Items Vol. 25 No. 4 (1971)

Page 1





ANNOUNCDIENT on October 15 of the award of the Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science to Simon Kumets was particularly gratifying to members of the Council. The congTatulations that they extend to him are combined with pride in its association with his career over many years. He was a Research Fellow of the Council in 1925-26, the first year of the Council's research fellowship progTam, devoting himself to research on secular movements in production and prices. For six years, 1938-43, he was a member of the Council's board of directors, designated by the American Economic Association, and thenceforth continued to participate in various Council activities. His major contribution was as chairman of the Council's Committee on Economic Growth throughout its 20 years. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in its award to Simon Kumets cited "his empirically founded interpretation of economic growth which has led to a new and deepened insight into the economic and social structure and process of development," and stated that "more than any other scientist he has illuminated with factsand explained through analysis-economic growth from the middle of the last century." A substantial part of these contributions was developed in collaboration with and with the support of the Committee on Economic Growth, which had its origins in a memorandum that he submitted to the Council in 1948. That memorandum proposed appointment of a committee to explore • The author, who retired as Vice-President of the Social Science Research Council on December 31, 19iO, was closely associated with the work of its Committees 011 Economic Growth and 011 the Ecollom) of China.

SIMO;'; KUZ:'olETS possible directions of the study of economic growth, "to establish how fruitful empirical study of economic 41

growth can best be planned; and, in areas in which the groundwork is not ready for empirical studies, to stimulate thinking and discussion leading toward formulation of the necessary intellectual framework." It urged that the committee concern itself not only with economic studies but also with factors affecting economic growth such as science and technology, natural resources, the efficiency of the state and other social mechanisms, and the whole pattern of social culture, and that the committee therefore should include members from a variety of disciplines other than economics. In the two decades that followed appointment of the committee, major studies of long-term economic growth were initiated in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and Japan. (Efforts to stimulate similar and at least preliminary studies were made in a number of other countries.) These studies have led to an impressive array of some fifty publications. The results of these studies were utilized by Simon Kuznets, and by many other scholars in the field, in comparative analysis of economic growth and in the attempt to strengthen the empirical foundation for theoretical and policy analysis. In 1963 a further series of studies, largely under the guidance of Moses Abramovitz and focused specifically on postwar economic development, were undertaken in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Sweden , the United Kingdom, and the United States. Some of the results of the latter studies have appeared in published reports; others are scheduled for publication. To strengthen its efforts to encourage research on the less strictly economic factors affecting growth, the committee organized and conducted sixteen major interdisciplinary conferences in the United States involving

some 300 or more scholars. Most of these conferences resulted in the publication of substantial volumes of papers, as well as a widening of interest in the objectives with which the committee was concerned. Throughout these many efforts the guiding hand and inspiration was that of Simon Kuznets, who visited economists abroad and at home to recruit their interest in the committee's plans, to advise the often nascent attempts at empirical study, and to maintain an overarching grand strategy of research planning and of communication between scholars. There is probably no committee in the Council's history whose chairman worked with such dedication and such skill in joining the efforts of many, often quite disparate, scholars. Members of the Committee on Economic Growth have commented that their greatest single reward came in learning continuously from the committee's chairman. The committee's initial modest outlays were defrayed from Council funds . Subsequently the Rockefeller Foundation enabled Simon Kuznets to spend half of his time during five years on research on economic growth , a contribution later taken over by the Ford Foundation, which also provided generous funds for most of the committee's foreign studies and its conferences. In addition to his central role in the work of the Committee on Economic Growth, Simon Kuznets helped to organize the work of the Council's Committee on the Economy of China, which constituted in many senses a special case in the analysis of problems of economic growth. He was chairman of the latter committee, with 'Valter Galenson as Director of Research , throughout its existence, 1961-70. From that committee's program ten monographs have been published and others are in preparation.


THE SUBJECT of the conference held at the Contemporary China Institute, School of Oriental and African Studies, London, on September 13-17, 1971, has been of continuing interest to the Subcommittee on Chinese Law of the Joint Committee on Contemporary China. Its exploration of the extent to which this interest was

actively shared by other scholars led to joint sponsorship of the conference with the University of Southern Illinois, Edwardsville, and the Contemporary China Institute. A sketch of the background and nature of this interest may provide perspective for a report on the program of the conference.

• The author is Assistant Professor of Communist Law at Columbia University (and will become Associate Professor of Law at Stan· ford University in February 1972). As a member of the Subcom · mittee on Chinese Law, Joint Committee on Cont'emporary China -of the American Council of Learned Societies and SSRC-he par-

ticipated in planning. and served as chaIrman of. the conference on which he reports here. The other members of the subcommittee. which was a cosponsor of the conference. are Jerome A. Cohen. Harvard University (chairman); Dan F. Henderson. University of Washington; staff, John Creighton Campbell.






Although economists have made several excellent cussions because they hoped to gain more information studies of Chinese foreign trade, few social scientists in than they intended to give, and others because they saw other disciplines have tried to examine this topic sys- the occasion as a useful advertising mechanism with tematically. This may be because the study of trade and which to reach American companies seeking third-party its relationships falls in interstices between such dis- contacts with China. Most would join, however, out of ciplines as political science and law and hence receives a genuine belief that successful trading relations are a adequate attention in neither. Moreover, there are so bridge to stronger and more lasting political ties, and many other interesting questions for research that trade thus to improved relations among the peoples of the may be assigned a low priority. It is even possible that world. In stressing the altruistic motive, one businesssome scholars are reluctant to work in an area "tainted" man has said: "There is not enough money to be made by associations with profit and lucre. Whatever the in the China trade to warrant from an economic standcauses, this situation is unfortunate. The study of trade point my spending so much time and effort describing can yield much information路 and many insights into the my trading experiences." A far more serious problem is the absence of a welloperation of the Chinese economic and social system. developed intellectual framework within which to anaTrade, after all, is not conducted in a vacuum or in the abstract. It is part of the overall behavior of a society, lyze the information that is available. What, for examand reflects the same concerns and attitudes that affect ple, is the significance of the fact that the Chinese its actions in other areas. This is especially true of the organize their trade in a particular way; or that they People's Republic of China where trade is state-managed assiduously avoid resort to commercial arbitration, even arbitration by a Chinese tribunal in Peking; or that they and centrally controlled. Indeed, the study of trade has many advantages and treat Japanese traders harshly and traders from other can make some unique contributions. For example, all countries with moderation; or that they prefer certain specialists in the study of China are troubled by insuffi- means of conducting their shipping and banking transcient data for their research and by having to rely heavily actions? The development of analytical methods and on Chinese sources and interviews with refugees. With models is the immediate task at hand. To begin work in this area, the conference on legal regard to trade, however, considerable information can be obtained from China's trading partners, on both the aspects of the foreign trade of the People's Republic of governmental and private levels. Not only are these trad- China brought together scholars, businessmen, and ing partners new and independent sources of data but, others who have dealt with the Chinese in commercial equally important, they contribute fresh points of view matters, from nine countries. l Three series of papers to the entire scene-points of view that were developed were presented at the conference. The first dealt with through actual dealings with real people in practical China's trade policies and problems before and after the matters, and that help to balance the more detached and Communist takeover, and with the organization of the theoretical approach of the scholarly community. More- trade apparatus in China and abroad. In the second over, data on trade practices and policies tend to be series of papers specific substantive issues were disquite concrete and detailed, thus facilitating discussion cussed: the treatment of foreign businessmen in China, contract negotiations, shipping practices, and banking of these topics in less abstract terms. The study of trade is an academically underdeveloped practices. The third set of papers described the expearea, furthermore, and presents a number of methodo- riences that various countries, including Japan, the logical and substantive difficulties. First, all persons who trade with China are, by definition, not domiciled in 1 In addition to members and stall of the subcommittee, the parthe United States. The principle of bringing together ticipants included Rolf Audouard, Association of Machinery Manuthese businessmen and members of the academic com- facturers. Frankfurt/Main; Fran~oise Baetz, CEGOS Corporation, Paris; munity, including United States scholars, in a common William E. Butler, University College, London; Gabriele Crespiendeavor to increase their mutual understanding of Reghizzi, University of Pavia; Anthony Dicks, Christopher Howe, and Kenneth Walker, School of Oriental and African Studies; Randle China is sound, but it is easier stated than applied. Many Edwards, Harvard University; George Ginsburgs, New School for businessmen are understandably hesitant to discuss their Social Research; John Gittings, London School of Economics; Gene trade experiences. Not only might they antagonize the Hsiao, and Arthur Stahnke, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville; Donald Klein, Columbia University; Stanley Lubman, University Chinese with whom they deal by talking about "private" of California, Berkeley; Tasuku Matsuo, Matsuo. Furuya Be Nukaya, matters in public, particularly before an audience that Tokyo; M. J. Meijer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Hague; Poul included Americans, they might also reveal information Mohr, Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies, Copenhagen; Peter Nolan, London School of Asian Studies; Jon Sigurdson, University of useful to their business competitors. In the end, some Sussex; Eduard Solich, East Asian Association, Germany; David Wilson, persons who trade with China would join in such dis- China Quarterly. DECEMBER



Soviet Union, 'Vest Germany, Italy, and France, have had in trading with the Chinese. Rather than attempt a meaningful summary of some of the substantive findings presented in the papers, it seems more appropriate here to raise some questions that were suggested by the discussions. Why is it that China injects political considerations in its economic dealings with Japan, but not with West Germany? Is it because China and West Germany have few important strategic interests that conflict or overlap-<>ne is primarily an Asian power and the other a European power-and hence have less to struggle over, and are less likely to be upset by adverse political actions of the other? Or is it because China greatly needs German goods, and hence is willing to subordinate political considerations to economic needs? Or is it that China realizes that while it may be able to affect Japan's China policy, there is little chance to influence that of Germany, given these countries' respective domestic political situations? Or is it perhaps a sophisticated understanding of the fact that certain propaganda techniques will work well in Japan but will backfire in other countries? The extent to which the Chinese are familiar with the technical intricacies of foreign trade law is noteworthy. Despite the domestic de-emphasis of law by the

Communist Chinese, their foreign traders seem to have developed considerable professional expertise. Is trade unique, or have the legal experts fared better domestically than has been thought? At least, has a comparable set of "legal experts" developed in domestic trade and in re&Ulation of the domestic economy? Finally, it should be pointed out that in a manner similar to traditional and contemporary domestic practice, the Chinese resolve their foreign trade disputes through negotiation between the parties concerned rather than through resort to third-party arbitration or adjudication. As part of this process, the Chinese prefer to develop relations with particular trading partners gradually in order to make sure that these partners are in fact reliable and willing to negotiate in a reasonable way. Will the same pattern be followed in the establishment of political ties and in the resolution of intergovernmental disputes? These questions are just a sampling, but they do suggest that there is a definite relationship between how China trades and how it acts in other areas. It is hoped that the participants in the conference and other students of contemporary Chinese society may be able to describe an intellectual framework which will permit tying these various aspects into a more coherent whole.


DURING 1971, three international meetings of partlclpants in the project on International Linkage of National Econometric Models (LINK) were held in different pans of the world. Two meetings were regional: the North American and Japanese participants met in Honolulu on March 29-30, and the European group met in Bellagio on May 2-5. The annual meeting, which brings together all the participants at one time, was held at Vernon Court Junior College, Newport, Rhode Island, August 30 - September 7. 1 • The author is Professor of Economics at the University of Pennsyl· vania and a director of the Social Science Research Council. He has been a member of its Committee on Economic Stability. which sponsors Project LINK. since its appointment in 1959. The other members of the committee are Bert G. Hickman. Stanford University (chair· man); Martin Bronfenbrenner, Duke University; Otto Eckstein, Harvard University; R. A. Gordon. University of California. Berkeley; Franco Modigliani. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Geoffrey H. Moore. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; Arthur Okun. Brookings Insti· tution; Rudolf R. Rhomberg. International Monetary Fund; and Charles L. Schultze. University of Maryland; staff, Donald S. Shoup. Reports on the two preceding annual conferences on Project LINK were pub· lished in Items, December 1969 and December 1970. respectively. 1 Present. in addition to Messrs. Gordon. Hickman. Klein. Rhom· berg. and Shoup of the committee. were: Akihiro Amano. Kobe Uni·


Previous meetings had centered around problems of estimating import equations in specific disaggregated categories, solving the complete LINK system, studying bilateral linkage, and similar formative problems. These issues were taken up again in the Newport meeting, but versity; R. J. Ball. London Graduate School of Business Studies; Giorgio Basevi. University of Bologna; Ralph Bryant, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; Carlo D·Adda. University of Bologna; Hidekazu Eguchi. Bank of Japan; Julian Gomez. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development; Yvan Guillaume. Free University of Brussels; John Helliwell. University of British Colum· bia; George Henry. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Sys· tem; Jan G. D. Hoogland. Netherlands Central Planning Bureau; Lars Jacobsson. National Institute of Economic Research. Stockholm; Kazuo Koizumi. Japan Economic Planning Agency; Wilhelm Krelle. Bonn University; Pertti Kukkonen. Bank of Finland; Sung Y. Kwack. U. S. Department of the Treasury; Lawrence J. Lau. Stanford Uni· versity; Chikashi Moriguchi, Kyoto University; Gunter Sandermann. Bonn University; V. K. Sastry. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development; John A. Sawyer. University of Toronto; Stefan Schleicher. Institute for Advanced Studies. Vienna; Ian A. Stewazt. Bank of Canada; Grant B. Taplin. International Monetary Fund; Masahiro Tatemoto. Kyoto University; Alain Van Peeterssen. ~cole des Hautes ~tudes Commerciales. Montreal; Petrus J. Verdoorn. Neth· erlands Central Planning Bureau; Jean Waelbroeck. Free University of Brussels; Tsunehiko Watanabe. Osaka University; and Elinor B. Yudin. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. VOLUME




mUGh attention was devoted to an exttmsion of research effort into the problems associated with balance-ofpayments modeling. If there is to be a thttme for each annual meeting, it can be said that the theme of the 1971 meeting was concerned with estimating world capital flows in the LINK system. Project LINK first stimulated research on disaggregation of import equations and building a system for estimating patterns of world trade. Although much improvement and refinement of research on these problems will be needed for years to come, the project is now stimulating research on the construction of financial sectors in national models, and the addition of related equations for international capital flows. The thrust of new LINK research in the separate international centers over the next two or three years is likely to be strong in monetary and balance-of-payments equation estimation. At the Newport meeting Rudolf Rhomberg introduced the issues involved in balance-of-payments research for LINK. He demonstrated that LINK would have the same problem in seeking a consistent world payments solution for separate country equations on capital flows that we have now for trade flows, but that we would not be able to make similar use of a shares matrix because data on capital flows by region of origin and destination are not available and, if they were, the geographic pattern of capital movements would be highly variable. He pointed out the need for designing the capital flow equations to be compatible with national monetary sector equations and for this reason suggested fairly aggregative relations at the beginning. LINK participants from two countries have already done much in the way of balance-of-payments research. Akihiro Amano has estimated a payments submodel for inclusion in the Kyoto Model, and John Helliwell and Ian Stewart have done the same for the RDXII Model in Canada. Papers were presented on this work at Newport. Both were extensions of preliminary presentations at the Honolulu meeting. In an invited paper presented at Newport, S. Y. Kwack described his elaborate model of trade and payments that is designed for inclusion in the Brookings Model. His work will form the basis for new research to be done on the Wharton Model in the LINK system. Monetary and balance-of-payments subsector modelbuilding will not be the only major new extension of LINK research. Improved treatment of the developing economies, the socialist economies, and "rest of the world" developed economies are also high on the priority list for new research. All these topics were discussed in detail at Newport by V. K. Sastry and Julian Gomez of the UN Conference on Trade and Development. The former presented a paper by Boris Fomin and W. TomDECEMBER


aszewski of the UNCTAD staff on a trade model for socialist countries. It was based on an idea of W. Beckerman (Econometrica, 1956) for determining trade coefficients as the ratio of flows from country i to country j to the export flow of country j. A system of equations for trade among socialist countries, their imports from nonsocialist countries, and their exports to nonsocialist countries was given in the distributed paper. This system is in a form that can be directly programmed into the LINK system. The developing countries are now included in the world LINK model only through trade equations for some 11 regional groupings. Mr. Gomez indicated how UNCTAD would build simple macro models for larger regional aggregates for inclusion in LINK. This should give an improved treatment of the developing countries. He also described UNCTAD plans for a data bank of economic information on the developing countries that would be of great use for model building and the LINK system. Bert Hickman and Lawrence Lau distributed a paper on "A Set of National Econometric Models." This is a family of linear equations that could be estimated for each country in the group of developed nations that is not separately represented by an ongoing econometric project. These countries receive only superficial residual treatment in the present LINK system. The LINK research effort at Stanford University should bring much improvement in the treatment of this group. There it is planned also to incorporate these new national models in a linear world trade system patterned on a theoretical model developed by Mr. Hickman and discussed at Honolulu and Newport. It is believed that the estimation and operation of the linear system may suggest useful properties for adaptation in the central nonlinear LINK system. Progress reports of developments in building, improving, or expanding models for individual countries were presented at the meeting. This is a standard part of LINK research and will always need explanatory discussion. Similarly, complete LINK system simulation solutions are always of interest to the participants. This year's meeting was unusual, in that it occurred immediately after the introduction of the United States New Economic Policy. As this program has unusually significant international repercussions, some first attempts were made by Alain Van Peeterssen to factor in the new United States policies. Preliminary LINK solutions were available just at the opening of the Newport meeting. While some individual country estimates appeared to show some biases in these preliminary calculations, the changes in the solutions associated with the New Economic Policy appeared to be quite interesting and 45

plausible. They showed a slight drop in the real value of world trade for 1971 and a more significant drop in 1972. There was much discussion of the methods to be used for revising and improving these simulated policy calculations during the period following the meeting. It is notable that the 1971 and 1972 LINK projections of world trade have been running at a low figure in terms of growth rate since the preliminary calculations were presented at Honolulu. At that time they appeared to be unbelievably low for 1971 and 1972, but later events have justified the results that were being produced by the LINK system. Members from two new countries participated in the Newport meeting-Pertti Kukkonen, representing the Bank of Finland, and Stefan Schleicher, representing the Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna. The Finnish and Austrian Models were described for incorporation into the LINK system. It was voted to accept participating membership of Australia and use of the model of the Reserve Bank of Australia. It is hoped that Australian representatives will participate in the 1972 annual meeting. Plans for the 1972 meeting, which will be held in Vienna with local arrangements in the hands of the Institute for Advanced Studies, were discussed at Newport. A feature of this meeting is to be an exchange of ideas on econometric model building with colleagues from the Soviet Union and other East European socialist countries. A group of socialist economists are being invited to participate as guests in the regular LINK sessions and to engage in technical discussion of comparative problems in model building for socialist and market economies.

The fruit of three years' labor on Project LINK is expected soon to be available in a volume issued by North-Holland Publishing Company, for which many of the research papers presented at Newport and previous meetings have been revised. According to present plans, this first volume will include: INTRODUCTION, Bert G. Hickman, Lawrence R. Klein, Rudolf R. Rhomberg MODELS OF THE PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES: A SURVEY, R. J. Ball COMMODITY TRADE EQUATIONS IN PROJECT LINK, Giorgio Basevi THE INVISIBLE COMPONENTS OF THE CURRENT ACCOUNT OF THE BALANCE OF INTERNATIONAL PAYMENTS, John A. Sawyer MODELS OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, Julian Gomez and V. K. Sastry THE METHODOLOGY OF LINKAGE, Jean Waelbroeck TOWARDS A GENERAL TRADE MODEL, Rudolf R. Rhomberg A GENERAL LINEAR MODEL OF WORLD TRADE, Bert G. Hickman INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL MOVEMENTS: THEORY AND ESTIMATION, Akihiro Amano THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRADE MATRICES, Rudolf R. Rhomberg and Grant Taplin COMPREHENSIVE LINKAGE OF LARGE MODELS: CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES, John Helliwell, Harold Shapiro, Gordon Sparks, Ian Stewart AN ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF A BILATERAL MODEL OF INTERNA' TIONAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY: JAPAN AND U.S.A., Masahiro Tatemoto and Chikashi Moriguchi FORECASTING WORLD TRADE WITHIN PROJECT LINK, Lawrence R. Klein and Alain Van Peeterssen

Editorial responsibility for the volume has been accepted by R. J. Ball and Chikashi Moriguchi. Tentative plans are already being laid for a second volume, which will present in full detail all the individual national or regional models.


the past decade major effort has been devoted development of data and other resources, including organizational structures, to support systematic investigation of political life. Much attention has been focused on problems involved in the production and use DURING to

• This report is a greatly condensed version of the preface and introduction to a prospective series of volumes tentatively titled "American Elections: County Election Returns for the Offices ot President, Governor, Representative, and Senator," edited by Howard W. Allen, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, and Jerome M. Clubb, Director, Historical Archive, Inter·University Consortium for Political Research. Publication of the series under the Consortium's sponsorship is expected in the coming year. The data presented in the series are based on a larger collection of computerreadable election returns, 1824-1970, compiled and processed under the auspices of the Consortium. This project was initiated with the assistance of the Social Science Research Council's former Committee


of sample survey data and other information bearing on contemporary political phenomena. Somewhat more recently, attention has also been directed to the creation of facilities for systematic investigation of politics in historical depth. The latter concerns are, in part at least, a reflection of significant elements of change in the organization and conduct of historical studies. The appearance of on Political Behavior, which provided support for a pilot survey of the state of election statistics by Walter Dean Burnham in the sum· mer of 1962. In the following year it enabled him to extend this study under its program of Senior Awards for Research 011 Governmental Affairs. The members of the committee in 1961-62 were David B. Truman (chairman), William M. Beaney, Robert A. Dahl, Oliver Garceau, V. O. Key. Avery Leiserson, Edward H. Levi; staff, Bryce Wood. In 1962-63 Angus Campbell succeeded Robert A. Dahl, who was abroad for the year. VOLUME 25, NUMBER 4

new perspectives and the advocacy and application of new methods and approaches have been particularly characteristic of historical studies during the past few years, although the strength and persistence of traditional historical interests and modes of inquiry cannot be minimized. In this context two relatively recent developments are of special importance. Increasing numbers of social scientists other than historians have turned to investigation of historical phenomena and have applied the systematic, quantitative methods and the theoretical perspectives of other social and behavioral sciences to the study of past politics. At the same time historians in growing numbers have begun to employ quantitative methods and materials in their work and have increasingly borrowed the methods and approaches of these other sciences. Indeed, quantification-although still viewed with suspicion by some historians-has been widely accepted as a necessary tool of historical investigation. Together, these developments have led to significant convergence of the interests of political historians and others concerned with the study of politics and to increasing cooperation between scholars of diverse disciplines, both in research and in the development of necessary supporting resources. Interest in historical phenomena has never been absent from the concerns of other social sciences; but political science and the politically oriented segments of other social sciences, particularly in their behavioral form, have tended to be ahistorical in orientation and focus. The recent growth of interest in systematic investigation of historical phenomena is easily explained. The development of political processes and institutions and such long-term processes as industrialization and modernization and their political consequences cannot be described, much less explained, without comparative consideration of historical phenomena. Despite the complexities and frailties of historical data, the historical record affords opportunities to examine human behavior in a wider variety of contexts than would be possible if investigation were limited to data on the immediate present. Investigations in historical depth thus facilitate findings of greater generality, permit the development and testing of hypotheses, and broaden the evidential bases for theoretical formulations. These opportunities have prompted many social scientists to extend investigations of contemporary political phenomena into the past or to examine systematically even remote time periods. Indeed, in recent years many of the most fruitful and influential investigations in political history have been by nonhistorians. Use of quan tification by historians is also by no means a complete or radically new departure from the practices of the past. Historians of earlier generations, including DECEMBER


Frederick Jacksun Turner and Orin G. Libby among others, made significant use of quantitative methods and materials. But despite the importance of these precursors, contemporary use of quantification by historians differs in important ways from that in earlier years. The availability of computers is an obvious source of difference. Computers permit application of more diverse and more powerful statistical procedures and the utilization of larger and more varied bodies of quantitative and quantifiable data than would have been conceivable even a few short years ago. These devices facilitate intensive case studies and research across cultures, nations, and long periods without the loss of empirical detail and the heavy reliance on impressionistic methods and evidence that were formerly characteristic of such grand-scale efforts. Thus, contemporary quantitative studies in history are sharply differentiated from the efforts of Turner's generation by greater scope, methodological diversity and sophistication, and use of empirical data on a much larger scale. Of greater importance, contemporary historians have been influenced by the conceptual and theoretical perspectives and methods of the other social and behavioral sciences. It is fair to say, although some historians would contest the point, that recognition of the achievements of these sciences and the work of historically oriented social scientists have been among the principal factors motivating historians to employ quantification in their research. This is not to suggest that all historians who use quantification have embraced the scientific orientation of the social sciences. For many, perhaps most, historians, quantification is at best no more than a supplementary tool for the pursuit of traditional interests and problems. Their use of quantitative methods and materials does not imply any deviation from the humanist's concern for the unique properties of individuals and events, and involves no retreat from the view that the complexity and diversity of human affairs preclude generalization and render exploration of uniformities in human behavior meaningless, aridly abstract, or trivial. Quantitative methods and materials have permitted such historians to achieve new levels of precision and comprehensiveness in description and reconstruction of the past. But however important these accomplishments may be considered, and however extensive and imaginative the use of quantitative methods and materials, such efforts are usually qualified by the implicit proviso that the truly important and basic elements of human affairs cannot be studied in quantitative ways. The fear that quantification will necessarily damage the historian's craft and "dehumanize" history is now less frequently, and certainly less violently, expressed; and the value of quantification for


many of the purposes of historical inquiry is widely recognized even by humanist historians. For most historians, however, including many who make extensive use of quantitative methods and materials, empathy and impression remain the fundamental means to the understanding of past reality. On the other hand, small but growing numbers of historians have consciously attempted to adopt the scientific orientation, perspectives, and methods of the social and behavioral sciences and, in this respect, have departed sharply from the traditional concerns of political history. It bears emphasizing that these "behavioral historians," as Bogue calls them, are not distinguished from their humanist colleagues by the use of quantification,l but by the deliberate attempt to employ scientific modes of inquiry and to identify and explore uniformities of human behavior. As Bogue points out, the work of behavioral historians may often appear methodologically unsophisticated and conceptually naive to other social scientists, and as yet only the rare work rests upon or elaborates a well-developed theoretical perspective. Indeed, it is probably accurate to say that the concerns of behavioral historians have more often been expressed in the form of exhortation than in research achievements. Even so, and however inadequate, their work is not concerned primarily with historical description and reconstruction but explicitly with the development of theory and the effort to apply, test, and refine the theoretical formulations of other social sciences. It is, of course, the work of these historians that looks directly toward convergence of history with the other social sciences and toward extension and generalization of scientific knowledge of political life. Whatever the discipline, and whether the orientation is scientific or humanistic, effective exploration of the political phenomena of the past requires new and larger resources and a range of skills that is not usually commanded by scholars trained within any single discipline. The complexity, heterogeneity, and massive nature of historical data present problems of collection, organization, and analysis of a magnitude rarely encountered in more contemporaneously oriented investigations. Before historical data can be subjected to computer manipulation and analysis, costly and time-consuming work of collection and codification must be carried out, and data must be converted to an appropriate machinereadable form. Where large bodies of data are involved, these tasks are often well beyond the financial and technical resources available to the individual scholar. Collection of historical data requires the conventional 1 For a discussion of the behavioral approach to American political history see Allan G. Bogue, "United States: The 'New' Political History," Journal of Contemporary History, January 1968. pages 5-27.


historian's knowledge of source materials and his skill in their evaluation. On the other hand, organization and analysis of such data require the advanced statistical and computational skills that are as yet less common and less well-developed among historians than among other social scientists. The value of interdisciplinary cooperation in the study of historical politics is not limited to such essentially technical matters. The explicit theoretical orientation and the conceptual tools of the social sciences are of vital importance to such research, while the nature of the historical discipline and the training of historians are more closely attuned to the role of contextual factors in human affairs and to the interrelations of human events and institutions. The collections of computer-readable historical data developed under the auspices of the Inter-University Consortium for Political Research since it was founded in 1962 exemplify the related trends and developments described above. The Consortium was founded primarily by political scientists to provide a mechanism through which the survey data collected by the Political Behavior Program of the University of Michigan Survey Research Center could be made available to scholars elsewhere. Expansion of the Consortium's holdings to include data relevant to American political history was urged at an early date by political scientists and historians. A proposal that the Social Science Research Council assist, through a committee on American electoral behavior, in extending the body of election statistics available for research had been made by William H. Riker and Charles G. Sellers, Jr. in May 1961 and endorsed by Lee Benson, Samuel P. Hays, and V. O. Key, among others. Because of the magnitude of the task proposed, the Council's Committee on Political Behavior arranged for an exploratory survey of the state of election statistics, the methods that might be employed to make them accessible, and the feasibility of a national project. This survey was carried out by Walter Dean Burnham in the summer of 1962, and in the following year the committee enabled him, through a Senior Research Award, to continue this study, to prepare an inventory of sources of American election data, and to begin their collection. Major cooperative effort and large-scale financial support were required to complete the collection of the basic electoral data and to organize and convert them to computer-readable form. Encouraged by the success of Burnham's initial efforts and by the existence of the Consortium, the American Historical Association established an ad hoc Committee to Collect the Basic Quantitative Data of American Political History to cooperate in completing the collection of these data and to concern itself with the collection of other quantitative data. UnVOLUME




der Lee Benson's leadership as chairman,2 the ad hoc committee obtained the assistance of over 100 archivists, historians, and political scientists in the various states to complete collection of the data. These scholars, volunteering their time and effort, contributed to this work by locating little-known publications, searching state and local repositories for unpublished data, exploring newspaper files, and evaluating the accuracy and reliability of these sources. Without their contributions the basic data could not have been collected at a reasonable cost. Largely through the efforts of Warren E. Miller, then Executive Director of the Consortium, financial support for completion of the collection and for conversion of the data to computer-readable form was obtained from the National Science Foundation, and Howard W. Allen was appointed to oversee the completion of the project. It is probably accurate to say that interdisciplinary cooperation of this kind and magnitude has few precedents in American political studies. The result was the collection of county returns for over 90 percent of all elections to the offices of President, Governor, and U.S. Representative and Senator from 1824 to the present. These data can now be supplied by the Consortium in readily usable, computer-readable form, and they will be published in a series of volumes. The project was begun with considerable optimism, but it proved to be more complicated, time-consuming, and costly than was originally estimated, and it may be that if the actual dimensions of the project had been anticipated it might not have been undertaken. The data collection now includes returns for over 20,000 individual elections and records the names of almost 100,000 candidates who ran under more than 1,000 party labels. Recovery of a major segment of these data was accomplished in rather straightforward fashion, but recovery of the remainder was much more difficult. Extensive effort was required to locate fugitive, and often unpublished, source material and to compare, evaluate, and reconcile conflicting sources. These difficulties were largely responsible for an early decision to reduce the goals of the project from the recovery of data for five offices to the four offices indicated above. Simi路 larly, early experience dictated temporary abandonment of plans to collect and process substantial bodies of data for minor civil divisions. Despite the obvious value of data at a lower level of aggregation than the county, it was recognized that comprehensive data for minor civil divisions could not be recovered and that because of the number and instability of these units, the cost of

recovery and processing of such data would be prohibitive. Thus it was decided that limited bodies of data at lower levels of aggregation would be added to the repository as they were developed in research projects by individual scholars. Several bodies of such data are now being integrated into the larger collection. Conversion of the data to computer.readable form for dissemination and analysis was also expected to be accomplished without difficulty. Here again the complexity of the data and the consequences of the decision to retain as much as possible of the detail recorded in the original sources were not fully appreciated. Numerous changes in county boundaries and the appearance and disappearance of counties--the number for which data are recorded ranges from under 1,000 in 1824 to over 3,000 in the twentieth century-seriously complicated data processing. The large number of parties that have characterized American political history, and the variations in the parties that appeared in the same election or from one election to the next introduced further complications, as did variations in electoral practices and the timing of elections among and within the states. A major computer programming effort was required to cope with these problems and to develop the capacity to supply subsets of the data in forms adequate to the specific needs of individual scholars. Because of complexities such as these, documentation of the collection also proved to be a much larger task than expected; indeed, the projected publication of the data is dictated in part by the need for adequate docu路 mentation for the computer-readable version. Any attempt to assess the significance and the potential impact of the project on the study of American politics would be premature, but there are several indications of their importance. One of these is the continued addition of further bodies of historical data to Consortium holdings.s A substantial body of demographic, economic, and social data from U. S. censuses from 1790 to the mid路 1960's has been processed and integrated into the repository, and major segments of the 1970 census data are expected to be added in the future. The census materials have been processed and organized to permit linking them directly to the electoral data, to facilitate exploration of the ecological correlates of voting behavior over time. The magnitude of the data in the Census Reports prohibited processing them in their entirety, and guidance in the selection of variables was provided by the American Historical Association's ad hoc committee and by numerous social scientists from several disciplines.

2 The other members of the committee were Allan G. Bogue. Dewey Grantham. Jr., Samuel P. Hays. Morton Keller, Richard P. McCormick, Phillip Mason, Thomas J. Pressly. and Charles G. Sellers. Jr.

S Inquiries about Consortium data and services should be addressed to Inter.University Consortium for Political Research. Box 1248. Ann Arbor. Michigan 48106.




To these collections have been added, with the support of the Ford Foundation, complete roll-call records of the U.S. Congress from 1787 to the present. The votes on some 60,000-70,000 roll calls in both chambers have been converted to computer-readable form compatible with that of the electoral and census materials. Ultimately it will be possible not only to explore congressional voting behavior but also to relate the voting of congressmen directly to popular voting behavior and to the economic and social characteristics of constituencies. A major, but as yet incomplete, body of county returns for nineteenth- and twentieth-century primary elections and for state-wide referenda, initiatives, and constitutional amendments has been collected, but support for completing these collections and processing the data has not become available. The same is true for the limited effort devoted to extension of the electoral data collection to the years before 1824. Extension of Consortium holdings of historical data has not been confined to materials relevant to the United States. The archive now includes comparable electoral, economic, and social data at low levels of aggregation for the 1950's and 1960's for ten Asian and European nations, as well as basic comparative public policy and other data for a lesser number of European and North American countries. Electoral data for the Weimar period in Germany have been added to the repository, and equivalent data for earlier years will be added. A limited pilot project involving automation of segments of the Statistique Generale de la France is under way. Consortium holdings also include major bodies of data bearing on international relations and organizations, including comprehensive voting records for the United Nations from 1945 to the present. Assessment of the significance and potential importance of the Consortium's holdings (the enumeration given above is incomplete) for the study of politics is difficult, but the level of utilization has been high and has steadily increased. Major projects employing large

segments of the several historical data collections are under way, and others are planned. Smaller-scale use of these data for research and instructional purposes has also been extensive. More than 700 requests for segments of the historical data collections from over 200 institutions in the United States and other nations have been filled to date. Although the unit of measurement is quite inadequate, historical data in excess of 20 million card images have been supplied since the beginning of the election data project. Moreover, the historical data collections and scholarly interest in them have dictated broadening of other Consortium activities. Beginning in 1965, the Consortium summer training program was extended to include specialized training in quantitative analysis of historical data. Over 150 historians have participated in this program, and a number of them now offer specialized methods courses in universities. The historical data collections developed by the Consortium reflect and support the research trends and interests touched on in the first part of this discussion. By linking sample surveys and other data on contemporary politics to quantitative historical data, the events of the present can be placed in broader perspective. Such data make possible the testing of theoretical formulations in other historical contexts, and it is perhaps noteworthy that nearly half of the requests for the data described above have come from political scientists. For historians concerned primarily with description and reconstruction of past reality, these and similar resources point to lessening the heavy reliance on literary sources that has long characterized historical studies, and facilitate exploration of the conditions and ways of life of mass populations. For more behaviorally oriented historians, these resources permit participation with other social scientists in the common quest for scientific knowledge of human behavior. It is too soon to assess the long-term significance of the cooperative efforts described here, but it can hardly be doubted that they will contribute in major ways to knowledge of political life.

COMMITTEE BRIEFS LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES (Joint with the American Council of Learned Societies)

Joseph Grunwald (chairman), Julio Cotler, John T. Dorsey, Jr., Richard R. Fagen, Carl F. Hereford, Franklin W. C. Knight, June Nash, Joseph Sommers, Osvaldo Sunkel; staff, Bryce Wood The committee supported participation of three Latin American scholars in a Conference on Mental Tests held in Istanbul on July 19-23, 1971. The conference was organized by Lee J. Cronbach under the auspices of the Human Fac50

tors Panel of NATO and the Turkish Scientific and Industrial Research Council. There were about 100 participants, chiefly psychologists, from roughly 30 countries. The Latin American participants were Arrigo Angelini, Director, Institute of Psychology, University of Sao Paolo; Nuria Cortada de Kohan, Vice-Director, Center for Mathematical Psychology, University of Buenos Aires; and Rene Ahumada, National University of Mexico. Mrs. Kohan presented a paper on test construction and standardization in different cultural settings. The full proceedings will be published by Mouton in 1972 as Mental Tests and Cultural Adaptation. VOLUME




The conference program included empirical reports on the relation of test scores to sex, social class, ethnicity, and region, but the weight of discussion favored a reduction in such descriptive research, calling for more theoretical analysis and more critical review of the values implicit in testing. It was agreed that the concept that tests can be "culturefair" is useless. A test is likely to measure different constructs in different cultures. It was also agreed that the development of cognitive processes and of adaptability are strongly influenced by the ecology and the style and child-rearing practices of the culture; in principle, an individual's ability to adapt can be increased by intervention or altered childrearing. There is serious question as to whether the tests most useful in industrialized nations are universally significant; nonverbal tests that correlate little with subsequent job or school performance in the West have been found to predict such performance in Africa and the South Pacific. It was suggested that in non-Western cultures certain abilities may be significant which current tests, conceived from a ''''estern orientation, do not identify. Among other methodological proposals it was urged that examinees be taught the skills of test taking before data are collected in any culture (even in a Western urban group). . L. J. C. ';OCIOLINGUISTICS Dell Hymes (chairman), Charles A. Ferguson, Allen D. Grimshaw, John J. Gumperz, William D. Labov; staff, David Jenness Considerable interest has been expressed in the April "Workshop on Student-Teacher Communication," on which a brief report appears in the September 1971 issue of Items. Copies of the detailed report on the workshop, by Elsa Roberts, may be obtained by interested persons: Requests should be addressed to the Language Research Foundation, 131 Mt. Auburn Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138. TRANSNATIONAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY Morton Deutsch (chairman), Donald T. Campbell, Leon Festinger, Martin Irle, Jaromir Janousek, Harold H. Kelley, Serge Moscovici, Luis I. Ramallo, Henri Tajfel; staff, David Jenness

The members of the committee at its meeting on September 18-21 at Neckargemiind, Germany, devoted a full day to discussion with scholars from nearby universities of the state of social psychology as a discipline, in terms of both research and training. In turn, the guests learned of the evolution of the committee's interests in research planning and training programs, of its past activities in Europe and Latin America, and something of its plans for the future. Present from vVest German and Swiss (German language) universities were: Hubert Feger, and Georg Rudinger, Technische Hochschule, Aachen; Mario von Cranach, and Josef Stalder, University of Bern; Peter Schonbach and Harro Dietrich Kahler, University of Bochum; Wolfgang Manz, and Helmut Luck, University of Cologne; Carl Friedrich Graumann, Bernd Kohler, and Lenelis Kruse, University of Heidelberg; Hans-Joachim Grabitz, Arnold Upmeyer, and Waldemar Lilli, University of ~Iannheim. At the meeting Mr. Ramallo reported that the pro tern Latin American Committee on Social Psychology, originally organized with the help of the Committee on Transnational Social Psychology, had been granted working-group status by the Latin American Social Science Council. vVith this development, which lends both institutional and limited financial support, the autonomy of the Latin American Committee is assured. In August a two-week conference was held at the Minary Conference Center, Holderness, New Hampshire, on Innovation and Influence by Minorities. The organizers were Mr. Moscovici and John Lanzetta, Dartmouth College, a former member of the committee. Support was provided by the National Science Foundation. Papers and discussions dealt with the ways in which minority groups influence the majority by actions that challenge conformity and consensus -an aspect of work on social influence theory that has received too little attention in social psychology. The partici pants, in addition to l'vIessrs. Moscovici, Lanzetta, and Kelley, included: Jack Brehm, Duke University; Claude Flament, University of Aix-en-Provence; Charles A. Kiesler, University of Kansas; Helmut Lamm, University of Mannheim; Robert Ziller, University of Florida; and Ricardo 13. Ullliga, Catholic University of Chile.

PERSONNEL ACTING PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL Ralph VV. Tyler, Director Emeritus of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, was named Acting President of the Council at the September meeting of its board of directors. The appointment took effect on September 16, following the resignation of Henry W. Riecken, and extends to April 1, 1972. Mr. Tyler had served as a director-at-large of the Council, 1944-49, as chairman of its former Committee on Personality Development in Youth, 1957-63, and a member of the committee that administered the Council's first Faculty Research Grant program, 1951-52. In addition to his intimate knowledge of Council concerns, he brings to the office of President a DECEMBER


wealth of experience in social science research, education, and administration. A Professor of Education at the University of Chicago from 1938, he was Dean of its Division of Social Sciences from 1948 to 1953, when he became the first Director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. Since retiring from that position in 1967, he has continued to be actively engaged in educational research, a field to which he has contributed in many capacities. Mr. Tyler was a member of the National Science Board from 1962 to 1968. He is a trustee of the Spencer Foundation, the ''''. Clement and Jessie V. Stone Foundation and the Schwartzhaupt Foundation, and of Doane College. He is a member of many professional associations in the fields of science and education. 51


committee on Research on the Chinese Economy, Social Science Research Council, 230 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017.

The Joint Committee on Contemporary China-of the American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research Council-has made available limited funds to assist travel to the People's Republic of China by scholars in the social sciences and humanities who are specialists on China, who are permanent residents of the United States or Canada, and who have received the Ph.D. degree. Grants will not exceed $1,500. Formal applications and confidential references are required. Interested scholars who have received or have been promised permission to enter the People's Republic should write to the committee at the Social Science Research Council, 230 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017.


GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON THE ECONOMY OF CHINA A new program of grants to individuals for research on the economy of China is being initiated immediately under the auspices of the Joint Committee on Contemporary China, with the assistance of a newly appointed subcommittee consisting of Dwight H. Perkins, Harvard University (chairman); Robert F. Dernberger, and Albert Feuerwerker, University of Michigan; John Gurley, Stanford University; and K. C. Yeh, RAND Corporation. The subcommittee is particularly interested in encouraging studies by economists and other social scientists of problems of economic growth, stagnation, and transformation in China, within an analytic framework, but applications for support of other research on the economy of China will be accepted. Grants, which will not ordinarily exceed $10,000, will be available at the postdoctoral level. The deadline for applications is March I, 1972; appointments will be announced by April 15. Inquiries and requests for applications should include a brief description of the proposed research and the professional qualifications of the applicant, and should be addressed to Sub-

A new program of grants is being initiated immediately by the Joint Committee on the Near and Middle East of the American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research Council. Grants are offered for joint and equal collaboration by a North American scholar and a Middle Eastern scholar in the design of a research project of mutual interest, collection and analysis of data, and preparation of a report after completion of the research project. Scholars in both the social sciences and humanities are eligible to apply for these grants, which are intended primarily for mature scholars whose competence for research has been demonstrated by their previous work. The two co-applicants may be of the same discipline planning research on different aspects of a problem or from different disciplines planning research on the same problem from different perspectives. Research that is part of a larger grou p project is not eligible for support. Grants will be awarded for periods up to 12 months and will include provision for maintenance in lieu of salary, limited research expenses, and travel expenses for research and consultation for each participant. Awards will range from small grant~ to a combined total of $25,000. Applications will be due by March I, 1972, and awards will be announced in April. One member of each prospective collaborative team should request application forms [or each member, describing briefly the nature of the collaborative project, and providing for both applicants information as to age, current position or academic status, academic degrees held, and major disciplinary training. Inquiries and requests should be addressed to Joint Committee on the Near and Middle East, Social Science Research Council, 230 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017.








/Ilcorj)orated ill the State of 1/1inois, December 27, 192-1, for the purpose of advancing research ill the social sciences Directors, 1971: WILLIAM























PHlLll' D . CURTIl\, REN~: E

C. Fox,













Officers aud Staff:


W. TYLER, Actillg President; BRYCE \VOOD, Executiue Associate; ELEANOR C. ISBELL, Staff As.mriates; JOID. CREIGHTON CAMPBELL, ROIlERT F. BORllCll, Staff Assistallts;



• Resigned, September 19i1.







Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.