Items Vol. 27 No. 2 (1973)

Page 1


VOLUME 27 . NUMBER 2 . JU'NE 1973 230 PARK AVENUE· NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017


pursued a strongly active policy of research stimulation through various projects and conferences during the entire decade of the 1960's. A hallmark of the national econometric model project fostered by the committee during 1960-63, and continued as the Brookings Econometric Model Project, was cooperative group research. It is easy to look back on that project and see substantial accomplishments and benefits that emanated from the cooperative approach. Applied macroeconometrics and some theoretical developments, too, would not be where they stand today, were it not for the group reo search efforts started through the committee. These points came out clearly in the summing-up conference on the Econometric Model Project held at Brookings in February 1972. It is not surprising that when the committee decided in 1967-68 to adopt a suggestion of Rudolf Rhomberg to study the international transmission mechanism it again turned to the group idea of research cooperation to tackle the challenging problems that he posed. It was agreed at the outset that the new project should not start out from "square one," but should build on the vast fund of information on the international transmis• The author is Professor of Economics at the University of Pennsylvania 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 (chairman); Martin Bronfenbrenner, Duke University; Otto Eckstein, Harvard University; R. A. Gordon, University of California, Berkeley; Franco l\Iodigliani, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Geoffrey H. Moore, National Bureau of Economic Research; Arthur M. Okun, Brookings Institution; Rudolf R. Rhomberg, International Monetary Fund; Sally S. Ronk, Drexel Burnham and Company, Inc.; and Charles L. Schultze, University of Maryland.

sion mechanism provided by the existing large-scale national econometric model projects in many countries round the world. An exploratory meeting was held at Stanford University in July 1968, to bring together model proprietors from several major countries and members of the committee who maintained an unusual interest in the subject. 1 At the time of this initial meeting, we all knew that there was a problem area and that the existing world inventory of national models would be central in dealing with the issues, but we had no idea about the precise shape the project would take-about the way in which models would be used or the formal structure of the resulting world system. It is remarkable, however, that at the planning meeting, through the medium of free association of oral ideas in two days of face-ta-face discussion, we worked out a general research strategy that has stood up through subsequent research and jelled into a formal model that now produces results far in excess of our original hopes or aspirations. It has turned out to be an exemplary experience in effective international research cooperation. At the initial meeting it was decided that: 1. Each resident model builder knows his own country best from the viewpoints of model specification, 1 The committee members were Bert G. Hickman (chairman), R. A. Gordon, L. R. Klein, and R. R. Rhomberg. The other participants were R. J. Ball, London Graduate School of Business Studies; Hidekazu Eguchi, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and Bank of Japan; John A. Sawyer, University of Toronto; Petrus J. Verdoorn, Central Planning Bureau of the Netherlands; Jean Waelbroeck, Free University of Brussels; and Tsunehiko Watanabe, Kyoto University. Wilhelm Krelle, Bonn University, was unable to attend the meeting but otherwise participated from the outset.


data, and inputs from local institutions. Each model would be accepted, subject to group critique, in the form put forward by each national econometrician. Quarterly and annual models would be amalgamated into a common international framework. 2. The main international linkages would come through the trade accounts. Imports rather than exports would be endogenously explained in each national model and would be classified into a minimum of five fixed groups (Standard International Trade Classification): 0,1 2,4 3 5-9 services

food, beverages and tobacco other basic materials mineral fuels (mainly oil) manufactures

Valuation would 路b e FOB. 3. Exports would be determined by statIstics on international trade shares. The basic accounting criterion that world exports equal world imports would be maintained in the ultimate solution of the world model. 4. Other leading countries with ongoing model projects would be invited to join, and group meetings would be held periodically to discuss research carried on during the period between meetings. Financial support for the research thus organized as Project LINK has from the outset come principally from the International Monetary Fund and the National Science Foundation. These funds have been largely incremental for ongoing research projects and therefore able to produce a large volume of new research activity on the basis of modest outlays. Not only have the core funds stimulated much new research in a direction fruitful for the study of trade problems, but they have also been successful in encouraging a great deal of local research support. Additional financial support from individual countries for research in separate centers and for LINK research as a whole has recently been forthcoming. The project is now receiving more broadly based international support. After the first year's work-arranging for participation, exploring problems of availability of data on trade, and system formulation-in September 1969 we held our first world meeting, for which the Japan Economic Research Center at Hakone was host (see Items, December 1969). In that first year we had worked out, in good international cooperation, ways of proceeding toward a mathematical solution for "equilibrium" world trade-a volume of flows among countries or regions that could be supported by internal economic activity in each region. By the time the second 14

world meeting took place, in London, September 1970 (see Items, December 1970), we had worked out some first numerical approximations to the idea of an "equilibrium" level of world trade. In these early stages of the project major effort was devoted to the statistical problem of calculating a solution to the world trade system. We were able to demonstrate that: a. A numerical solution for world trade could be found. b. The actual results were plausible in terms of recent history of world trade flows. c. The system was perceptive in yielding fairly good forecasts of the growth of world trade at a time when it was beginning to slow down as a result of the world-wide recession of 1969-72 (first in North America, then in Europe, the United Kingdom, and Japan). The early calculations were simplified, and much of the effort during the third year of LINK research was devoted to making it more general, by finding both equilibrium prices and volumes of world trade flows. At this time we also started to expand the system by inviting participation from Australia and Finland, exploring the problem of including the socialist countries, and making a better effort to model the developing countries. As the size of the group continued to grow, we decided to limit participation, not so much from the viewpoint of including the most strategic countries in international trade or finance but from that of ensuring a good working team that could function effectively in the LINK framework. France and Italy are so large and important, however, that we had to seek adequate participation by modelbuilding groups in those countries (or nearby groups, doing work on them). Arrangements were made for a team from the University of Bologna to build a model for Italy and, after many false starts, for Belgian researchers to construct a model for France. At the present time, the roster of LINK models and participants includes: Belgium: Quarterly Model of the Free University of Brussels, Jean Waelbroeck, Victor Ginsburgh Canada: Annual TRACE Model of the University of Toronto, John A. Sawyer, associated bilateral research with RDXII Model of the Bank of Canada, John Helliwell France: Annual POMPOM Model of the Free University of Brussels, Y. Guillaume Germany (West): Annual BONNER Model of Bonn University, Wilhelm Krelle and Giinter Sandermann Italy: Quarterly Model of the University of Bologna, Giorgio Basevi and Carlo D' Adda Japan: Quarterly DEN KEN Model of the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Kyoto University and Osaka UniverSity, Chikashi Moriguchi, Hidekazu Eguchi, VOLUME




Tsunehiko Watanabe, Masahiro Tatemoto, Akira Yajima, Akihiro Amano Netherlands: Annual Model of the Central Planning Bureau, Petrus J. Verdoorn, J. J. Post Sweden: Annual Model of the Institute for International Eco路 nomic Studies, Assar Lindbeck (formerly with Lars Jacobsson) United Kingdom: Quarterly Model of the London Graduate School of Business Studies, R. J. Ball and T. Burns United States: Quarterly Wharton Model, Mark III, Lawrence R. Klein Austria: Annual Model of the Institute for Advanced Studies, Stefan Schleicher Developing Countries: Annual Models for Latin America, South/East Asia, Africa (less Libya), Middle East Oil Pro路 ducers (incl. Libya), V. K Sastry, Julian Gomez, UN Conference on Trade and Development Council for Mutual Economic Assistance: Annual reduced form and trade matrix equations, B. Fomin, J. Glowacki, V. K. Sastry Rest of the World (ROW): Annual Models (small) from Stanford University, Bert G. Hickman and Lawrence Lau

The next major additions will be models for: Australia: Quarterly Model of the Reserve Bank of Australia, W. E. Norton Finland: Quarterly Model of the Bank of Finland, P. Kukkonen

The ROW models designed by Hickman and Lau are not yet being used in complete system simulations, but are being prepared for that purpose. The same is true of POMPOM. On the model as a whole, general participation involves R. R. Rhomberg and Grant Taplin, International Monetary Fund; Alain Van Peeterssen, Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales, Montreal; R. A. Gordon, University of California, Berkeley; and Keith Johnson and Y. Nishino, University of Pennsylvania. The way in which all these models are combined for mutually consistent world trade simulation solutions is described in detail in The International Linkage of National Economic Models, edited by R. J. Ball. This volume is scheduled for early publication by the NorthHolland Publishing Company, Amsterdam. Other topics, including the basic ideas of model linkage and model comparisons, are also treated in this first volume. A second volume, edited by Jean Waelbroeck, is already in preparation. It presents in full detail the equations and variables used in the complete LINK system. This volume is intended to be purely informative and descriptive, but there is no other volume that brings together a similar collection of statistical systems. Emphasis was placed in Project LINK on building a world model out of the country "pieces" and the world trade matrix. In 1970 and 1971 we were able to demonstrate that plausible solutions to this world system could be obtained. These were being improved and worked JUNE


upon when suddenly the world was confronted with the United States' New Economic Policy on August 15, 1971. The suspension of official gold-trading, the import surcharge, the "dirty float," and finally the Smithsonian Conference provided a unique and challenging opportunity for applying and testing the LINK Model. This work went on during much of 1971 and throughout 1972. The second wave of devaluation (February-March 1973) provided fresh grounds for new tabulations. These were precisely the kinds of situations for which LINK was originally proposed. During the summer of 1971 and in repeated revisions in line with new developments, the LINK system of world trade was examined under both realistic and hypothetical configurations of exchange rates. In all these applications some persistent results stood out: 1. The United States overall trade deficit would per-

sist through 1972 with a substantial imbalance visa-vis Japan. One may question, retrospectively, whether we were sufficiently bearish, but the LINK Model was definitely giving the appropriate danger signals at a time when there was unusual confidence elsewhere that the Smithsonian agreement would bring about a large swing in the United States trade position in a reasonable period of time. 2. The New Economic Policy and dollar devaluations would reduce the growth path of world trade below the path that would have been followed in the absence of these changes, but world trade would continue to grow and accelerate in 1973. 3. The developing countries would not be seriously set back, from the point of view of trade balance, by the new policies. It was apparent at an early stage that the Middle East oil-producing nations would prosper in the new world trade environment. Two principal reasons account for the comparatively restrained appraisal that came from the LINK system about the effect of the Smithsonian agreement. In the first place, LINK by its very nature places the world trade analysis in a setting of world Konjunktur, that is to say, we look at the domestic economies of the trading nations in some detail at the same time that we are estimating the trade flows among them. We fully accounted for the facts that the Smithsonian accord came at a time when North America was in the midst of a vigorous recovery phase, while the United Kingdom, Western Europe, Japan, and other nations were in the midst of a growth recession. It is a very different environment that prevails in the spring of 1973, thus leading to a more optimistic appraisal about the trade effects of the second wave of dollar devaluation. 15

Secondly, the trading relations built into each country model of LINK tum out to be comparatively insensitive to price or exchange rate adjustments. The many expert LINK participants try hard to be realistic and accurate in their appraisal of these effects, and basically this research has provided a good guide for the study of the current world economic issues. The developing countries, through 'their representatives in UN CTAD have pressed LINK researchers to take a longer-tenn view of the world economy-a decade or so. We are turning in that direction, but are necessarily going about the problem slowly because of 'the magnitude of the job. Yet, the short-run response of developing country trade flows to the New Economic Policy and the Smithsonian exchange rates became a matter of great concern for the developing countries; accordingly LINK researchers prepared a special adaptation of a general study of the new 'trade arrangements for the UNCTAD meeting in Santiago, April 1972. The main focus of LINK research for the developing countries has been on a broad area basis-Latin America, Africa, Middle East, Asia. Next efforts will be directed more towards analysis of individual developing countries. Major nations within broad areas will be selected for individual study and then fonnally integrated within the whole LINK system. Project路 LINK began as a study of the trade and transmission mechanism among the main industrial market economies, but was soon enended, as explained above, to the developing countries. During the past two years, the project's research has extended in yet another direction, namely, towards inclusion of the socialist economies. At the annual meetings in 1971 (at Newport, Rhode Island), UNCTAD economists presented a statistical model of trade for the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Gennany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania-the CMEA countries. This system has been fully programmed into the central LINK files and has been used in a significant way to indicate some of the effects of the new large trade flows from West to East. A number of economists from CMEA countries par tid-


pated in the 1972 annual meetings, criticized in a highly constructive way the formal treatment of the socialist countries in LINK, and agreed to continue participation in the future. This aspect of LINK research is actively being pursued at UNCTAD and looks quite promising. It is hoped that the system can be made more worldwide in scope through the inclusion of trade flow relationships for the People's Republic of China, North Vietnam, North Korea, and Albania. If the first years of LINK research have been mainly concerned with defining the trade/transmission problem, specifying the statistical system, and obtaining meaningful simulation solutions for the world economy, the second phase will tum increasingly towards analysis of capital flows and international financial relationships. In order to study these questions effectively in the LINK framework, each country or area model needs to have a balance-of-payments submodel developed for it. But in order to have an effective balance-of-payments sector, each model also needs a domestic monetary sector. At the time of inauguration of LINK research, most country models did not have these features, and a direct consequence of this continuing international research association is for the participating countries to develop these interesting and necessary sectors for their models. A demonstration effect assisted by critical and frank discussion has worked admirably in stimulating research across countries that will payoff for years to come. In the future, LINK researchers plan to tum to longerrun analyses, the combination of commodity market modeling with national country modeling, and more detailed treatment of international price relationships. These extensions together with past accomplishments in treating the socialist countries, the developing countries, and contemporary short-run economic policy have shown clearly that cooperative research is possible and rewarding on an international scale. A working relationship has evolved in LINK activity that concentrates on problem solving and gets econometricians doing it on a mutually compatible basis across national boundaries, oceans, and many other barriers.





LANGUAGE AND AREA STUDIES REVIEW* by Richard D. Lambert THE EXPANSION of American scholarly competence in the quarter century since World War II to encompass all the areas of the globe is a development of major significance. Higher education, characterized by parochialism, recognized mainly the United States and Europe as proper subjects for scholarly inquiry and usually regarded other parts of the world as outposts into which Europeans had expanded; thus generations of Americans educated before the war were ill-equipped to live in the postwar world of newly independent nations asserting their rights to political sovereignty and to respect for their cultural identities. The development of area studies was in great part an attempt to overcome this parochialism. This report will not recount in detail the history of the growth of area studies. We only need note that 30 years ago the American scholarly experts on many of the world areas could have been assembled in a small conference room, and that today all the world areas are represented by flourishing scholarly associations with memberships running in some cases into the thousands. Similarly, a comparison of the course offerings in any major university in 1941 and in 1971 will show the success of language and area studies in broadening the curriculum. While there are no figures quite comparable for an earlier period, the scale of the enterprise is now striking. In 1969, some 3,803 language and area specialists in 203 organized, graduate-level programs taught 8,890 substantive courses dealing with the various world areas to 65,243 graduate students, of whom 3,014 were training to be specialists, and 227,541 undergraduates. Language courses given by these programs had an enroll• This article constitutes the introductory chapter of the final report on the review of language and area studies programs in American uni¡ versities and colleges that was undertaken is 1968 under the auspices of the Social Science Research Council, at the request of the U.S. Office of Education and with its support. The author, who is Director of South Asia Regional Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, was Director of the review. His final report is to be published in August 1973 as a monograph of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, with whose permission the introductory chapter is printed here. The review was carried out with the aid of an advisory com¡ mittee appointed by the Council. Robert E. Ward, University of Michigan, was chairman of the committee throughout the study (196872), and the following scholars served as members for varying periods of time: George M. Beckmann, University of Washington; Morroe Berger, Princeton University; L. Gray Cowan, State University of ~ew York at Albany; Alexander Eckstein, University of Michigan; John W. Hall, Yale University; Alex Inkeles, Stanford University; Edgar Polom~, University of Texas at Austin; Irwin T. Sanders, Boston University; Roy Sieber, Indiana University; Stanley J. Stein, Princeton University; John M. Thompson, Indiana University; and Charles Wagley, University of Florida; staff, Rowland L. Mitchell, Jr. JUNE


ment of 91,029. On each campus language and area studies have made great strides in growth, in institutionalization, in winning student clientele, in gaining administrative support, and in placing one faculty member after another in the various academic departments. Several generations of students have been trained, graduated, and placed in fruitful and often prestigious jobs. Research has become theoretically and methodologically more sophisticated as scholars have become more competent in dealing with their areas. In several disciplines, many of the more promising young men are working on non-Western areas; furthermore, many cross-disciplinary specializations such as anthropology and law, sociology and history, economics and sociology, political science and anthropology, art and music, philosophy and religion, are developing largely in a non-Western context. The centers and their faculty provide a repository of expertise on which government can and does draw for research, consultants, or temporary employment. The graduate students produced by the centers are an important recruitment source for the foreign affairs agencies. Much of the literature which stocks international agency libraries is produced by individuals in these centers. The government also uses these centers for the training of current employees. In the academic year 1972-73, for example, there are 16 staff members of the Department of State and USIA alone enrolled in area programs, and last year the Foreign Service Institute brought an outside lecturer on more than 300 occasions; most of the lecturers were language and area specialists. One could go on with the apparent strengths, but curiously they were rarely mentioned by those within the field whom I interviewed, and almost never by outsiders. We were a bit puzzled by the force of negative feelings toward area studies of some nonarea-oriented American scholars, particularly in sociology, political science, and economics. The commonest cliche we heard in our travels was "going beyond traditional area studies," which has an implicit negative judgment as well as a promise of fresh approaches. The latter phrase, incidentally, came most often from other sections of the international studies community whose members might be expected to be natural allies-the discipline-based project research scholars, the development-oriented, problem-solving research and consulting enterprises, the operators of overseas technical assistance programs. There is, then, in the midst of strength, some external criticism and internally 17

a variety of problems besetting language and area studies in the realms of money, organizational style, education and scholarship. Financially, after 20 years of increasing investment in language and area studies, including 10 years of what might be labeled an economy of abundance, signs now suggest an economy of scarcity has set in. It is interesting that the periods usually dating the development of area studies reflect the cycles of investment of external funding sources-the Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie Corporation, Ford Foundation, NDEA-even though, as we shall see, such support comprised only a small share of the full investment in on-campus growth. Now external funding is becoming scarce just when the internal resources of most universities are being stretched to the utmost. Changes in organizational style are afoot as the generation of academic entrepreneurs who believed in the language and area studies vision relinquish their leadership. They used their energies to build centers of varying durability, inserting them in the chinks and crevices between the disciplines and between the higher administrative offices and the departments. The ad hoc arrangements for personnel, teaching time, office space, and library resources are up for review as the original academic entrepreneur, the department chairman, and the administrator who made the arrangements have changed, and as external funding becomes precarious. The promise of the cross-disciplinary format for the most part has not matured; the academic scaffolding composed of the committees, councils, and centers has frequently lost both its internal strength and its ability to provide services for its clientele. Educationally, the innovative appeal of the area studies model has lessened as higher education moves to lop off "frills" invented by any generation of students or faculty but the present one. Universities focus more attention on undergraduates and seek to become more "relevant," more oriented to domestic issues, and to problem solving. Area studies programs, particularly their language courses, are endangered as increasing student-faculty ratios becomes a means of budget balancing for university administrators. In scholarship, on center stage is the long-term debate between the "disciplinary generalist," so-called in .James Rosenau's recent International Studies Associationsponsored diagnosis of international studies,1 as against the area specialist, the former presumed to be distinct from the latter and presumed to have superior theoretical 1 James Rosenau, International Studies and the Social Sciences: Problems and Prospects in the United States, Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publicatio~s, 1973.


and methodological-especially quantitative-skills. Implicit in this formulation is a negative judgment of the worthwhileness of the area-oriented intellectual enterprises. One problem is that area studies, teaching, writing and research call for a level of pure description that Western-based scholars, having grown up in the culture they study, can take for granted. Another is that the criteria usually come from those disciplines and segments of disciplines that are most behavioral, quantitative, ahistorical, and acultural, while the largest proportion of area specialists are in history, anthropology, language and literature, and the particularistic segments of political science. Aside from these factors, however, it is difficult to understand why scholars become less "disciplinary" when they add a competence with respect to another area of >the world and concentrate their research and teaching there. A set of more interesting questions, as yet largely unexplored, are: What parts of the disciplinary kit of concepts and technologies are genuinely useful in analyzing other societies? Which part distorts our perception of those societies? What phenomena that we discover there demand entirely new analytic concepts and technologies? Meanwhile, the following analysis will assume that a language and area competence is value added to, not a displacement of, disciplinary competences; and we shall ask whether that value added is sufficient to the specialized chore of conducting substantive research in and on another society. In the foregoing comments, I have committed an error I shall constantly warn against throughout this report, that is, talking about language and area studies as a single, internally homogeneous phenomenon. They are not. For instance, when I speak of the area studies vs. discipline debate, it matters a great deal what the discipline is. Historians and most humanists find this partitioning meaningless, while in political science the battle is most intense. Similarly, many other comments about specialists, students, and courses must be different for the various disciplines. Moreover, the world area study groups as a whole differ substantially in the degree of scholarly development and sophistication ascribable to such factors as age. accessibility of the area concerned, the level of native scholarship, and the necessity of language command for respectable scholarship. For instance, the major programs in Russian, Japanese, Chinese, and Latin American studies are at least 25 years old and often older, while comparable programs in Southeast Asian studies are about 10 years old. Individual specialists not only differ in these area and disciplinary foci, but vary widely in their scholarly approach, in the level of their language and area competence, and in the degree of their identification with language and area studies. As we shall see, un~versity programs vary tremendously in VOLUME




size, organizational style, disciplinary emphasis, language training, student clienteles, productivity, and quality of faculty. In fact, even in the underlying rationale for the creation of programs there is a basic division which affects many of their activities. From the beginning, ,there were two implicit models of area studies programs. One focused on the training of a generalist fully familiar with the area he studied from a wide variety of disciplinary perspectives and fully competent in its languages. He was to be the academically trained equivalent of the "old hand." The other view saw area and language competences as supplemental skills, difficult and ,time consuming to acquire, but basically a graft onto a scholar firmly rooted in his discipline. Implicit in the first model is the notion that area studies is a useful way to organize knowledge, and consequently permanent organizations need to be built on campuses both to conduct instruction in the new fashion and to promote the growth of an interdisciplinary corpus of knowledge. In the second model, language and area studies on the campus are a temporary coalition of scholars struggling to make a place within their disciplines for research and teaching on the areas of the world that interest them, and to provide for their common use the language learning, library, overseas fellowships, and other scholarly overhead resources to meet their special needs. In this second model, once the needs have been met, the coalition may disappear. Some programs have tried to realize both models at once but, as we shall see, by and large the second model fits most naturally into the universi路ty context and tends to prevail. In the face of this diversity in specialists and programs, much of the report on the review will be concerned with illuminating these differences among and within the various world area studies groups. I shall treat language and area studies as a whole sparingly and whh an eye constantly alert for exceptions in the generalizations. The very diversity of language and area studies and the rapidity of their growth have created a situation in which the sizable amounts of university, foundation, and federal funds plus enormous expenditures of scholarly and student time call for a definitive study to provide a strong instructional base and analysis of progress or lack thereof. What seemed to be most needed were accurate, aggregate enumeration of overall patterns to supplement the considerable existing literature of case studies, and prescriptions for future developments. What we shall present are the results of a three-year review and evaluation of American college and university programs of Latin American, East European, Middle Eastern, African, and Asian studies. Western European, Canadian, and American studies, now going through expansion anc~ consolidation stages as separate JUNE


fields, were omrtJted from the review because of the analytic difficulty of separating them from the regular social science, language, and humanities courses that make up the disciplinary department offerings. Problems of boundary definitJion were insurmountable. In the course of the survey, site visits were made to 35 colleges and universities; and students, faculty, and directors of 87 language and area studies programs were interviewed. We also made it a point to interview university and college administrators who dealt with these programs, and disciplinary department chairmen who did and did not have area specialists on their staffs. I aHended at least one meeting of each of the major area associations, plus several dozen of the numerous meetings that consider new directions for the development of area studies. We analyzed the faculty, course offerings, and enrollment of 203 graduate-level programs that applied for NDFL Fellowship quotas. Supplemental questionnaires on organization, curricular arrangements, and operational style were filled in by 261 programs, and other questionnaires by 5,618 individual specialists, 3,014 graduate students currently studying to be specialists, and 1,219 program graduates. In addition, we analyzed the transcripts of 1,972 students who received degrees from the programs during the academic years 1957-58, 1958-59, 1967-68, and 1968-69. Our aim is to take a detailed look at the scale, composition, and trajectory of language and area studies, with particular emphasis on aggregate patterns, since conventional wisdom is most often wrong about these. We will not ask whether area specialists are first rank disciplinarians, but whether they are competent on an area and its languages. We will not debate whether an area studies degree is legitimate (few places give them or give very many of them), but instead ask what the usual curricular structure is on most campuses and how most students pilot themselves among the competing demands of language and area and disciplinary faculties. We will not see the end of language and area studies in the threatened financial contraction, but concern ourselves with current patterns of use of funds and their rationalization. Perhaps at the end we can rejoin the general debate about overall worthwhileness, but in the meantime we hope that the necessary distinctions and proper bases of assessment will have been developed to make judgments somewhat less affective, less binary, and less total. Chapter 2 of the monograph from which this introduction is preprinted presents the various sources of data upon which the substantive presentation is based. Chapter 3 is concerned with the individual specialists. Chapter 4 consists of a national cross-sectional analysis of area courses, and Chapter 5 presents-a similar analysis 19-

of language instruction. Chapter 6 is an exploration of types of program, and Chapter 7 of the institutional setting, quality, productivity, and financing of programs. Chapter 8 discusses the students of the programs, both

those currently enrolled and the graduates. And finally, Chapter 9 pulls together recommendations and comments on the future development of language and area studies.

PERSONNEL COUNCIL STAFF Beatrice K. Hofstadter joined the Council on February 1, 1973 in a new staff position with multiple responsibilities. As Assistant to the President she has general oversight of all Council activities. Mrs. Hofstadter received the B.A. degree from Cornell University, and the Ph.D. in American history from Columbia University, 1973. Her early professional experience was in editorial work. From 1965 to 1972 she was Instructor and Lecturer in American History at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. On leave from that College in the fall of 1972, she was Research Associate at the Institute for United States Studies, University of London, where she gave a seminar on the American Revolution. She has published a number of articles in the field of American history and culture. David A. Statt, Assistant Professor of Psychology at Fordham University, Lincoln Center Campus, joined the Council on a part-time basis on February 1, 1973, and will become a full-time member of the staff on August 1. He serves as staff of the new Committee on Work and Personality in the Middle Years, and will be concerned with other Council activities in psychology and related areas. Mr. Statt received the M.A. degree in general, experimental, and social psychology from Glasgow University in 1965, and the Ph.D. in psychology and social psychology from the University of Michigan in 1970. He began his professonal career as Psychologist in Glasgow Child Guidance Clinics. As a graduate student at the University of Michigan he was a Teaching Fellow in Psychology and Assistant Project Director, Institute for Social Research, 1967-69. He was Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Quebec, 1970, and Consultant to the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 1971-72. Reports on his research in these several capacities appear in various psychological journals. Nicholas Zill, who had been Manager of Behavioral Research Projects at the University City Science Center, Philadelphia, 1969-72, joined the Council in January 1973. His primary assignment is to the staff of its Center for Coordination of Research on Social Indicators, in Washington. Mr. Zill received the B.A. degree from Columbia College, and the Ph.D. in psychology from Johns Hopkins University in 1967. As a graduate student he was Research Associate at the Pavlovian Laboratory of its School of Medicine, 1964-66, and Instructor in Psychology at the Peabody Institute, Baltimore, 1964-67. As a member of the Technical Staff, Life Sciences Group, Bellcomm, Inc., Washington, D.C., 1967-69, he was engaged in systems analysis, human engineering, and behavioral research for the Office of Manned Space Flight,


NASA. He was awarded a U.S. Navy Meritorious Public Service Citation for his contributions to Project Tektite I, an undersea habitat operation, for which he designed and implemented a computer data system. His subsequent work in Philadelphia, where he was also a member of the Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, was in the field of applied research in the behavioral sciences-notably, computer applications in political theory and practice, and development of statistical prediction models for computing an individual's probability of suffering various disorders from combinations of physiological and psychosocial risk factors. His publications include contributions to books, journals, and technical reports. John Creighton Campbell, who joined the Council in November 1970 and who has served mainly as staff for the Joint Committees of the ACLS and SSRC on Contemporary China, Japanese Studies, and Korean Studies, will leave the Council in August to become Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Michigan. Mr. Campbell recently received the Ph.D. in political science from Columbia University, as well as the Certificate from its East Asian Institute. He was also awarded the first John M. H. Lindbeck Prize, for his Certificate Essay, "Japanese Balanced Budgeting." RESEARCH TRAINING FELLOWSHIPS The Committee on Social Science Personnel-Karl E. Taeuber (chairman), H. M. Blalock, Jr., Frank Cancian, John M. Darley, J. David Greenstone, Dorothy Ross, and Jerome Rothenberg-at its meeting on March 9-10, 1973 voted to offer the following 14 appointments, 3 predoctoral and 11 postdoctoral: Harriet Berkowitz, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Harvard University, for additional mathematical training and research on international commodity markets as complex social organizations Susan M. Drobis, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Pennsylvania, for study of urban geography at Johns Hopkins University and research on the process of residential differentiation Samuel Fillenbaum, Professor of Psychology, University of North Carolina, for training in linguistic aspects of deictic and function terms Rochel Gelman, Associate Professor of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, for additional training in mathematics and research on the young child's concept of number and quantity Daniel Goleman, Ph.D. candidate in personality and chHd development, Harvard University, for postdoctoral study VOLUME




of Buddhist psychology and research in India and Ceylon on. the nature of consciousness and techniques of meditatIOn Richard Healey, Ph.D. candidate in mathematics, University of California, Los Angeles, for postdoctoral study of sociology at the University of Chicago Timothy M. Hennessey, Associate Professor of Political Science, Michigan State University, for training at Indiana University in the design of formal choice models of the political development process Jonathan Lurie, Assistant Professor of History, Rutgers University, for study at Harvard Law School in preparation for use of legal materials in research on the history of American administrative law in the late nineteenth century Hajime Oniki, Assistant Professor of Economics, Queen's University, for training at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the theory of stochastic processes, information theory, and automata theory, in preparation for research on the cost of decision making in economic organization Ruth Rosen, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of California, Berkeley, for training in the sociology of deviance and law and research on attitudes toward prostitution Juliet Shaffer, Associate Professor of Psychology, University of Kansas, for advanced training at the University of California, Berkeley, in mathematical statistics and its application in the testing of hypotheses in the social sciences Larry J. Williams, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Southern California, for training in economics and research in areas of economics relevant to research on energy sources F. Roy Willis, Professor of History, University of California, Davis, for training at the University of California, Berkeley, in economics and at the University of Cambridge in development economics Robert Zemsky, Associate Professor of American Civilization, University of Pennsylvania, for training in formal linguistics and its use in analysis of historical evidence GRANTS FOR RESEARCH IN METHOD AND THEORY Under this special program, first offered in 1971-72, the Committee on Social Science Personnel at its meeting on March 9-10 awarded grants to 6 social scientists: Roger M. Keesing, Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Cruz, for research on cognitive code and social relations among the Kwaio Wer~er S. Landecker, Professor of Sociology, University of MIchigan, for research on problems of class crystallization: a theoretical analysis of degrees of structuration in stratification systems Andrew S. McFarland, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley, for research on the "public interest" and political markets Seymour Rosenberg, Professor of Psychology, Livingston College, Rutgers University, for research on methods for extracting and representing a person's "implicit theory of personality" from free-response materials, and detecting underlying processes in interpersonal perception Robert Rosenthal, Professor of Social Psychology, Harvard University, for research on the social psychology of interpersonal expectations Martin G. Silverman, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Princeton University, for research on the nature of symbolic forms in relation to social action JUNE


GRANTS FOR AFRICAN STUDIES The Joint Committee on African Studies, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies-Philip D. Curtin (chairman), Charles S. Bird, Clement Cottingham, Renee C. Fox, William A. Shack, Edward W. Soja, Robert F. Thompson, and Aristide R. Zolberg-at its meeting on March 16-17, 1973 awarded 12 grants for research relating to Africa south of the Sahara: Paula. Ben-Amos, Lecturer in Art History, Temple Univers~ty, for research in Nigeria on animal symbolism in Benm art Allen I~aacman, Associate Professor ?f History, University of Mmnesota, for research on reSIstance movements in central Mozambique James Kingsland, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Pennsylvania State University, for research in Nigeria on administrative reform and patterns of decision making in local governments Kay Lawson, Associate Professor of Political Science, California State University, San Francisco, for research in Nigeria on contemporary constitutional change Edeltraud Lukoschek (Licence in social sciences, Lovanium University), Berkeley, California, for research in Belgium and Zaire on the development of nationalist ideologies in Zaire and their relations to social change Stuart A. Marks, Associate Professor of Anthropology, St. Andrews Presbyterian College, North Carolina, for research in Zambia on hunting strategies and their relations to behavior and attitudes among the Valley Bisa Dennis M. P. McCarthy, Visiting Assistant Professor of History, Iowa State University, for research in Tanzania on the ethnopolitical economy of interwar Tanganyika Alan P. Merriam, Professor of Anthropology, Indiana University, for research in Zaire on changes in music since independence Russell G. Schuh, Acting Assistant Professor of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles, for research in Nigeria on the linguistic and culture history of Chadicspeaking peoples Marilyn Silberfein, Visiting Assistant Professor of Geography, Northwestern University, for research in Tanzania on the role of labor migration in African agricultural development Gloria Marshall Sudarkasa, Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Michigan, for research in Nigeria and Ghana on the contributions of Nigerian emigrants of Yoruba background to the economic development of Ghana during the twentieth century Joan Vincent, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Barnard College, Columbia University, for research in Kenya on the social and economic development of a small town GRANTS FOR JAPANESE STUDIES In addition to the grants reported in the March 1973 issue of Items, the Joint Committee on Japanese Studies has made the following awards: John DeFrancis, Professor of Chinese, University of Hawaii, for research in Japan on language policies in that country (for comparative research on language policies in China, Korea, and Vietnam, he received a grant from the Joint Committee on Contemporary China) 21

G. Ralph Falconeri, Associate Professor of History, University of Oregon, joint award with Richard A. Smith, Associate Professor of Architecture, University of Oregon, for research in Japan on the neighborhood in the process of rapid urban change: a restudy of selected Machi in Kanazawa Donald R. Thurston, Associate Professor of Political Science and History, Union College, for research in Japan on the implementation of pollution policies of the national and prefectural governments GRANTS FOR LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES The Joint Committee on Latin American Studies, sponsored wi th the American Council of Learned SocietiesJoseph Grunwald (chairman), Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Douglas A. Chalmers, Julio Cotler, Franklin W. Knight, June Nash, Joseph Sommers, and Osvaldo Sunkel-at its meeting on March 2-4, 1973 awru:ded 36 grants for research and 1 collaborative research grant: Grants for research Giorgio Alberti, Research Associate, New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, for research in Peru on social participation of Peruvian campesinos since 1969 Alfredo Luiz Baumgarten, Jr., Head, Center of Industrial Studies, Brazilian Institute of Economics, Getulio Vargas Foundation, for development of an econometric model of Brazilian growth Goint with Moacyr Antonio Fioravante) Alfredo Castillero-Calvo, Professor of History, University of Panama, for research in Panama and the United States on their relations in the nineteenth century Marcelo Cavarozzi-M., Research Associate in Public Administration, Torcuato Di Tella Institute, Buenos Aires, for research on Argentine working-class practices since 1955 James D. Cockcroft, Associate Professor of Sociology, Rutgers University, for research in the United States on patents, transnational corporations, and Chilean dependence Victor J. Elias-Assaf, Professor of Economics, National University of Tucuman, for a comparative study in the United States of sources of economic growth in Latin America Moacyr Antonio Fioravante, Chief, Center of Data Processing, Brazilian Institute of Economics, Getlliio Vargas Foundation, for development of an econometric model of Brazilian growth (jomt with Alfredo Luiz Baumgarten, Jr.) Getlllio Hanashiro-K., Deputy Director, Institute of Social Research, Latin American School of Social Sciences, Santiago, Chile, for research in Chile on new accommodations of state and society Jorge E. Hardoy-N., Chief Researcher, Center for Urban and Regional Studies, Torcuato Di Tella Institute, Buenos Aires, for compru:ative analysis of the spatial structure of Latin American cities Rowan H. Ireland, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, La Trobe University, Australia, for research in Brazil on changes in the Catholic Church, 1950-70 Elizabeth Jelin, Visiting Professor of Political Science, Federal University of Minas Gerais, for research in Argentina on changes in the situation and organization of the Argentine working class, 1940-70 Marcos Kaplan-E., Visiting Professor of Sociology, Bariloche Foundation, Buenos Aires, for research on stnlctures of


power and scientific politics in contemporary Lalin America Peter F. Klaren, Assistant Professor of History, George Washington University, for research in Peru on the agrarian history of Northern Peru, 1880-1939 Conrad P. Kottak, Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Michigan, for research in Brazil on local effects of modernization in a village in Bahia Daniel H. Levine, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Michigan, for completion of a comparative study of the Catholic Church in Venezuela and Colombia (renewal of grant made in 1970-71) Robert M. Levine, Associate Professor of History, State University of New York at Stony Brook, for research in Brazil and the United States on Pernambuco in the Brazilian Federation, 1889-1937 Clara E. Lida, Assistant Professor of History, Wesleyan University, for research in Spain and Argentina on immigration and anarchism in Argentina, 1870-90 (renewal) Joseph LeRoy Love, Associate Professor of History, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, for research in Brazil and the United States on Brazilian regionalism, 1889-1937 Anna Macias, Associate Professor of History, Ohio Wesleyan University, for research in Mexico on the role and situation of women before and after the revolution of 1910-20 Juan F. Marsal, Professor of Sociology, University of the Saviour, Buenos Aires, for research on scientific sociology in Latin America Luciano Martins, Research Associate, Institut des Hautes Etudes de l'Amerique Latine, Paris, for research in Europe and Latin America on the responses of European multinational firms to strategies of United States firms in Latin America Ana Maria (Lovatini) Martirena-Mantel, Chief Researcher in Economics, Torcuato Di Tella Institute, Buenos Aires, for research on systems for adjusting wages and salaries to inflationary conditions Rene Mayorga-Z., Research Associate, Institute of Latin American Studies, Free University of Berlin, for research in Bolivia on the structure of power and ideology in the Bolivian revolution William P. McGreevey, Staff Social Scientist, Smithsonian Institution, for research on quantitative aspects of Latin American economic history Eduardo Neale-Silva, Professor of Spanish, University of Wisconsin, for research on sources of information and inspiration in the literary works of Cesar Vallejo Oscar Oszlak-S., Research Associate in Political Science, Torcuato Di Tella Institute, Buenos Aires, for research on the political role of Chilean landowners, 1958-72 Eul-Soo Pang, Assistant Professor of History, California State University, Hayward, for completion of research on the cacao economy and planter-merchant rivalry in Bahian politics, 1890-1945 (renewal) Yolanda A. (de Dewar) Raffo-M., Research Supervisor in Linguistics, National University of Rosario, for research on idioms of the native inhabitants of Argentina Stefan H. Robock, Professor of International Business, Columbia University, for research in Brazil on development of the Northeast since 1960 Gian Singh Sahota, Professor of Economics, Vanderbilt University, for completion of analysis of policy trade-offs in the recent economic development of Brazil Carl Edward Solberg, Associate Professor of History, University of Washington, for research in Argentina on economic policies of Radical Party governments, 1916-30 Karen 路W. Spalding. Assistant Professor of History, Columbia VOLUME




University, for research in Peru on the economy of the Andean Highlands, 1850-1940 Irving Stone, Associate Professor of Economics, Baruch College, City University of New York, for research in the United States on the annual flow of British capital to Latin America, 1865-1914 Gene Cady Wilken, Associate Professor of Geography, Colorado State University, for research in Costa Rica and elsewhere on resource management and peasant farming systems in Middle America Miles D. Wolpin, Visiting Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of New Mexico, for research in Cuba on non coercive sources of cultural transformation and mobilization John Womack, Jr., Professor of History, Harvard University, for research in Mexico on the history of industrial labor, 1880-1940, with special attention to Vera Cruz (renewal of grant made in 1969-70) Collaborative research grant Arturo Valenzuela-B., Assistant Professor of Political Science, Duke University, and Alexander W. Wilde, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Wisconsin, for research in Chile on the politics of allocation and the Chilean budgetary process

GRANTS FOR EAST EUROPEAN STUDIES The Joint Committee on Eastern Europe, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies (which administers its program)-John Mersereau, Jr. (chairman), Morton Benson, Adam Bromke, Istvan Deak, Eugene A. Hammel, Paul L. Horecky, H. L. Kostanick, and Egon Neuberger-at its meeting on March 16-17, 1973 awarded grants for research to the following 16 scholars: Gustave Bayerle, Assistant Professor of Uralic and Altaic Studies, Indiana University, for research on the diplomatic antecedents of the Treaty of Zsitvatorok, 1606 Peter Brock, Professor of History, University of Toronto, for research on the Slovak national awakening, 1780-1848 Lee W. Congdon, Assistant Professor of History, Madison College, for research on Lajos Kassak and the Ma Circle: art and revolution in Hungary, 1916-25 Jan B. de Weydenthal, Assistant Professor of Government, College of William and Mary, for research on the social factor in Communist political change: the workers' rebellion in Poland Milorad M. Drachkovitch, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, for research on the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, 1919-73 George R. Feiwel, Professor of Economics, University of Tennessee, for research on economic planning in Bulgaria John Fuegi, Associate Professor of Comparative Literature, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, for research on socialist realism vs. "formalism" in the East German theater David Granick, Professor of Economics, University of Wisconsin. for research on industrial management in Eastern Europe Lubos G. Heil. As~ociate Professor of Political Science. University of Rochester, for a macrosociological analysis of the "Czechoslovak quarter of a century." 1945-69 Michael H. Impey. Assistant Professor of Spanish and Italian. University of Kentucky, for research on Romanian contrihutions to avant-garde and surrealist literature, 1912-49 JUNE


Josef Korbel, Professor of International Studies, Graduate School of International Studies, University of Denver, for research on twentieth-century Czechoslovakia Andrzej Korbonski, Professor of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles, for research on the Warsaw Uprising of 1944 Joseph A. Licari, Assistant Professor of Economics, Occidental College, for an econometric and institutional analysis of postwar Hungarian development Peter R. Prifti, Research Affiliate, Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for research on domestic and foreign aspects of socialist Albania Samuel L. Sharp, Professor of International Service, American University, for research on the socioeconomic and political impact of Yugoslav labor migration Peter F. Sugar. Professor of History. University of Washington, for research on the Balkans under Ottoman rule. 1389-1804 GRANTS FOR SOUTH ASIAN STUDIES In the first year of cosponsorship by the Social Science Research Council and the American Council of Learned Societies of a program of grants for research on South Asia, formerly sponsored by the latter Council, the Joint Committee on South Asian Studies-Charles J. Adams, Edwin D. Driver, Ainslie T. Embree, Rosane Rocher, Susanne Hoeber Rudolph. John W. Thomas, and Helen E. Ullrich-at its meeting on January 28,1973 awarded grants to the following 12 scholars: Ashok N. Aklujkar. Assistant Professor of Asian Studies, University of British Columbia, for research on two commentaries by Bhartr-hari on his Vakyapadiya Martha B. Ashton (Ph.D. in theater) Chicago, Illinois, for research on Yakshagana Badagatittu Bayalata, a South Indian dance drama Norman Gerald Barrier, Associate Professor of History, University of Missouri, for research on social and religious developments among Punjab Sikhs, 1849-1919 Paul R. Brass, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Washington, for research on party systems and political change in India Robert E. Frykenberg. Professor of Indian Studies and History, University of Wisconsin, for research on social conflict and political stability in South India, 1795-1865 Robert N. Kearney, Associate Professor of Political Science, Syracuse University, for research on political development and the institutionalization of the political party system in Ceylon David J. Radcliffe. Assistant Professor of History of Education, University of Western Ontario, for research on modernization and change in Buddhist education in Ceylon. c. 1830-1950 Joseph E. Schwartzberg, Professor of Geography and South Asian Studies. University of Minnesota, for preparation of a historical Atlas of South Asia Ronald Soligo, Associate Professor of Economics. Rice University. for research on internal resource transfers in Pakistan, 1950-70 Doris Srinivasan. Assistant Professor of Religion. Haverford College, for research on symbolism of Hindu iconography Warren Swidler, Associate Professor of Social Sciences (Anthropology), Fordham University, Lincoln Center Campus, for research on irrigation technology and social change among the Brahui. Pakistan 23


Manindra K. Verma, Associate Professor of Indian Studies, University of Wisconsin, for research on Nepali as a modern Indo-Aryan language GRANTS FOR SOVIET STUDIES The Joint Committee on Soviet Studies, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies (which administers its program)-Herbert S. Levine (chairman), Mark G. Field, Peter H. Juviler, Walter M. Pintner, Irwin Weil, and Dean S. Worth-at its meeting on February 26, 1973 awarded grants for research relating to Revolutionary Russia and the Soviet Union to the following 12 scholars: Joseph S. Berliner, Professor of Economics, Brandeis University, for research on the economics of innovation in Soviet industry Claude Carey, Assistant Professor of Russian Literature, Brown University, for research on Soviet literature in the post-Stalin era Janet G. Chapman, Professor of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, for research on income distribution and equity in the Soviet Union in comparison with other European countries Ethel Dunn, Executive Secretary, Highgate Road Social Science Research Station, Berkeley, California, for research on the peasants of European Russia Jane Gary Harris (Ph.D. in Slavic languages), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for research on Osip Mandelstam's esthetic vision David Joravsky, Professor of History, Northwestern University, for research on the history of Pavlovian psychology Gregory J. Massell, Professor of Political Science, Hunter College, City University of New York, for research on systematic social engineering in Soviet Central Asia Levy Rahmani, Research Assistant in Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine, for research on the current status of social psychology in the Soviet Union Robert Sharlet, Associate Professor of Political Science, Union College, for research on Soviet legal theory and political development, 1917-37 Jane A. Taubman (Ph.D. in Russian literature), Amherst, Massachusetts, for research on reality and myth in the poetry of Marina Tsvetaeva Yasushi Toda, Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Western Ontario, for research on levels of industrial wages and per capita consumption in the urban population of Russia-U.S.S.R. Fred Weinstein, Associate Professor of History, State University of New York at Stony Brook, for a psychosocial analysis of totalitarian phenomena

Directory of Foreign Area Fellows 1952-1972. Summer 1973. c. 400 pages. $3.00. Orders should be addressed to Foreign Area Fellowship Program, P.O. Box No. 5113, Grand Central Station, New York, N. Y. 10017. Ideology and Politics in Contemporary China, edited by Chalmers Johnson. Product of a conference sponsored by the former Subcommittee on Chinese Government and Politics, Joint Committee on Contemporary China, August 2-6, 1971. Seattle: University of Washington Press, March 1973. 403 pages. Cloth, $15.00; paper, $4.95. The International Linkage of National Economic Models, edited by R. J. Ball. Sponsored by the Committee on Economic Stability. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, summer 1973. c. 435 pages. c. $22.00. Language and Area Studies Review, by Richard D. Lambert. American Academy of Political and Social Science Monogra,ph 17. Final report on the review sponsored by the SOCIal Science Research Council. August 1973. c. 350 pages. $4.00 to individuals; $5.00 to institutions. Orders should be addressed to American Academy of Political and Social Science, 3937 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia. Pa. 19104. Language Attitudes: Current Trends and Prospects, edited by Roger W. Shuy and Ralph W. Fasold. Product of workshops at the Conference on Sociolinguistics: Current Trends and Prospects, jointly sponsored by the Committee on SociolingUIstics and Georgetown University, March 16-18, 1972. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, March 1973. 206 pages. $3.50. Language Planning: Current Issues and Research, edited by Joan Rubin and Roger W. Shuy. Product of workshops at the Conference on Sociolinguistics (see preceding title). Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, March 1973. 121 pages. $2.95. Sociolinguistics: Current Trends and Prospects, Report of the Twenty-Third Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies, edited by Roger W. Shuy. Georgetown University Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, No. 25. Papers on the conference jointly sponsored by the Committee on Sociolinguistics and Georgetown University, March 16-18, 1972. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, March 1973. 360 pages. $4.50. Structural Equation Models in the Social Sciences, edited by Arthur S. Goldberger and Otis Dudley Duncan. Product of a conference cosponsored by the Social Science Research Council and the Social Systems Research Institute, University of Wisconsin, November 12-16, 1970. New York: Seminar Press, June 1973. 374 pages. $15.95.




Incorporated in the State of Illinois, December 27, 1924, for the purpose of advancing research in the social sciences Directors, 1973: 'WILLIAM J. BAUMOL, ALLAN G. BOGUE, DORWIN CARTWRIGHT, DANIEL X. FREEDMAN, LEO A. GOODMAN, EDWARD E. JONES, LAWRENCE R. KLEIN,








Officers and Staff:




Executive Associate;




Business Manager;


Financial Secretary .~

Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

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