighteenth century Philip Pryde, Ph.D. candidate in geography, University of Washington, for preparation of a dissertation on utilization and conservation of natural resources in the Soviet Union (renewal) Daniel Z. Stone, Ph.D. candidate in history, Indiana University, for preparation of a dissertation on Polish politics and national reform, 1775-88 (renewal) Ronald F. Walter, Ph.D. candidate in Slavic languages and literatures, Indiana University, for preparation for examinations and course work in Russian history, music, and literature Philip Weitzman, Ph.D. candidate in economics, University of Michigan, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation on planning consumption in the Soviet Union (renewal) Edward D. Wynot, Jr., Ph.D. candidate in history, Indiana University, for research in the United States, England, and Poland on the role of the Camp of National Unity in Polish domestic and foreign politics, 1937-39 VOLUME

22,

NUMBER

S

I


Western European Studies Program Gordon M. Adams, Ph.D. candidate in government, Columbia University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Belgium, Germany, and the United States on the external relations of the European Economic Community, particularly with its African and Malagasy associates (renewal) Susan A. Ashley, Ph.D. candidate in history, Columbia University, for intensive Italian language training and research in the United States and Italy on ministerial responsibility in the Italian and French constitutional monarchies Michael G. Baylor, Ph.D. candidate in history, Stanford University, for German language training and research in Germany on the idea of conscience in the age of the Reformation Lutz K. Berkner, Ph.D. candidate in history, Harvard University, for multidisciplinary course work and research in the United States, Austria, and France on the social and economic impact of the domestic cotton industry on the agricultural population of Lower Austria and Normandy Arthur F. Calhoun, Ph.D. candidate in history, Princeton University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in France and the United States on internal security in France and Germany, 1900-1914 (renewal) Geoffrey W. Chapman, Ph.D. candidate in history, Princeton University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Italy and the United States on the influence of domestic politics on French and Italian foreign policy, 1912-15 (renewal) Helen S. Feldstein, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Yale University, for German language training and research in France and Germany on the impact of European Economic Community membership on the French and German national administrations George D. Frangos, Ph.D. candidate in history, Columbia University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Romania, France, and the United States on the Philike Etaireia-a social and historical analysis (renewal) Trond Gilberg, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of Wisconsin, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation on the relations between the Communist Parties of the Soviet Union and Norway since 1917 (renewal) David D. Gregory, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Spain, Germany, and the United States on the effects of various patterns of migration on the social, cultural, and personality organization of agrarian peasant communities in Germany and eastern Spain (renewal) H. Hugh Helco, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Yale University, for a comparative study in Sweden and the United Kingdom of the development of national welfare policy Stephen M. Hellman, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Yale University, for a comparative study in Italy of the French and Italian Communist Parties, with emphasis on the industrialized regions of Italy SEPTEMBER

1968

Henry H. Kerr, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of Michigan, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Germany, FraI).ce, and the United States on representation in the European Economic Community (renewal) William M. Lafferty, Ph.D. candidate in political science, University of Florida, for Norwegian and Swedish language training and research in Norway on the "Bull Proposition" as it applies to the Scandinavian countries Gordana Lazarevich, Ph.D. candidate in musicology, Columbia University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Western Europe and the United States on the role of the Neapolitan intermezzo in the evolution of eighteenth-century musical styles (renewal) Henry R. Nau, Ph.D. candidate in international relations, Johns Hopkins University, for French language training and course work at Yale University in political science and statistics relating to Western Europe Lois A. Pattison, Ph.D. candidate in government, Harvard University, for intensive German language training and research and preparation of a dissertation in Germany, France, and the United States on the place of Germany in de Gaulle's European policy (revision) Robert D. Putnam, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Yale University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Italy and the United States on a comparison of elite political culture (renewal) Jack E. Reece, Ph.D. candidate in history, Stanford University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Sicily and the United States on the Breton and Sicilian movements and their implications for the process of national political integration in France and Italy (renewal) Robert Rosen, Ph.D. candidate in history, Stanford University, for preparation of a dissertation on the relations of patterns of ideology and socioeconomic decay (renewal) Theda Shapiro, Ph.D. candidate in art history, Columbia University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Western Europe and the United States on European avant-garde painters and politics, 1900-1920 (renewal) A. Joshua Sherman, D.Phil. candidate in history, University of Oxford, for completion of course and residence requirements and research in England, Israel, Germany, and Switzerland on British government policies toward refugees from the Third Reich, 1933-39 (renewal) Mark A. Wasserman, Ph.D. candidate in economics, University of Illinois, for French and German language training, multidisciplinary course work and research in Grenoble, London, and Berlin on regional economic integration and economic planning Samuel M. Weber, Ph.D. candidate in comparative literature, Cornell University, for completion of research and preparation of a dissertation in Germany and Switzerland on three major methodological approaches to literature and literary criticism being developed in Continental thought (renewal) Robert F. Willis, Ph.D. candidate in musicology, Columbia University, for reading on music and musical prac37


tices and nineteenth-century Italian history, intensive Italian and French language training, and research in the United States, Italy, France, and England on Bellini in the musical life of nineteenth-century Western Europe

Special Foreign A rea - Library Science Program Khalil G. Helou, Bibliographer, University of Minnesota, for study at the University of London toward the M.L.S. degree and specialized training in Middle Eastern librarianship John D. Hyde, Ph.D. candidate in Arabic studies, Princeton University, for Persian and Russian language training and study at Columbia University toward the M.L.S. degree Abdul K. Rony, Senior Reference Librarian, Library of Congress, for study at Catholic University toward the M.L.S. degree Morris R. Wills, M.L.S. candidate, Columbia University, for study toward that degree and the Certificate in East Asian Studies (renewal) Dunning S. Wilson, M.A. candidate in Islamic studies, University of California, Los Angeles, for completion of course requirements

GRANTS FOR STUDY OF EAST EUROPEAN LANGUAGES The Subcommittee on East Central and Southeast European Studies (of the Joint Committee on Slavic Studies, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies)-Charles Jelavich (chairman), John C. Campbell, Istvan Deak, William E. Harkins, George W. Hoffman, Andrzej Korbonski, Alexander M. Schenker, and Sergius Yakobson-at a meeting on March 22 made 44 grants for study of the following East European languages:

Bulgarian Donald B. Johnson, Assistant Professor of Russian, University of California, Santa Barbara Croatian Arthur W. Wright, Visiting Research Economist, Yale University Czech Leonard H. Babby, graduate student, Slavic languages and literatures, Harvard University Lucia L. Capodilupo, graduate student, Slavic languages and literatures, Yale University Fred Eidlin, graduate student, government, Indiana University William S. Hamilton, Jr., graduate student, Slavic languages and literatures, Yale University Karen A. Johnson, graduate student, history, Columbia University Edward R. Kane, graduate student, Slavic languages and literatures, University of California, Berkeley Sonia Ketchian, graduate student, Slavic languages and literatures, Harvard University S8

James J. Lake, graduate student, Slavic linguistics, Yale University Elizabeth V. Layton, graduate student, Slavic languages and literatures, Indiana University David T. Murphy, graduate student, Slavic languages, Columbia University Stephanie M. Sweda, graduate student, Slavic languages and literatures, Yale University Jeanne G. Tracy, graduate student, Slavic languages and literatures, Indiana University John J. Vacek, graduate student, history, Columbia University

Modern Greek Stephen K. Batalden, graduate student, history, University of Minnesota Hungarian Alan W. Joyce, graduate student, public law and government, Columbia University John A. Trumbull, graduate student, history, Indiana University Polish S. Ear~ Brown, Professor of Geography, Ohio State University William E. Freeman, graduate student, history, University of Colorado Duncan B. Gardiner, graduate student, Slavic languages and literatures, Indiana University Marc E. Heine, graduate student, Slavic languages and literatures, Yale University Ellen P. Henshaw, graduate student, Slavic languages and literatures, University of California, Berkeley John J. Kulczycki, graduate student, history, Columbia University Alan I.t. Perreiah, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of Kentucky Carolyn J. Rogers, graduate student, Slavic languages Columbia University , Colleen M. Taylor, graduate student, Slavic languages, Columbia University David J. Welsh, Associate Professor of Slavic Languages and Literatures, University of Michigan Romanian Scott MeN. Eddie, Research Staff Economist, Yale University Bruce .C. Fryer, graduate student, history, Indiana University George F. Jewsbury, Instructor in History, Oklahoma State University Augustin Maissen, Associate Professor of Romance Languages, University of North Carolina Edward J. Neugaard, Associate Professor of Modern Languages, University of South Florida Serbo-Cmatian Ronelle J. Alexander, graduate student, Slavic languages and literatures, Harvard University VOLUME

22, NUMBn J

e

I


Louis A. Barth, Associate Professor of Philosophy, St. Louis University Robert C. Channon, graduate student, Slavic languages and literatures, Harvard University Janet E. Collins, graduate student, government and foreign affairs, University of Virginia Thomas A. Emmert, graduate student, history, Stanford University David J. Fulton, graduate student, history, Indiana University Carol S. Leonard, graduate student, history, Indiana University

Bob L. Mowery, Director of University Libraries, Wittenberg University Karen R. Rosenblum, graduate student, politics, London School of Economics and Political Science

Slovak Thaddeus V. Gromada, Associate Professor of History, Jersey City State College Slovene Robert F. Price, graduate student, Slavic languages and literatures, Indiana University

NEW PUBLICATIONS The City in Modern Africa, edited by Horace Miner. Product of the conference on methods and objectives of research on urbanization in Africa, sponsored by the Joint Committee on African Studies, April 1-3, 1965. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, December 1967. 375 pages. $7.50. The Construction Industry in Communist China, by Kang Chao. Sponsored by the Committee on the Economy of China. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, February 1968. 252 pages. $8.75. ..aEarly Education: Current Theory, Research, and Action, . . , edited by Robert D. Hess and Roberta M. Bear. Papers prepared for the Conference on Preschool Education, sponsored by the Committee on Learning and the Educational Process, February 7-9, 1966. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, March 1968. 282 pages. $6.95. Economic Trends in Communist China, edited by Alexander Eckstein, Walter Galenson, and Ta-Chung Liu. Product of a conference sponsored by the Committee on the Economy of China, October 21-23, 1965. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, August 1968. c. 800 pages. $17.50. Genetic Dive1'sity and Human Behavior, edited by J. N. Spuhler. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, No. 45. Proceedings of a symposium, September 17-25, 1964, jointly sponsored by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research and the Committee on Biological Bases of Social Behavior. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, December 1967. 302 pages. $7.50. Genetics, edited by David C. Glass. Papers prepared for the conference on genetics and behavior cosponsored by Rockefeller University, Russell Sage Foundation, and the Committee on Biological Bases of Social Behavior, November 18-19, 1966. New York: Rockefeller University Press and Russell Sage Foundation, May 1968. 270 pages. $7.50. Metropolitan Area Definition: A Re-evaluation of Concept and Statistical Practice, U.S. Bureau of the Census Working Paper No. 28, by Brian J. L. Berry with Peter G. Goheen and Harold Goldstein. Report on a study made _ for the former Committee on Areas for Social and Economic Statistics. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census, June 1968. 51 pages. 50 cents. SEPTEMBER

1968

The People of Rural America, by J. Allan Beegle, Dale E. Hathaway, and W. Keith Bryant. Sponsored by the Committee on Population Census Monographs in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, September 1968. c. 291 pages. c. $3.00. Political Science and Public Policy, edited by Austin Ranney. Product of conferences sponsored by the Committee on Governmental and Legal Processes, June 15-17, 1966 and August 28-29, 1967. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company, September 1968. c. 300 pages. $5.95 . Public Policy, Vol. 17, edited by John D. Montgomery and Albert O. Hirschman. Includes 5 papers prepared for the Conference on Military OccupatIOns and Political Change, held by the Committee on Comparative Politics, April 20-22, 1967: "The Legacies of the Occupation of Germany," by Carl J. Friedrich; "The Potential for Democratization in Occupied Germany: A Problem in Historical Projection," by Leonard Krieger; "Allied Strategies of Effecting Political Change and Their Reception in Occupied Germany," by Peter H. Merkl; "Soviet Occupation in Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary," by Hugh Seton-Watson; "The Potential for Democratization in Prewar Japan," by Robert E. Ward. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, October 1968. c. 450 pages. $7.00. Revolutionary Russia, edited by Richard Pipes. Product of the conference on the Russian Revolution, cosponsored by the Joint Committee on Slavic Studies and the Harvard University Russian Research Center, April 4-9, 1967. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, January 1968. 376 pages. $7.95. Socialization and Society, edited by John A. Clausen, with contributions also by Orville G. Brim, Jr., Alex Inkeles, Ronald Lippitt, Eleanor E. Maccoby, and M. Brewster Smith. Report of the former Committee on Socialization and Social Structure. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, June 1968.416 pages. $5.50. The Spatial Economy of Communist China, by Yuan-Ii Wu. Prepared with the aid of the Committee on the Economy of China. New York: Frederick A. Praeger for the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, January 1968. 386 pages. $10.00.

S9


COUNCIL FELLOWSHIPS AND GRANTS OFFERED IN 1968-69: DATES FOR FILING APPLICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS OF AWARDS Applications for fellowships and grants offered by the Council during the coming year will be due, and awards will be announced, on or before the respective dates listed below. Because full consideration cannot be assured for late applications, and because preliminary correspondence is frequently necessary to determine under which program a given proposal should be submitted, prospective applicants should communicate with the Council if possible at least three weeks in advance of the pertinent closing date. Inquiries should indicate the nature of the proposed training or research; the approximate amount and duration of support needed; one's age, occupation or current activity and vocational aim, country of citizenship and country of permanent residence; academic degrees held (specifying the fields of study); and if currently working for a degree, one's present stage of advancement toward it. A brochure describing the several programs is available on request addressed to Social Science Research Council Fellowships and Grants, 230 Park Avenue, New York, N. Y. 10017. Research Training Fellowships, applications, January 2, 1969; awards, March 15, 1969 Faculty Research Grants, applications, January 2, 1969; awards, April 1, 1969 • Grants for African Studies, applications, December 15, 1968; awards, February 1969

• Grants for Asian Studies, applications to be submitted to American Council of Learned Societies, 345 East 46 Street, New York, N.Y. 10017, December 1, 1968; awards, within 3 months • Grants for Research on Contemporary and Republican China, applications, December 15, 1968; awards, February 1969 • Grants for Latin American Studies, applications, December 15, 1968; awards, February 1969 • Grants for Near and Middle Eastern Studies, applications, December 15, 1968; awards, February 1969 • Grants for Slavic and East European Studies, applications to be submitted to American Council of Learned Societies, 345 East 46 Street, New York, N.Y. 10017, December 15, 1968; awards, within 3 months • Travel grants for international conferences on Slavic and East Euro{lean Studies, applications to be submitted to AmerIcan Council of Learned Societies, 345 East 46 Street, New York, N.Y. 10017 • Grants for Study of East European Languages, applications to be submitted to American Council of Learned Societies, 345 East 46 Street, New York, N.Y. 10017, February 1, 1969; awards, within 2 months • Foreign Area Fellowships, applications to be submitted to Foreign Area Fellowship Program, 444 MadisonA Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022, by November 1, 1968;. awards, April 1, 1969 • Offered undel' a joint program of the American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research Council.

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL UO

PARK

AVENUE,

NEW

YORK,

N.Y.

10017

Incorporated in the State of Illinois, December 27, 1924, for the purpose of advancing research in the social sciences Directors, 1968:

WILLIAM O. AYDELOTIE. ABRAM BERGSON. PETER M. BLAu. DORWIN CARTWRIGHT, JAMES S. COLEMAN. HAROLD C. CONKUN. Lu J.

CRONBACH. PHIUP D. CURTIN. CHARLES A. FERGUSON. DANIEL

X.

FREEDMAN. MORTON H. FRIED. WILUAM J. GOODE. ZVI GRIUCHES. MORRIS H. HANSEN,

CHAUNCY D. HARRIS. SAMUEL P. HAYS. PENDLETON HERRING. STANLEY LEBERGOTI, GARDNER LINDZEY, COUN M. MAcLEOD. FRANCO MODIGUANI. FREDERICK. MOSTELLER. DON K. PRICE, AumN RANNEY. ALBERT

REEs.

HERBERT A. SUION, ALLAN H. SMITH, JOHN THIBAUT, DAVID B. TRUMAN, ROBERT E. WARD

Officers and Staff: PENDLETON HERRING. President; PAUL tive Associates; ELEANOR C. ISBELL, ROWLAND L. MITCHELL. V. RONNAN. Financial Secretary

40

Vice-Presidents; ELBRIDGE SIBLEY. BRYCE WOOD. ExecuStaff Associates; JEROME E. SINGER. Consultant; CATHERINE

WEBBINK, HENRY W. R1ECKEN, JR., NORMAN W. STORER,

I

Items Vol. 22 No. 3 (1968)  
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you