SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL
VOLUME 28 . NUMBER 2 . JUNE 1974 605 THIRD AVENUE· NEW YORK, N.Y. 10016
THE ROLE OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL IN THE ADVANCE OF MATHEMATICS IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES by Frederick MostellerTHE CURRENT LEVEL of mathematical training for social scientists in this country was not quickly achieved, nor did it grow by itself through natural evolution; instead, it has come about through a long, fairly deliberate process that has depended upon the ideas and contributions of a great many people and organizations. To bring mathematical education and use to its present state required the efforts of several successive academic generations of mathematicians and social scientists, as will be apparent from the names that arise in the course of this description. One organization that worked most systematically at developing a proper base for mathematics in social science was the Social Science Research Council. The Council was established in 1923 to provide a means for the several social science disciplines to improve research. • The author is Professor of Mathematical Statistics at Harvard University. He has been long and closely associated with the Social Science Research Council. serving as a member of its board of directon for twelve years. 1953-58 and 1965-70; as chairman of the board. 1965-69; as a member of the Committee on Problems and Policy. 1955-61 and 1965-69. and of the Executive Committee. 1969-70. His participation in Council activities dates from 1948. when he served fint as consultant in the work of the committee appointed to analyze the experience of the Research Branch. Information and Education Divi· sion. ASF. and then as chief of staff of the Committee on Analysis of Pre·election Polls and Forecasts. and senior author of its report. The Pre-election Polls of 1948 (Council Bulletin 60. 1949). Mr. Mosteller played a major role in all the programs of the Council on which he reports here. He was chairman of the 1951 Interunivenity Summer Research Seminar on Mathematical Models for Behavior Theory. which resulted in publication of Stochastic Models for Learning, by Robert R. Bush and Frederick Mosteller Uohn Wiley Be Sons. 1955). And he was an active member of the following committees: Mathematical Training of Social Scientists. 1952-58; Research Training. 1956-59; Scaling Theory and Methods. 1950-57. This article was written at the invitation of the President of the Council as part of the commemoration of its 50th anniversary year.
One way to improve research is to provide specialized training for graduate students and postgraduates. As an early example, Samuel A. Stouffer was awarded a Council fellowship in 1931 to study statistics with Karl Pearson and R. A. Fisher in England. More generally, fellowship programs, research institutes, conferences, research seminars, and research planning and appraisal projects offer training. A mechanism that the Council has found most successful in organizing such efforts through the years is the committee. A committee may be appointed to assess the status of research on a topic or a field, or to develop new methods, or to train a new group of workers, or to make plans for new research. The committee may endure for one or two years or for many. Typically a group of social scientists, often an interdisciplinary group, proposes to the Council that it encourage a new development. The proposal is reviewed, and the Council takes steps that seem appropriate. Sometimes no further steps are taken because the problem may not be ready, or the Council may not be a good vehicle for the work. But sometimes the Council can act. The interest of the Council in mathematics is that it is a special area where training may be useful or even essential to the prospective social science research worker. The Council has long carried on programs that support promising individuals, adding a needed special research skill through further study. What was different about mathematics was that it was viewed as being needed across a broader front of the social sciences, not on quite such an individual basis. The feeling in the 1950's was that the whole of social science was lagging in mathematical training. At that time, except possibly for economists, people entering social science were in effect 17
being self-selected for a low level of mathematical train- mathematical trammg on the part of the Coundl-a -- ing. The Council undertook to do something about this: Council subcommittee's report entitled "Collegiate Many members of the board of directors and the staff Mathematics Needed in the Social Sciences." By 1954, encouraged and participated in the effort. To the extent Elbridge Sibley wrote that although the minimum stanthat its success can be attributed to one man, that man dards stated there were accepted, at least in theory, the was William G. Madow. methods used in the social sciences had advanced so William G. Madow dreamed of a community of social much that the mathematics recommended in 1932 was scientists whose mathematical strength was equal to its no longer adequate for a reading knowledge of social mathematical problems. These dreams slowly turned science literature. into reality because he was willing to devote so much Let us move away from training to consider research energy to the leadership and execution of the required for a moment. The Council's Subcommittee on Predicprogram, because the Council gained the planning ser- tion of Social Adjustment, chaired by Stouffer, directed vices of many unpaid experts over long periods and the preparation of The Prediction of Personal Adjustcould facilitate through its staff 1 sustained efforts by its ment (Council Bulletin 48, 1941), by Paul Horst et al,2 committees, and because foundations vigorously ,fi- The list of prepublication readers alone represents the nanced the many facets of the growing enterprise. The best of quantitative social science at the time. Council, though it speaks, as do foundations, of starting In addition to other fine things in this volume, Louis enterprises and then letting them find their own way at Guttman laid the mathematical foundations for his maturity, has sometimes helped a project for a long "cumulative" method of scaling, now usually called time. For -t he mathematical training of social scientists, Guttman scaling. It was a time when the case study a 12-year program led to a natural end point through method was under heavy attack. Stouffer contributed a the successful creation of a new organization. Founda- short treatment of the unique case in terms that a statis· tions have played and still playa vital role in mathemati- tician today would appreciate and one that might encal research in the social sciences. The preparation of courage a modem Bayesian to write considerably more. materials, the summer training institutes, and the re- For its period, the Guttman statement was mathemati· search projects could not have been carried out under cally sophisticated for the social sciences, dealing as it the Council's auspices without their support. did in 1941 with matrices, iterations, expansion of matriAlthough elementary mathematical training has now ces in series, and so on. This book well illustrates my again become largely the responsibility of the colleges point that the later rise of mathematical developments in and universities, we have today a much different cur- the social sciences was not merely a World War II riculum in mathematics for social scientists than ex- phenomenon, ,b ut rather an extension of ideas and hopes isted in 1951, and we have materials much more that were being worked on earlier. Measurement and appropriate for the effort. Without becoming a mathe- Prediction, Volume IV of "Studies in Social Psychology matician, a social scientist today can get a reasonable in World War II," also produced under the direction mathematical education to equip him for his research. of a Council committee,S applied the Guttman methods The growth was not a simple product of World War and discussed scaling extensively. II or a creation stimulated by Sputnik. Instead, it was The interest in scaling persisted, and a Council com· a continuation of previous efforts. mittee on scaling theory and technique under the chairThe American Mathematical Monthly in December manship of Harold Gulliksen 4 arranged for Warren S. 1932 published the first glimmerings of concern for Torgerson to prepare his book Theory of Scaling, pub. lished in 1958, a comprehensive mathematical treatment of this subject. 1 The staff of the SSRC traditionally maintains a low profile in com· mittee work. Nevertheless, the mathematical community has been most fortunate that Elbridge Sibley acted as staff officer for so many years for Council committees with quantitative and mathematical interests. His own studies of demography kept alive his interest in mathematical research, and his New England disposition made light of the cantanker· ousness of mathematicians. And as a veteran committee man he often found no problems where committee members scared up many. Both Pendleton Herring, then President of SSRC, and Paul Webbink, then Vice·President, maintained a most constructive attitude toward this de· velopment. Earlier Donald R. Young, a quantitative sociologist, had been President, and a number of chairmen of the board have been mathematically oriented, for example, Wesley C. Mitchell, Frederick Mosteller, Herbert A. Simon, Conrad Taeuber, S. S. Wilks, and E. B. Wilson.
2 The other members of the subcommittee were E. W. Burgess, Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr., E. Lowell Kelley, and M. W. Richardson. Its work was supported by Council conference and planning funds provided by the Rockefeller Foundation. 8 Appointed to supervise analysis of the materials collected and methods used in the statistical studies of the social psychology of American soldiers conducted by the Army's Research Branch during World War II. The committee's work was supported by funds from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. 4 Other members of the committee were Paul Horst, J. E. Karlin, Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Henry Margenau, Frederick Mosteller, and John Volkmann. Its work was supported by the development funds granted to the Council by the Ford Foundation.
Another illustration of the Council's early encouragement of the use of mathematics in research in the social sciences was the summer seminar in mathematical models for learning held in 1951 at Tufts College. 1I This two-month effort produced several papers and brought the Harvard and Indiana University groups in mathematical learning theory into close touch. The decision by Bush and Mosteller to write Stochastic Models for Learning was made late in the seminar. Mention should be made of one non-SSRC conference that was extremely important for the ultimate development of mathematical applications in social science research: the eight-week seminar on the Design of Experiments in Decision Processes held at Santa Monica in the summer of 1952. This meeting helped create a community of scholars interested in mathematical methods of doing research in the social sciences. The membership included many who contributed directly to later SSRC efforts, for example, Bush, Robert L. Davis, William K. Davis, Jacob Marschak, Howard Raiffa, and Robert M. Thrall. Training and research in mathematical economics and econometrics does not playas large a role in this report as one might expect considering both their importance and their advanced state. The reason is that mathematical economics was a well-developed subject even by the beginning of the twentieth century, and econometrics fairly well developed by the 1930's and certainly the 1940's. A tradition had already been established for economists to study mathematics and, for the most part, they were doing this in their own universities in either departments of mathematics or of economics. Much research training went on in research projects within the universities. Even though some of the Council committees were directly concerned with mathematics in the field of economics, the training aspect was not prominent. Special conferences were sponsored by the training committees, and they will be mentioned. For some time the obstacles besetting the student of social science who wanted training in mathematics had been under study both inside and outside the Council. In 1951 the Council asked eight specialists to prepare memoranda on the mathematical background desirable for Ph.D. candidates in social anthropology, social psychology, and sociology. At about the same time, outside the Council, a Committee on the Mathematical Training of Social Scientists, chaired by Madow and consisting of representaG Under the Council's program of Interuniversity Summer Research Seminars supported by the John and Mary R. Markle Foundation. The participants in the seminar were Frederick Mosteller (chairman), Cletus J. Burke, Robert R. Bush, William K. Estes, George A. Miller, David Zeaman; assistants: William McGill, Katherine Safford Harris.
tives of 12 scientific societies,6 also discussed what steps should be taken by social scientists. This committee raised with the Council the possibility of getting support for a project on mathematical training, with the specific purpose of producing a source book on the mathematical methods used in the social sciences. The result was a two-month project under Madow's direction, the Interuniversity Summer Research Seminar on Source Materials for the Mathematical Training of Social Scientists, held at Dartmouth College in the summer of 1952.7 The technique was to prepare sets of problems on single topics, beginning at an elementary level and continuing to a point where the results were of direct interest to social scientists. In addition, the participants in the seminar explained typical mathematical methods applicable to large numbers of social science problems. Finally, they prepared translations of social science ideas into mathematical terms together with appropriate mathematical references. Why Dartmouth? A lucky accidentl Originally it was chosen because the summer climate in Hanover is attractive, and there were good library facilities. In later years it turned out that under the chairmanship of John G. Kemeny, the Department of Mathematics at Dartmouth had as encouragingly forward a view toward social science, new courses in mathematics, mathematical models, and computing as was to be found in the nation. The next spring, the Council appointed its own Committee on the Mathematical Training of Social Scientists.s With preliminary materials apparently available from the 1952 summer session, the new committee planned a 1953 summer training institute for social scientists to be held at Dartmouth. It discussed the questions whether to include statistics in the teaching, and whether the mathematics should be primarily abstract and theorem-proving or directly applied to social science. As it turned out, statistics was not included, and three of the courses were taught on an abstract basis. As a rule in this committee, amiable agreement seldom survived the first statement of fundamental principles. 8 This committee emerged from the 1949 meetings of several mathematical societies at Boulder, Colorado, where in a joint session members of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, the Mathematical Associa路 tion of America, and the Econometric Society recommended the formation of such a committee. 7 The participants, in addition to the director, were Oswald H. Brownlee, David A. Grant. George A. Miller, E. William Noland, Howard Raiffa, and Robert Solow. The project was supported from the development fund granted to the Council by the Ford Foundation. S The members and their years of service were William G. Madow (chairman). 1952-58; Jacob Marschak, 1952-54; George A. Miller, 1952-54; Frederick Mosteller. 1952-58; Robert M. Thrall, 1952-58; E. P. Hutchinson, 195!l-58; Paul E. Meehl, 195!l-54; W. K. Estes, 195558; John G. Kemeny. 1955-58; Howard Raiifa, 1955-58; Robert Solow. 1955-58; Robert R. Bush, 1956-58; staff: Elbridge Sibley, 1952-58. Fundl for the committee's program were provided by the Ford Foundation.
Nevertheless, consensus on what to do came fairly easily once we abandoned discussion of principles. The 1953 institute was directed by Madow, who was also a member of the teaching faculty.9 The four courses offered were algebra, including matrix. theory and quadratic forms; calculus; other topics in analysis; mathematical models in the social sciences. The lecture program was very heavy, the problem material was not extensive, and since much of the effort was devoted to theorems and proofs, relatively little time was given to setting up problems and solving them and to practice in basic manipulative skills. Applications for membership in the institute had been gratifyingly large in number, 234 applications for what turned out to be 41 appointments. The group was extremely strong as the list of members shows.10 Of those attending, about one third already had the doctorate, the rest were in graduate training. About half were psychologists, one fifth economists, one fifth sociologists, and one tenth from other disciplines. After the first institute the committee and the faculty of the institute took a very hard look at what had been done and reported in detail to the Council. On the plus side they noted that all the students stayed all summer. On the basis of a written examination, the faculty concluded that probably three quarters of the students gained a good bit from the courses. Two thirds of the students could see what mathematical devices were needed for different problems. They could gather mathematical information by taking enough time, and they found it useful. Half seemed now to be prepared for courses beyond a first year of calculus. On the negative side, even though there had been considerable preparation of materials, it was not enough, and the teachers were hard pressed to write up their notes and distribute them. Students and faculty agreed that teaching the first three courses at an abstract level without social science content reduced the effectiveness of the seminar. At the September 1953 meeting of the Council's board of directors, Bush suggested that to achieve a two-way understanding, the Council should consider the social science training of mathematicians, a suggestion that S. S. Wilks and Leonard Cottrell found immediately attractive. Ways and means of improving communication with departments of mathematics about mathematical training for social scientists occupied much of the Council's meeting time. Herbert Shepard, a student participant in the 1953 summer institute, spoke on its II The other teachers were Robert R. Busb, Howard Railfa. and Robert M. Thrall: assistants: R. L. Davis and R. E. Priest. Visiting lecturers included Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Frederick Mosteller. 10 Social Science Research Council Anntlal Report, 1952-195J, pages 62-63.
strengths and weaknesses, as viewed Iby the students, and emphasized a need for homogeneity of readiness on their part. The committee decided to postpone sponsorship of further summer institutes until 1955, by which time adequate teaching materials could be prepared, and to administer a questionnaire to the students of the 1953 institute to find out more about its results. At the March 1955 board meeting, the Council learned the results of the follow-up questionnaire. The students ordered the goals of studying mathematics as follows: (1) to facilitate reading social science literature that uses mathematics; (2) to formulate and analyze social science problems with the help of mathematics, where appropriate, and to recognize where it is not; (3) to understand the nature of mathematical concepts and reasoning; (4) to prepare for the study of mathematical statistics; (5) to communicate professionally with mathematicians and statisticians. Over three quarters of the students returned the questionnaires. All had stayed in their social science fields, quelling an earlier fear that some might leave. All but 2 said that they had made progress in reading the mathematical literature in their own fields, and 13 said they had made progress in formulating and solving their own mathematical problems in the social sciences. This was particularly gratifying because the institute had not worked especially hard on this aspect, emphasizing instead the theoretical underpinnings of the mathematics. Results of their institute work were being used by 8 in their teaching; 18 had taken further work in mathematics of a formal sort; and 6 more had participated in informal kinds of further study-all in all, a much stronger record than we could have reasonably hoped to find. The main recommendations students made for further summer institutes, which the committee implemented in the 1955 institutes, were: (1) more homogeneous groups-one for students with calculus, one for those without; (2) smaller groups-about 15 members; (3) more calculus and more probability; (4) more material directly from the social sciences; (5) all materials to be available the first day of the session. For discussion with mathematical organizations, the committee prepared a policy statement and outlined a mathematics curriculum particularly designed to meet the needs of social scientists. Meanwhile the committee began taking steps to improve the availability of appropriate materials. It sponsored preparation by Samuel Goldberg of a monograph on difference equations for use by social scientists. Bush, Robert P. Abelson, and Ray Hyman prepared a manuscript giving mathematical problems and examples for psychologists; this was to be an adjunct to mathematics VOLUME
texts such as algebra and calculus books that did not include such materials. Harold Kuhn was asked to prepare a manuscript, including exercises, on applications of the theory of games and linear programming in economics. Gerard Debreu developed materials for the study of economics from an algebraic and topological view. Funds were made available to the Mathematical Association of America to assist a group working at the University of Kansas in the summer of 1954, under the direction of W. L. Duren, Jr., on the preparation of experimental text materials for a general freshman course in mathematics that would be more suitable for social science students. This group (originally called the Committee on the Undergraduate Program, later the Committee on the Undergraduate Program in Mathematics) maintained a very close relationship with the Council's committees on mathematical training throughout the years. Nearly all these efforts to improve materials came to fruition over a period of years,l1 and much fresh material was available when the 1955 summer seminars were held. The relationship begun with the Mathematical Association of America was especially valuable because it provided a natural outlet for the committee's recommendations on the mathematical curriculum for social science students. Members of the committee spoke at a great variety of meetings of mathematicians and applied mathematicians dealing with training. Mathematicians became aware of mathematical problems in social science. Courses especially for social science students were beginning to be given in a few mathematics departments and some subject-matter departments. Dartmouth and the University of Michigan were among the leaders, and Harvard now had Bush teaching such a course. The 1955 eight-week summer training institutes were held in four parts, two at Stanford University and two at the University of Michigan, with two sets of programs at each place, one for students who had studied at least a year of calculus and one for non-calculus students. 12 The total number of students accepted was 65. The 11 The following publications resulted: Robert R. Bush, Robert P. Abelson, and Ray Hyman, Mathematics for Psychologists: Examples and Problems, Social Science Research Council, 1956; Gerard Debreu, Theory of Values: An Axiomatic Analysis of Economic Equilibrium, John Wiley Be Sons, 1959; Samuel Goldberg, Introduction to Difference Equations: With Illustrative Examples from Economics, Psychology, and Sociology, John Wiley &: Sons, 1958; Universal Mathematics, Part I, Functions and Limits: A Book of Experimental Text Materials, preliminary edition, University of Kansas Book Store, 1954; Universal Mathematics, Part II: Structure in Sets, preliminary edition prepared by W. L. Duren, Jr. and D. R. Morrison, Tulane University, 1955. 12 The faculty at Michigan included Robert L. Davis, Gerard Debreu, Harold Kuhn, and Robert Thrall; that at Stanford, Robert R. Bush, William G. Madow, Howard Raiffa, and Patrick Suppes.
programs weut off without a hitch, or at least as nearly so as such things ever do. Although the committee recognized the need for more such training sessions, it did not believe that it should sponsor more of them because the necessary materials had now begun to become available, and the ability to conduct such programs had been shown, as mathematicians say, by an existence proof. It seemed reasonable to hope that educational organizations would offer further programs on their own initiative. Consequently the committee, with the approval of the Council's Committee on Problems and Policy, turned to the second stage of its program-providing training in the applications of mathematics to social science problems for both social scientists and teachers of undergraduate mathematics. In 1957 two summer institutes were held at Stanford. The one for social scientists had five workshop seminars with about seven students each, all engaged directly in research. The workshop on learning was directed by Bush; that on activity analysis, by Robert Dorfman; international trade, Lionel W. McKenzie; language and communication, George A. Miller; decision processes and measurement theory, Patrick Suppes. This institute was attended by alumni of the 1953 and 1955 institutes, and others with similar preparation. One product of the learning workshop was Studies in Mathematical Learning Theory, edited by Bush and William K. Estes. ls Thrall directed the second institute, essentially the one proposed to the Council by Bush in 1953, intended to acquaint college teachers of mathematics with applications of their courses to social science problems in the way they were familiar with applications in the fields of engineering and physical science. H The institute was cosponsored by the Mathematical Association of America, whose representative in the planning was Albert Tucker. Most of the mathematicians attending had 5-15 years of teaching experience. In addition to about 12 hours of lectures there were one or two workshops each week. The group also reviewed the committee's statement of recommended policies published in Items, June 1955. These two institutes completed a five-year program of the committee. As its chairman, Madow summed up progress as follows (Items, December 1957): Let us compare the present situation with that in which the committee was established. The differences are perhaps most striking in the following respects:
18 Stanford Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences, lil, Stanford University Press, 1959. U The other faculty members were William K. Estes, Tjalling Koopmans, and R. Duncan Luce.
mathematical models would be most profitably developed. And Bernard P. Cohen, Joseph Berger, and J. Laurie Snell met at Dartmouth to consider the applicability of mathematical models to research on the behavior of small groups. In 1960 the committee was reconstituted with Suppes as chairman,17 He suggested to the Council four lines of activity: a postdoctoral research fellowship program for the various social sciences, further training institutes like those held in 1957, establishing a sort of "Woods Hole" laboratory for mathematical work in the social sciences, and a new effort in the field of statistics. He reported the formation of the new Panel on Biological, Management, and Social Sciences of the Committee on the Undergraduate Program in Mathematics. This Panel, chaired by Kemeny, had a fair number of members from groups previously named. In 1964 it produced Tentative Recommendations for the Undergraduate Mathematics Program of Students in the Biological, Management, and Social Sciences. This set of recommendations assumed that students from these areas would begin with calculus, taking-in all-a basic foursemester course mathematics sequence plus a two-year Madow then went on to describe possible new direc- sequence in probability and statistics. The main areas tions of work, emphasizing that previous work had been of study were analytic geometry and calculus, including oriented primarily toward training, and that next steps both difference and differential equations, linear algeshould deal with research. In recognition of the new bra, and many-variable calculus. It was expected that in mission and of the extensive service of the members, the addition to elementary probability and statistics there old committee was disbanded and a new one appointed would be complex stochastic models. High-speed comin 1958, the Committee on Mathematics in Social Sci- puters were expected to play important roles in all areas. ence Research, with Madow as chairman.16 (Most of the people involved in the various committees By 1959 a report 16 prepared for the Committee on discussed here used high-speed computers in their work, the Undergraduate Program in Mathematics showed but computing did not become a major branch of mathethat 15 percent of students in four-year colleges had matics for these committees.) available a course in finite mathematics. This approach The "Woods Hole" idea struck a responsive chord, was new but was encouraged by both its sponsor and and it was to be the subject of many further discussions the Council's committee. not only by the SSRC committee but also by others Under the chairmanship of George A. Miller, the working in the area. The awkward point was that the committee held a three-day conference, at the Center idea of selecting anyone location, except possibly for for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences early climate and intellectual atmosphere, did not seem very in 1959, on the use of mathematics in undergraduate apt. Neither Woods Hole, Massachusetts nor any other courses in psychology. The 21 participants were psy- location was envisaged as a site. Everyone found it neceschologists who had either taught introductory psycholo- sary to explain this frequently; it was a phase we appargy in mathematical terms or planned to do so. ently had to go through. The committee also sponsored two exploratory projThe committee meanwhile developed a two-year proects initiated in the seminar of 1959. James G. March gram of (a) summer research institutes for advanced undertook to identify areas of political science where graduate students and recent recipients of the Ph.D. in social sciences who wanted to apply mathematical models in their research, and (b) senior conferences of 1G The other members during 195~O were Carl F. Christ. Sanford M.
There is greater acceptance among social scientists of the desirability. if not the need. of the study of mathematics. There is greater understanding among mathematicians that the applications of mathematics in the social sciences are serious mathematics. There is fairly general acceptance of the need for the revision of the undergraduate mathematics curriculum to make it more satisfactory for the social scientist. Texts to facilitate this development are appearing. and the number of courses is growing. There is fairly general agreement on the type of mathematics curriculum that social scientists should study. Many universities and colleges have mathematical and statistical faculty members who have worked sufficiently on applications of mathematics in the social sciences to be able to make such applications. advise others about them. and teach mathematics to social scientists. Many universities and colleges have social science faculty members who have used mathematics sufficiently in their own research to be able to guide. advise. and teach others to apply mathematics to social science problems. There is more general understanding of the role of mathematics in social science research: that it is best used when casually used. that it is not a substitute for social science thinking. that it is not a temporary development but a continuing development. The number of social scientists who use mathematics or can read mathematical social science literature has greatly increased.
Dornbusch. John G. Kemeny. James G. March. Philip J. McCarthy. George A. Miller. and Anatol Rapoport. 18 F. Mosteller. K. Choi. and J. Sedransk. A Catalog Suroey of College Mathematics Courses. CUPM Report Number 4. Mathematical Association of America. December 1961.
11 The other members during 1960-64 were David Blackwell. James S. Coleman. Clyde H. Coombs. Robert Dorfman. and Howard Raiffa; W. K. Estes served during 1960-61. and R. Duncan Luce. 1962-64; staff: Francis H. Palmer. 1960-62. and Elbridge Sibley. 1963-64.
established social scientists whose research was mathematically oriented.1s In the summer of 1962 four research institutes were held. Their subjects, chairmen, and locations were as follows: two-person interactions, Cletus Burke, at Stanford University; models of social decision-making mechanisms and their implications for political science and welfare economics, John C. Harsanyi, at Princeton University; bargaining, negotiation, and conflict, Harold W. Kuhn, at Princeton University; psychology of choice and decision, Frank Restle, at Stanford University. These sessions had a total of 41 participants plus 4 assistants. Concurrently a sequence of conferences for senior research workers was held at Stanford. The topics treated were learning theory and measurement and choice theory; 13 psychological research workers attended. During the summer of 1963 two more summer research institutes were held: on measurement and data analysis, under the chairmanship of Lincoln Moses, at Stanford University; and on mathematical models of social structure, James M. Beshers, chairman, at the University of Wisconsin. A total of 26 scholars attended these sessions. During the same summer two senior conferences were held, both at Stanford, one on psychophysics led by R. Duncan Luce and one on learning theory led by Estes and Suppes. Luce also prepared a most informative paper, "The Mathematics Used in Mathematical Psychology," 19 in which he thoughtfully discusses the role of models, fundamental measurement, probability models, learning models, preference models, psychophysical models, latency models, psychometrics, and nonnumerical models. Then in the light of these illustrations he explains aspects the student needs of fundamentals, analysis, probability theory, algebra, topology, and geometry. In the summer of 1964 the committee sponsored one research training institute and two senior conferences. At Stanford, Anatol Rapoport and Julian H. Blau conducted a six-week institute on mathematics for political scientists and sociologists. There were 25 participants. Also at Stanford, Bush and Luce held a two-month senior conference on mathematical learning theory, with 6 additional participants. At the University of Rochester Lionel McKenzie led a six-week senior conference on mathematical models of economic growth, with a daily attendance of 10-13 participants. The main topic of discussion by the committee during 1964 was the possibility of establishing an Institute 18 Funds for this program were provided by the National Science Foundation. 19 American Mathematical Monthly, April 1964. pages 364-378.
of Mathematical Social Science, essentially the "Woods Hole" idea, but adapted to mathematical work. The discussions were held jointly with the Council's Committee on Simulation of Cognitive Processes. One must not get the impression from this version of history that thought, planning, and development are limited to the specific committee assigned a task. For example, a strong push in the "Woods Hole" direction was provided in a report from the Behavioral Sciences Subpanel of the Life Sciences Panel of the President's Science Advisory Committee, entitled "Strengthening the Behavioral Sciences," April 20, 1962. It includes the following recommendation (page 14): There is a special need for summer institutes. or other shortterm instructional arrangements. to bring research workers and selected teachers up to date in new techniques and experimental procedures. Experience suggests that such arrangements would be more effective if they were set up on a relatively long-term basis and in a suitable research environment. There should be a small core staff to plan during the entire year for the instruction program as well as to work on research. As one specific step in this direction. such a special instructional program should be centered upon the application of mathematics and computers to the behavioral sciences.
The "experience" mentioned here is, of course, that of the Council's committees. At this time one natural group to consider a response to the Life Science Panel's recommendation was the Division of Social Sciences of the National Science Foundation, then headed by Henry W. Riecken, who had been a student member of the first SSRC summer training institute in mathematics (1953). And so the people involved in the future development were beginning to include scholars who had received some idea of the program by actual participation. After the usual lengthy discussions, a plan was submitted to the Divisions of Social Sciences and of Scientific Personnel and Education of the National Science Foundation with a request for $500,000 to set up an organization under the wing of, but not necessarily geographically at, the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. By now, of course, extensive negotiations were involved. Among those who worked especially hard in preparing the proposal to the Foundation were Suppes, Bush, Estes, and Luce. They were in Stanford for SSRC conferences. By accident I visited Stanford just at this time and joined some of the working sessions because Suppes could not bear to see idle hands. The name of the newly created organization turned out to be the Mathematical Social Science Board. During the period from 1964 through 1972, the Mathematical Social Science Board held 85 events, including 23
some trammg institutes, many conferences, research seminars, workshops, and so on. Some 1,900 people attended these scientific events (the total number of participants enrolled was 1,957, but some attended more than one event). A number of the events were in fields more newly concerned with applications of mathematics: anthropology, 9 events; history, 17; linguistics, 15; and political science, 7. In psychology, economics, and sociology many events continue to be held. In 1973 the support provided by the National Science Foundation was at the level of $220,000 per year; there were 30 further events, including 7 workshops on computers and information processing psychology. In addition to continuing to facilitate research by means of conferences and workshops, the Board is currently attempting to gain support to resume training (not now permitted by the NSF), not in elementary mathematics, but in more specialized techniques and models. These involve both advanced mathematics and particular techniques and models that have grown up in one area of social science but appear to be transferable to another. One example is the use of econometric models being made in history. The proposed training would probably be provided by means of small summer institutes and year-long pre- and postdoctoral fellowships. In addition, the Board is looking into the need for national facilities, such as a computer network suitable for simulation research to be available at many colleges and universities. Since the establishment of the Mathematical Social Science Board, the Council has continued to foster new developments in this field. One example of later efforts is the publication in 1973 of Structural Equations Models in the Social Sciences, edited by Arthur S. Goldberger and Otis Dudley Duncan. The production of this volume had its origin in a discussion at the Council's September 1968 meeting at Skytop, which led to a conference on causality. Out of that meeting came a research conference directed by Goldberger at the University of
Wisconsin; the volume is the product of the conference. 20 Since simultaneous equations models have become extremely important in several social sciences, this exposition is most welcome. As a result of the same 1968 discussion, the Council also sponsored preparation and publication of a forthcoming volume on social experimentation, its problems and methods. This covers planning and evaluation studies that use the experimental method (random assignment of subjects to treatment) in substantive areas such as income maintenance, education, and health. It is designed for use by managers and staff of governmental intervention programs and by social scientists who must evaluate such programs. The manuscript has been prepared by the Committee on Experimentation as a Method for Planning and Evaluating Social Intervention, chaired by Riecken. 21 Here we have followed the development of mathematical work in the social sciences in this country from very tentative training efforts to systematic large-scale programs. In 1953, in addressing the Council, I explained that the results would look meager for a long time, but that "the carefully thought out program of the Council's Committee on the Mathematical Training of Social Scientists may move us slowly to a place we will be proud of in 20 years." I think that has happened. 22 20 The conference was supported by the Russell Sage Foundation; the volume was published by Seminar Press. 21 The other members are Donald T. Campbell. Nathan Caplan. Thomas K. Glennan. Jr.â&#x20AC;˘ John W. Pratt, Albert Rees. and Walter Williams; staff: Robert F. Boruch. The volume. Sodal Experimenta. tion, edited by Riecken and Boruch. will be published by Academic Press in 1974. The project is supported by the National Science Foundation. 22 I wish to express appreciation to Michael L. Brown. William G. Cochran, Preston S. Cutler. John P. Gilbert. David C. Hoaglin, Nan Hughes. Eleanor C. Isbell. John G. Kemeny. William H. Kruskal. R. Duncan Luce. William G. Madow. George A. Miller. Franco Modigliani, Henry W. Riecken. Elbridge Sibley. Robert Thrall, and Donald R. Young for advice and new material in the preparation of this history. Preparation was facilitated by Grant 32327Xl of the National Science Foundation.
THE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH, 1949-68 by Joseph J. Spengler ""
UNDER THE effective and imaginative leadership of its chairman, Simon Kuznets, the Committee on Economic Growth functioned for nearly twenty years and contributed notably to both empirical and theoretical inquiry into economic growth and its determinants. The
committee was established 'by the Social Science Research Council in response to a memorandum submitted to it by Kuznets in 1948. In this memorandum he urged the need of a committee to explore how the study of economic growth might best be carried on, "to establish
â&#x20AC;˘ The author is James B. Duke Professor of Economics at Duke University. As a member of the board of directors of the Social Science Research Council, 1945-50. of the Committee on Problems and Policy for an even longer period. 1949-61. and as its chairman. 1958-61. he
was actively associated with the development of Council programs in many fields during those years. A member of the Committee on Economic Growth throughout its existence. 1949-68. he participated as organizer. author. or discussant of papers at many of its conferences
how -f ruitful empirical study of economic 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 framework." Kuznets pointed out that such a committee would have to include members from a variety of disciplines other than economics, since economic development was affected by many factors such as science and technology, natural resources, the efficiency of the state and other organizations and social mechanisms, and the whole pattern of culture. Three years after the termination of the committee, the Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science was awarded to Kuznets for his illuminating inquiries "into the economic and social structure and process of development." The original membership of the committee included, besides the chairman, Edgar M. Hoover, Wilbert E. Moore, J. J. Spengler, J. M. Clark, and Lauriston Sharp. In 1950 Shepard B. Clough and Morris E. Opler joined the committee, in effect succeeding Clark and Sharp. Richard Hartshorne, added in 1953, served through 1964. Melville Herskovits replaced Opler in 1955 and served until his death in 1963. Bert F. Hoselitz joined in 1954, succeeding Clough, and served through 1968. Neil J. Smelser was a member during 1960-65; Richard A. Easterlin, 1964-68; and Moses Abramovitz, 1965-68. The late Paul Webbink, Vice-President of the Social Science Research Council, was its liaison officer with the committee. Webbink contributed remarkably for two decades to the removal of all the barriers, financial and otherwise, in the way of the committee's work, and provided wise counsel as well-contributions paralleling those he made to research and its organization in many other areas of concern to the Council. BEGINNINGS The emergence of the study of economic growth into the forefront of economic inquiry found economists and other social scientists unprepared, since, as Kuznets observed, "in economics the problems of the growth of and at its 1956 Interuniversity Sumlner Research Seminar on Theories of Economic Growth, and he contributed as author or editor to the important publications that resulted. He was a member of the Committee on Grants-in-Aid, 1947-49, and of the Committee on Auxiliary Research Awards, 1961-62; a consultant to the Committee on Historiography in the preparation of its report The Social Sciences in Historical Study (Council Bulletin 64, 1954); a participant in conferences and author of papers published under the auspices of the Committee on Comparative Politics; and a participant in, and contributor to the publication that resulted from, the 1959 conference on the history of quantification in the sciences held by the Joint Committee on the History of Science (NRC - SSRC). The present article was written at the invitation of the President of the Council as part of the commemoration of its 50th anniversary year. JUNE
nations have been lying dormant practically since the middle of the nineteenth century." 1 Even so, at the time the committee was established, many forces-recent and current-were converging to intensify interest in economic development, theretofore the concern principally of economic historians. Both practical and theoretical concerns were arousing interest in economic development, among them recently expressed fears of economic stagnation and even of depopulation, increasing emphasis on "economic planning," and differing inferences from J. M. Keynes' General Theory. On the theoretical level R. F. Harrod and Evsey Domar were drawing attention to the need to dynamize Keynes' treatment of investment and thereby introduce a growth dimension. Earlier, in the later 1920's and the 1930's, inquiries carried out under the auspices of the National Bureau of Economic Research-by Kuznets, Arthur F. Burns, Frederick C. Mills, Wesley C. Mitchell, and others-had directed attention to the importance of growth phenomena. Recrudescence of interest, especially on the part of demographers, in interpretations of population growth and diffusion processes stimulated interest in turn in the nature of the growth processes that might underlie S-shaped aggregate growth curves. It was becoming evident, also, that conventional inputs did not account for all growth; thus, Tinbergen noted the significance of technical progress (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, May 1942), and T. W. Schultz was searching for the causes of unexplained increases in agricultural output. In 1940 Colin Clark published his estimates of the extent of world poverty (Conditions of Economic Progress) and called attention to the major sources of economic growth, some of them unconventional. Cobb-Douglas production functions were at hand for use by those searching for unexplained residual output and its sources. At this time there was also concern about the possible inadequacy of natural resources. The success of the Marshall Plan was raising unfounded hopes respecting the applicability of such plans in economically underdeveloped countries. The establishment of the United Nations and related international agencies, together with plans for inquiries into economic conditions and their improvability in many parts of the world, was pointing to the need for hard data and understanding of growth processes. There had long been concern in advanced countries over the weakness of forces of economic convergence and the consequent laggardness of some regions (e.g., the "South" in the United States and Italy). Accordingly, interest in the stimulation of the 1
Items, June 1959, page 13.
development of "backward" regions and in the role played therein by cities had reinforced other sources of interest in growth and development in general. Commenting in 1959 on how the economic growth of nations had "become a topic of leading concern to economists and other social scientists during the last 15 to 25 years," Kuznets found reasons for the shift of this topic into central focus to lie "in the emergence of widely perceived problems, in this instance, the danger of secular stagnation of the 'mature' capitalist economies, the challenge of forced industrialization under authoritarian auspices behind the iron curtain, the risks of failure in the struggles for development on the part of the 'underdeveloped' areas of the world." 2 The favorableness of the climate of opinion to extension and intensification of the study of growth, as well as the catholicity of the kinds of inquiry indicated, made it relatively easy to place inquiry on an interdisciplinary base. It must also have made it easier both to enlist the interest of economists and other social scientists and to win foundation support. While the Committee on Economic Growth could accomplish much more than a mere catalytic agent, its own capacities, even if reinforced by those of knowledgeable and interested individuals, were limited. But it could pursue at least five courses of action: (a) initiate inquiries into strategic or critical areas, always with the aid of competent scholars; (b) work with organized bodies whose primary concerns might overlap in some degree those of the committee; (c) carry to completion inquiries into areas by bodies which for one reason or another had not pursued them as far as was warranted by the state of the data and the importance of the problems under consideration; (d) facilitate inquiry by both individual scholars and ad hoc or organized groups into relevant areas; and (e) foster the accumulation of needed statistical and related information, past and current, by encouraging the initiation of such accumulation, where nonexistent, and the expansion of efforts at accumulation already under way. The procedure adopted by the committee was as follows: Assessment of past action and evaluation of prospective alternatives would be made at meetings for this specific purpose. When a course of action was decided upon, a subcommittee would prepare a program which would in tum be examined and presumably approved with modification by the whole committee. Steps would then be taken to identify and select participants and deal with logistical problems. Upon completion of an activity (e.g., a conference), the worthwhileness and feasibility of publication of the findings would be considered. Not all the projects proposed could be brought 21bid.
to fruition, because of lack of data or other conditions. For example, the role played by large corporations in the economies of small countries, today a subject of inquiry under United Nations auspices, did not prove as easy of examination as anticipated. Similarly, study of cultural conditions bearing on growth in nonmodern countries did not prove sufficiently feasible. A great deal of groundwork remained to be done after 1948. There had been considerable inquiry into growth, of course, even though much theoretical and empirical work remained to be undertaken before many effective studies could be launched. This had been indicated by Abramovitz 8 and by participants in a UniversitiesNational Bureau Committee for Economic Research conference held in 1948. Kuznets noted, in his foreword to the volume that resulted from that conference, "the relative scarcity of sustained empirical work, and the absence of an agreed upon body of theoretical hypotheses concerning factors determining economic growth." 4 Since a comparative quantitative approach was essential to the making of international comparisons and the derivation of explanatory information, it was essential that competent scholarly personnel be enlisted in West European countries, Japan, and Australia to undertake studies in these countries for comparison with one another and with those made in the United States and Canada. Wider historical perspective was thus gained,1I not only in the wealth and income growth studies outside the United States, for the promotion of which Kuznets assumed responsibility, but also in the committee's final series of studies of postwar economic growth, directed by Kuznets and Abramovitz. CONFERENCES AND SEMINARS A major instrument of the committee was the interdisciplinary conference focused on a set of the factors which affected or might affect economic growth. Interuniversity summer seminars were also considered, but only one of these was held, under the leadership of Bert F. Hoselitz, at Dartmouth College, during part of the summer of 1956.6 Sixteen major conferences, eight of them jointly cosponsored with other organizations, were held during the years 1951-64. Their visible products were of six kinds: (I) 11 books embodying the papers presented, usually with revisions growing out of conference dis8 "Economics of Growth" in B. F. Haley, ed., if Survey of Contemporary Economics, Richard D. Irwin, 1952. 4 Problems in the Study of Economic Growth, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1949. B See Kuznets's accounts in Items, December 1955 and June 1959. o It resulted in Theories of Economic Growth, Free Press, 1960, edited by Hoselitz.
cussion; (2) conference papers published in appropriate journals; (3) the setting in motion of streams of inquiry that eventually found expression in the research publi.. cations of participants: (4) opportunities to explore the multifacetedness of growth and developmental processes and become aware of the diverse contributions that could be made by various disciplines; (5) as a sequel to these opportunities, identification of areas of "modernization" (e.g., politics and government) in need of fuller study by other social scientists than economists; (6) stress on quantification insofar as feasible and pursuable without undue simplistic abstraction. There follows a list of these conferences, their subjects, locations, dates, and cosponsorship (if any), and indication of the publications resulting. It is evident that in some degree earlier conferences discovered gaps in knowledge that later conferences were designed to fill. (1) Quantitative Description of Technological Change, Princeton University, April 6-8, 1951, cosponsored by the Council's Committee on Social Implications of Atomic Energy and Technological Change. Papers were published by Joseph L. Fisher, W. R. Maclaurin, and Jacob Schmookler. Two of Schmookler's later studies were continuations of his papers presented at the conference,7 as was the later conference on inventive activity in 1960 (see below). (2) Economic Growth in Selected Countries-Brazil, India, and Japan, New York City, April 25-27, 1952. The papers were edited by Simon Kuznets, W. E. Moore, and J. J. Spengler and published as Economic Growth: Brazil, India, Japan, Duke University Press, 1955. (8) Strategic Factors in Periods of Rapid Economic Growth, New York City, April 9-10, 1954. Papers were published by Henry G. Aubrey, Shepard B. Clough, and Penelope Hartland. (4) The Role of Cities in Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago, May 24-26, 1954, cosponsored by the University's Research Center in Economic Development and Cultural Change. The papers were published in Economic Development and Cultural Change, 1954-55, under the editorship of Hoselitz. (5) Investment Criteria and Economic Growth, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for International Studies (cosponsor), October 15-17, 1954. The collected papers were made available in photo-offset, by the Center. (6) Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth, Harvard University Research Center in Entrepreneurial History (cosponsor), November 12-18, 1954. Papers were published by John Pelzel, Fritz Redlich, and Charles Wilson. (7) The State and Economic Growth, New York City, October 11-12, 1956. The papers were edited by Hugh G. J. Aitken and published by the Council as The State and Economic Growth,1959. (S) Commitment of the Industrial Labor Force in Newly Developing Areas, Chicago, March 2S-30, 1955. The papers T Invention and Economic Growth, Harvard University Press, 1966, and Patents, Invention, and Economic Change, edited by Zvi Griliches and Leonid Hurwicz, Harvard University Press, 1972.
were edited by W. E. Moore and A. S. Feldman and published by the Council as Labor Commitment and Social Change in Developing Areas, 1960. (9) Natural Resources and Economic Growth, University of Michigan, April 7-9, 1960, cosponsored by Resources for the Future, Inc. The papers were edited by Spengler and published as Natural Resources and Economic Growth, Resources for the Future, 1961. (10) Economic and So~ial Factors Determining the Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, University of Minnesota, May 12-14, 1960, cosponsored by the Universities-National Bureau Committee for Economic Research. The papers were published as The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, Princeton University Press, 1962. (11) Relations between Agriculture and Economic Growth, Stanford University, November 11-12, 1960. Papers were published by William H. Nicholls, Philip M. Raup, and Boris C. Swerling. (12) Economic Trends in the Soviet Union, Princeton, May 6-S, 1961. The proceedings were edited by Abram Bergson and Simon Kuznets and published as Economic Trends in the Soviet Union, Harvard University Press, 1968. (18) Economies of Sub-Saharan Africa, Northwestern University, November 16-18, 1961. The papers were edited by Melville J. Herskovits and Mitchell Harwitz and published as Economic Transition in Africa, Northwestern University Press, 1964. (14) The Role of Education in the Early Stages of Economic Development, University of Chicago Comparative Education Center (cosponsor), April 4-5, 1968. The papers were edited by C. A. Anderson and Mary Jean Bowman and published as Education and Economic Development, AIdine Publishing Company, 1965. (15) Demographic and Economic Trends in the Developing Countries, New York City, October 10-12, 1968, cosponsored by the Population Council. This conference was a sequel to an earlier one sponsored by the UnivesritiesNational Bureau Committee for Economic Research. Papers were published by Paul Demeny, M. A. EI-Badry, Carmen A. Mir6, and George J. Stolnitz. (16) Social Structure, Social Mobility, and Economic Develop. ment, San Francisco, January 80 - February 1, 1964. The papers were edited by Neil J. Smelser and S. M. Lipset and published as Social Structure and Mobility in Economic Development, Aldine Publishing Company, 1966.
FOREIGN PUBLICATIONS The results of the research of foreign scholars, whose participation in the committee's earlier series of studies was enlisted by Kuznets as its chairman, have been of especial importance for subsequent research in its field. The published reports are far too numerous to list here, including over 50 articles, monographs, and chapters of books, by some 25 scholars from a dozen countries, in at least 7 languages. (Lists of all publications that have resulted from the committee's activities are available from the Council upon request.) With acceleration of economic growth after World War II, the committee in 1963, in response to interest 27
expressed by the Ford Foundation,8 undertook sponsor- Capital, and Growth: Selected Essays, W. W. Norton & ship of parallel studies of the sources of this postwar Co., 1973. economic growth in the United States, Japan, and four European countries-France, Germany, Italy, the CONCLUSION United Kingdom-to which Sweden was later added. A It is not possible within the compass of a short report meeting of the European and other scholars engaged in to enumerate or assess the contributions of the comthis undertaking was held in London in January 1964, mittee's efforts to the development and improvement the better to coordinate the studies and overcome com- of the study of economic growth. The publications mon deficiencies. Not all of these studies have been resulting from the activities of the committee have incompleted, but some 20 published reports have appeared creased manyfold our knowledge of the forces shaping and more are in preparation. growth and development in the West and in Japan since and even before the early nineteenth century. They present much of this knowledge in quantitative terms, thus KUZNETS' PUBLICATIONS enabling students to sift out the separate contributions Since Kuznets was the leading spirit in the commit- of various kinds of inputs while appreciating the longtee's work and in its efforts to launch studies in various time dimensions of some of the forces at work. The countries, many of his growth-oriented studies completed studies make for caution against accepting at face value during the lifetime of the committee are integrally re- some of the commonly employed indicators of developlated to its work. Other than his several papers included ment and welfare and against too exclusive resort to in the conference volumes already cited and a series on simplistic models whence recalcitrant elements have the "Quantitative Aspects of the Economic Growth of been abstracted. From the standpoint of the Council, Nations," which appeared as supplements to issues of especially important is the evidence of the complexity Economic Development and Cultural Change, 1957-67, of growth processes, of the inadequacy of any particular Kuznets' major publications relating to economic growth discipline to cope satisfactorily with this complexity, and included the following: Six Lectures on Economic of the need for solid interdisciplinary approaches to Growth, Free Press, 1959; Postwar Economic Growth: many of the problems faced, some old and some precipiFour Lectures, Belknap Press of Harvard University tates of the growth process itself. Press, 1964; Economic Growth and Structure: Selected By way of closing this report and giving assurances to Essays, W. W. Norton & Co., 1965; Modern Economic scholars, employed and unemployed, that much remains Growth: Rate, Structure, and Spread, Yale University to be done, I can do no better than refer the reader to Press, 1966; Economic Growth of Nations, Belknap Simon Kuznets' Nobel Memorial Lecture entitled "ModPress of Harvard University Press, 1971; Population, em Economic Growth: Findings and Reflections" 9 and addressed to (among other aspects) the social implications of modem economic growth, the significance of S As reported by Paul Webbink, Items, December 1971, page 42, "The committee's initial modest outlays were defrayed from Council funds. what is known for less developed countries, and the Subsequently the Rockefeller Foundation enabled Simon Kuznets to problems emerging in both more and less advanced spend half of his time during five years on research on economic growth, a contribution later taken over by the Ford Foundation, which countries. also provided generous funds for most of the committee's foreign studies and its conferences."
o Reprinted, American Economic Review, June 1973, pages 247-258.
JAPANESE INDUSTRIALIZATION AND ITS SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES: A REPORT ON THE CONFERENCE HELD ON AUGUST 20-24, 1973 by Hugh Patrick â&#x20AC;˘ JAPANESE economic development has been a source of fascination for foreigners and Japanese alike, not only in its purely economic context and in a broader social,
political, and cultural context but also for purposes of international comparison. Much research by economists has focused on establishing the general contours of
â&#x20AC;˘ The author is Professor of Economics at Yale University. At the invitation of the Joint Committee on Japanese Studies, American Council of Learned Societies and Social Science Research Council, he
served as chairman of the committee named by it to plan the conference on which he reports here, and he is editing the conference papers Cor publication by the University of California Press.
japan's process of economic growth in quite aggregative terms. Even discussions of industrialization-particularly those in Western languages-have tended to be aggregative in nature. At the same time other social scientists have examined other features of the process of Japanese change, usually taking as given the concurrent process of economic development. When in 1969 the Joint Committee on Japanese Studies decided to sponsor a series of conferences on various aspects of contemporary Japanese development, industrialization and its social consequences for modem Japan was one of the five topics selected. The writer was invited to organize an international conference on this topic, with the assistance of a committee which included John W. Bennett, Solomon Levine, Kazushi Ohkawa, Henry Rosovsky, Koji Taira, Tsunehiko Watanabe, Kozo Yamamura, and Yasukichi Yasuba. The conference of 28 economists, sociologists, and anthropologists from Japan, the United States, England, and Israel was held on August 20-24, 1973 at the University of Washington Continuing Education Center.1 The theme of Japanese industrialization and its social consequences is broad in scope and in time. In planning the conference, we attempted to cover the entire period from the Meiji era (1868-1912) to the present. Inevitably, we had to limit the topics to be considered. The authors of papers were asked to examine certain industries and selected aspects of industrialization itself, and to focus mainly on how selected social factors have been changing in Japan in response to the process of industrialization. We excluded from formal consideration the other side of the coin: the social causes of industrialization, as distinct from consequences. All recognized that much of the social change that has occurred in Japan over the past hundred years is intimately connected with the process of industrialization in very complex, interactive chains of causality. 1 The American participants in the conference were John W. Dennett, Washington University; Martin Dronfenbrenner, Duke University; Robert E. Cole, University of Michigan; Susan B. Hanley, University of Washington: Solomon Levine, University of Wisconsin: Larry Meissner, Yale University; James Nakamura, Columbia University: Hugh Patrick, chairman of the conference: William V. Rapp, Morgan Guarantee Trust Company: Henry Rosovsky, Harvard University: Gary Saxonhouse, University of Michigan: David L. Sills, Social Science Research Council; Koji Taira, University of illinois at Urbana-Champaign: John Wisnom, University of Washington: KOlO Yamamura, University of Washington. The Japanese participants were Masayoshi Chubachi, Keio University; Hiroshi Hazama, Tokyo Kyoiku University: Ryoshin Minami, Hitotsubashi University; Chie Nakane, Tokyo University: Hiroshi Ohbuchi, Chuo University: Kazushi Ohkawa, Hitotsubashi University (emeritus): Akira Ono, Seikei University: Michio Sumiya, Tokyo University; Ken'ichi Tominaga, Tokyo University: Tsunehiko Watanabe, Osaka University: Yasukichi Yasuba, Kyoto University. Tuvia Blumenthal, Tel-Aviv University, and Ronald P. Dore, Univenity of Sussex, also participated in the conference.
Twelve papers provided the foci for the conference discussions. Participants were expected to have read the papers in advance, so it was not necessary for authors to present them. Instead, two or three discussants presented prepared comments on each paper; the author was given the opportunity to reply; and a general discussion followed. The discussions were extraordinarily frank, direct, friendly, critical, and interdisciplinary_ It was not a conference in which most Japanese participants took one position and most American participants took another. Americans criticized Americans and Japanese; Japanese criticized Japanese and Americans. I believe the fine rapport was achieved both because of the high level of professionalism of the participants and because most of them already knew each other. The conference papers can be classified in several ways. Three dealt with important features of three industries, each of which has been significant in Japan's industrialization process and each of which displays characteristics different from the others. Gary Saxonhouse examined labor force recruitment and technological diffusion in the cotton-spinning industry; Tuvia Blumenthal analyzed the growth of, technological induction in, and the role of government in the development of the shipbuilding industry; and Kozo Yamamura examined the origins and growth of the large, general trading firms. Three papers compared aspects of the economies of scale and production in large and small firms, a theme that came up in many contexts throughout the conference. R yoshin Minami stressed the significance of electrification and particularly the development of small electric motors in enabling small firms to compete on relatively less disadvantageous terms with large firms. Yasukichi Yasuba tackled the problems of the emergence and widening of wage differentials by size of firm in a number of industries in both the prewar and postwar periods. William Rapp examined the evolving structure of export production and industrial development in terms of the changing shares of small and large firms in exports. A major purpose of the conference was to break new ground in exploration of the social consequences of Japanese industrialization, which are many, varied, complex, and on the whole relatively unexplored, at least in publications in Western languages_ Perhaps one of the most fundamental changes in Japan is summed up as "demographic transition"; Japanese population growth initially accelerated with industrialization, and the patterns of fertility and mortality have changed dramatically. Hiroshi Ohbuchi considered this transition, with particular emphasis on the socioeconomic forces bringing it about. In another path-breaking effort, Akira Ono 29
and Tsunehiko Watanabe examined changes in income ticipated the effects of industrialization and urbanizadistribution, particularly between rural and urban areas, tion on fertility and mortality rates? With regard to methodology, it may be noted that as a consequence of the process of industrialization. although few papers were explicitly comparative, on This, too, is an area in which data are poor and not much research has been done on either the historical the whole the approach was quite comparative. There or the postwar period. Masayoshi Chubachi and Koji were few assertions that the Japanese were either unique Taira examined the concept and facts of poverty, par- or were just like Westerners. It was pointed out that ticularly urban poverty, over the course of Japanese surplus labor and wage differentials by size of firm are industrialization-another important area of research. characteristic of certain developing countries, as well The authors of two papers looked at the occupational as of Japan. On the other hand, the evolution of the genstructure and life styles of the labor force. Hiroshi eral trading company to its prewar and contemporary Hazama summarized and generalized from his monu- roles is an institutional development not replicated elsemental research (published in Japanese) on the evolu- where. The participants noted that Japanese firms were tion of life styles of industrial workers. Robert Cole and particularly skilled at absorbing foreign technology, alKen'ichi Tominaga examined the changing occupa- though all were puzzled as to how and why. In retrospect it seems that the conference was domitional structure of Japanese workers and the relative importance of the concept of "occupation" in Japan. nated by two interrelated themes: the conditions of In the final paper, John Bennett and Solomon Levine people as industrial workers (in contradistinction, say, attempted to expand upon the social consequences iden- to consumers or farmers), and differences between large tified in other papers and to provide their own over-all enterprises and small. This was mainly the consequence assessment. They concentrated particularly on the en- of the topics selected for papers, of the choice of vironmental .impacts of Japanese industrialization in authors, and particularly the choice of participants. It terms of both social costs and public response. Since was clear throughout the conference that the most sigtheir paper had to build upon the others prepared for nificant "interfacing" of knowledge, methodology, and the conference, they were able to present it only in interests among the participants from different social tentative form, focusing mainly on the environmental sciences had to do with workers-their life styles, occuissues that have developed in the postwar period. Revi- pations, mobility, distribution by sex, wage differentials sion of their paper is under way on the basis of the other and the causes thereof, etc. The discussions were on papers and the authors' own further research. the whole fruitful but not always conclusive. It is not possible here to summarize each of the conference papers; rather, some of the themes touched upon LARGE AND SMALL ENTERPRISES in a number of papers and in the discussions will be examined and stressed. The participants noted how certain constellations of The discussions fortunately did not bog down in dis- features characterized particular phenomena when data putes over methodology or terminology. Happily, the were not adequate to determine either essential features participants steered away from such vague and complex or the relative importance of various features. For exconcepts as "modernization versus Westernization" and ample, large firms were described as having new, usually "modern versus traditional," although they did consider imported technologies, skilled male labor, more capital the concepts of "economic dualism" and "paternalism." per worker, higher output per worker, higher wages, While trying to isolate certain issues and utilize case and a special life style-in comparison with small enterstudies fully, the participants struggled with the prob- prises. Large firms were also described as either more lem of recognizing that everything relating to the con- or less paternalistic than small, according to the definiference topic depends on everything else. This was true tion used. Nakane stressed the involvement of close not only in an input-output sense-that the use of elec- personal relationships in paternalism, with discretionary tric motors by small enterprises depended on both modes of behavior making it applicable mainly to small electrification and a motor-producing industry, and that firms. Dore and Cole contrasted this kind of paternalism shipbuilding and innovations in that industry depended with the "managerial" or "institutional" paternalism of on the availability and improved quality of steel, for large firms in which benefits are determined by iminstance-but also true of interdependence among a personal rules rather than by personal relationships. host of economic and social variables. Many of the con- Yasuba suggested that large firms have to pay higher sequences of industrialization have been unintended, or wages and fringe benefits to compensate for their lack certainly not well understood when they first appeared. of paternalism. Minami regarded this as one aspect of Who, for example, a hundred years ago would have an- a fundamental behavioral difference between large and 30
small (family-owned) enterprises: large firms can be characterized as attempting predominantly to maximize economic goals (profits, growth), while owners of small firms, especially those using unpaid family workers, do not behave as economic maximizers but as the urban equivalents of agricultural households concerned with total income and average income-sharing rather than with marginalist calculations. Participants generally agreed with the propositions on large firms; but the characterization of small firms remained in dispute-a manifestation of the "economic dualism" controversy between those who characterize Japan as having gone through a classical surplus-labor economy phase and those who reject that interpretation in favor of a neoclassicist historical model of abundant labor with low productivity and wages equal to its marginal product. Minami's position reflects his synthesis of two quite different ways in which the participants, following the rather confused literature, used the concept of economic dualism. At one point in the conference they were asked to write down their definitions of dualism, and these were then circulated to clarify use of the concept. One use stressed the phenomenon of wage differentials by size of firm within the same industry. The other concept of dualism was the classical two-sector case, in which labor in the modern, manufacturing, large-enterprise sector is paid its marginal product because owners are profit maximizers, and (surplus) labor in the traditional, agricultural, smal1-scale sector receives more than its marginal profit because owners behave according to some sharing, average, or institutional (constant institutional wage) principle different from profit maximizing. This second concept was in the background of most of the discussion, but was explicitly incorporated into the papers by Minami and by Ono and Watanabe. The latter associated the postwar narrowing of income differentials with the ending of the surplus labor phase of Japan's development. WAGE DIFFERENTIALS The wage differential issue IS Important in understanding not only the historical process of development in Japan, but the continuing process in many countries today, since it is a quite general phenomenon with notable implications for policy in resource allocation. We all well understand that some wage differentials are inevitable and desirable, for example, differentials arising from occupational differences in skill requirements and in attractiveness of work. These differentials are associated with evolving demands for different types of labor and with evolving supplies of such labor based on education and on-the-job training. One might also expect JUNE
regional differences in wages because of local labor markets, moving costs, and differences in cost of living. Dualism in wage differentials refers to contexts in which they remain-typically by size of firm or by sexeven after adjustments are made for differences in labor skills, abilities, regions, and types of work. Yasuba in his path-breaking study found that even after standardization for labor skills, wage differentials by size of firm do exist; they started prior to World War I (earlier than previously throught); and they widened within given industries and increased among industries by the 1930's. The conference did not consider the explanations of wage differentials by sex, a topic on which little research on Japan has been done. Part of the problem is that men and women are usually in different occupational categories; relatively few occupations employ both male and female workers. The writer's own view is that sex discrimination occurs in Japan not so much in paying women lower wages than men for the same work as in preventing women from entering or being promoted into more highly skilled occupations, and in giving women lesser wage increments by seniority, lesser retirement benefits, and the like. A further economic explanation of wage differentials lies in capital market imperfections, whereby differentials by size of firm in availability and cost of borrowed funds are greater than differences in degrees of risk of default and in transaction costs of loans. Several papers alluded to evidence that large firms not only have been able to borrow funds at substantially lower interest rates than small firms, but also have greater access to funds. This makes it profitable for large firms to use relatively more capital and less labor than small firms. Two theoretical implications, supported by empirical evidence, are that the profit per unit of capital would be lower in large firms, and that output per worker would be greater in large firms. These capital market imperfections may result from a variety of possible causes: ignorance of actual risks, a high degree of risk aversion, governmental restrictions on interest rates and on operations of financial institutions, non-profit-maximizing behavior by large financial institutions, and/or the oligopolistic power of financial institutions. One analytical dilemma is that while capital market imperfections make it possible for large firms to have more capital and output per worker, there is no explanation of why management actually pays workers more. Clearly more than ability to pay has to be involved. A number of plausible causes of wage differentials by size of firm after adjustment for normal economic explanations were discussed. Cole made the important point that forces which may have caused wage differentials initially do not necessarily explain their continu31
ation, or their widening or narrowing. The participants also recognized the importance of distinguishing conceptually and empirically between issues concerning the existence of such dualism and issues concerning its degree, both in number of workers involved and in the size of wage differentials. As causes of wage differentials, Dore and others emphasized institutional features that distinguish large firms from small. Dore pointed to the practices by large firms of hiring workers directly from school, providing formal on-the-job training, and seniority wage increments; to changes in labor legislation; and in the postwar period to the rise of unions. Many economists, particularly Taira, have stressed that the development of permanent employment and seniority increments before World War I, which became more widespread among large firms in the 1920's and 1930's, were rational efforts by management to reduce costs of labor turnover and especially the loss of skilled workers. Thus, these institutional patterns were deliberately created by profitmaximizing entrepreneurs; yet when firmly established, they have taken on an independent character. They are now institutions and have to be accepted as givens by large enterprises. And they have had considerable social consequences, for example, on workers' life styles. Another variable important in the explanation of wage differentials, according to Yasuba, was the process of induction of foreign technology. Virtually all Japanese industries relied on foreign technology. Large firms, not small, typically imported foreign technology and adapted it to their specific organizations. Such technology required skilled labor, which in part was trained on the job. While some of the skills may have been general enough to be transferred if the worker moved to another firm, some were specific to the particular firm's technology; thus the worker was more productive in that firm than elsewhere. Moreover, the process of diffusion of technology to smaller firms, or indeed to other large firms, was relatively slow. A firm benefited from keeping skilled workers by paying higher wages, recouping the costs of training workers from that component of their higher productivity that was specific to the firm and hence did not have to be paid out in wages. This theory is supported by Yasuba's evidence that wage differentials were more predominant in industries undergoing rapid technological change. However, one would expect that once an innovation has been diffused to all firms, the productivity differentials and wage differentials would disappear. Thus, to explain the persistence of wage differentials, either firm-specific differences in technology that benefit large firms must persist, or the Bow of technology importation and innovation by large firms must be continuous. S2
This theory is also supported by Saxonhouse's negative evidence on the cotton-spinning industry. Its technology was indeed foreign; virtually all spindles were imported until 1925 from one British company, which maintained a staff of engineers in Japan. The technology did not change rapidly and it was relatively easy to learn. Moreover, Boren, the Cotton Spinners Trade Association (a cartel), diffused innovations rapidly among all cotton-spinning firms through technical publications, exchange of engineers, and the like. Thus, there were no firm-specific technologies that required firm-specific skills. A firm would not hesitate to hire a competent worker away from another firm. And what do we find? No system of permanent employment of production workers, low seniority increments (presumably reflecting the learning-by-doing that occurred), apparently relatively small wage differentials by size of firm, and continuing high turnover of each cohort of entering workers even after factory living conditions improved over the early years of this century (about half of the new entrants left the firm within six months). In other words, where there was no technological gap, wage differentials were not significant. This is all very neat-except for the fact that the cotton spinners were female, typically young and unmarried. One might argue that in Japan, even in the early stages of industrialization, women were not expected to work permanently to become highly skilled. They were expected to work for a few years and then quit to marry. So perhaps the firm-size wage differential is a phenomenon that developed primarily for males; as permanent employment and seniority increments become increasingly institutionalized in the postwar period, female workers in large firms also benefit, but much less than their male counterparts. This example points to a major difficulty in the analysis of wage differentials and of many other phenomena: there are a number of plausible explanations. It is difficult to assess the relative importance of each because data-particularly for the prewar years-are inadequate, and insufficient research has been done. Moreover, one has to be cautious in specifying the structure of causal relationships; there may well be synergistic interactions among various causal variables. The dichotomizing between large and small firms, and their workers, is overly simplistic in several respects. In size, enterprises of course range from miniscule to gigantic. However, many of the differential features we have noted do change smoothly as the size of firm changes. More important, such dichotomizing may seem to imply greater homogeneity in, say, large enterprises than in fact has existed. This was demonstrated quite clearly in the industry studies reported and in Hazama's paper on the evolving life style of industrial (blue collar) VOLUME
workers, all of which referred mainly to relatively large firms. LIFE STYLES OF WORKERS
male workers' morality, concerned too that they would become pregnant. Bad living conditions no doubt accounted for the high rates at which girls ran away from their factory jobs. Saxonhouse found that improvements in living conditions made by large firms in the 1920's and 1930's did nothing to slow down the runaway rate. Apparently these problems have been less severe in postwar Japan. Two points are worth mentioning: (1) Differences between large and small firms in industries which predominantly hire female workers are less than in male-oriented industries. (2) The expectations of young, unmarried females in large enterprises appear not to have changed substantially. Most plan to marry (now an industrial worker, rather than a farmer-a reflection of where the men are), to quit work when they marry, and to adopt the life style of their husband's colleagues. Recently the proportion of married female workers in industry has increased to over 50 percent; most are middle-aged workers who have returned to employment in smaller firms. In the early phase of industrialization mine workers often were drifters, dropouts from society, hired via subcontracting arrangements with labor bosses, given to hedonism in consumption and in the use of leisure time. Eventually to some degree they evolved into, or more likely were replaced by, large-enterprise-type workers. As drifter types they fall out of Hazama's analysis. Presumably their refuge was low-wage, small firms. At worst they became merged with the urban poor studied by Chubachi and Taira. Chubachi and Taira note the special poverty problems of minority groups in Japan-burakumin, Koreans, Ainu, Okinawans-but focus mainly on the mainstream urban poor, especially in ghettos. The urban poor have a distinctive life style, though not necessarily a "culture of poverty" which is inescapable. Theirs is a poverty of the working poor; in developing countries the poor cannot afford not to work. The occupational characteristics of the very poor in Japan evolved over time in response to the changing demands of industrialization. Traditionally they were rickshaw pullers, day laborers, street vendors, scavengers. As some occupations died away, more became day laborers, especially in construction-related activities, and wage earners, probably in miniscule units of production (simple manufacturing). With the ending of labor abundance and with ever growing prosperity, the mainstream urban poor are disappearing in terms of both income and status.
Hazama delineated three modal types of workers, and their respective life styles, in the early phase of industrialization: relatively skilled male workers in machinery and shipbuilding; female workers in textiles; and male workers in mining. The first category of workers emanated in considerable part from artisan occupations, with their life styles based on skills, high mobility, high consumption, and short time horizons. Gradually they evolved into "large-enter prise-type workers," diligent, stable, more family-oriented, concerned with security, and with new patterns of consumption and use of leisure time. (They learned their life styles largely from government workers and white collar workers in large firms.) Today their lives are built around their company, their union, and their family. This type of worker has not only increased in absolute numbers and as a proportion of the labor force; more importantly, he appears as a model whose life style workers in small enterprises attempt to emulate. He is the pacesetter in Japanese life styles, patterns of consumption, tastes, and other forms of behavior and values. As Chubachi and Taira put it, "Japan is as solidly a middle-class society today as any country in the world." One has been tempted in the past to dismiss female industrial workers as an unimportant category, only temporarily employed, with no distinctive life style, ana~ lytically uninteresting. An unexpected feature of the conference was the rehabilitation, as it were, of analysis of the role of women in Japan's industrialization. Cole and Tominaga emphasized that a high proportion of Japanese factory labor was female: over 50 percent until the early 1930's according to the census of manufactures, somewhat less when workers in the very small firms excluded from the census are counted. Women have worked predominantly in textiles, and in the postwar period in electronics and other light manufacturing. Before World War II they were usually recruited from rural villages. They have lived in company dormitories, with life styles dominated by the firm. The history of the evolution of the female factory workers' life style has been one of gradual improvements in company-provided living facilities, reduction in work hours, and lessening of company restrictions on personal freedom. In Hazama's words, "the life style in the textile industry has been criticized as approximating that of a THREE INDUSTRIES COMPARED desert which drove female factory workers to satisfying their hunger and their sexual desires by having trysts The heterogeneity of large enterprises and their workwith men." Management voiced great fear for their fe- ers is not only in life styles. Case studies of the cottonJUNE
spinning industry, shipbuilding, and the general trad- japan's population-essentially all of the increase has ing companies reveal significant similarities as well as been in urban areas. Both accelerated population differences. In all three industries large firms are pre- growth and increased urbanization have been consedominant. The economic importance of these industries quences of industrialization; in turn they have had has been substantial over the course of Japanese devel- further significant, complex social consequences. No opment. In a sense, modern industrialization began and paper prepared for the conference dealt directly with thrived until World War II with cotton spinning; now urbanization, but it underlay Hazama's discussion of the cotton has been largely replaced by synthetics. Ship- evolution of workers' life styles, Cole and Tominaga's building, with an equally long history, has emerged as paper on changes in occupational structure, and of a major world competitor, producing half the world's course Chubachi and Taira's treatment of the urban merchant ships over the past decade. General trading poor-to cite only a few examples. companies not only have long been important, but their Industrialization and urbanization were significant role is probably growing. All three industries have been causes of the decline in fertility observed since 1925. importantly involved in foreign trade. Women married later. Gross reproduction rates were As for major differences, workers are mainly white lower in industrial than in agricultural prefectures and collar in trading companies, male skilled (blue collar) declined more rapidly. These factors are probably also in shipbuilding, and female semiskilled in cotton spin- important in explaining the increases in fertility and in ning. Life styles historically were different but, as we population growth rates during the Meiji era, though have seen, they have become increasingly homogeneous the data are too meager to test hypotheses. Ohbuchi in many respects. All three industries relied initially on made the conference participants aware of the current foreign sources of technology and know-how. This tech- controversy over Meiji population statistics in appraisnology was largely embodied in imported machinery in ing the relative merits of several different projections. cotton spinning, less so in shipbuilding, and even less so Ohbuchi also used cross-section regressions over time in trading. Reliance on foreign technology decreased to test the effects of industrialization, urbanization, level sharply in cotton spinning in the 1920's, while it has con- of income, education, mortality, and housing on the tinued to be important in shipbuilding, though perhaps decline in postwar fertility by age groups. He was able domestic adaptation and improvement have had great- to explain about two thirds of the differential fertility er impact. In trading companies, the high reliance on by regions for the 1950's, and somewhat less for the foreign methods had declined by 1900. 1960's. Industrialization was the means of increasing family Most important, perhaps, have been industry-specific differences in the nature and degree of government sup- incomes and hence levels of living, providing the maport. On the whole, the cotton-spinning industry de- terial resources for changes in life style. Increases veloped without special government assistance. In in incomes and consumption were moderate, with contrast, the shipbuilding industry has always relied some setbacks, until World War II. The war was disheavily on government support-military orders before astrous; it took some 17 years to restore living levels. the war, direct subsidies, subsidies to Japanese shipping However, rises in average levels tell nothing about firms buying Japanese-built ships, subsidies in the form changes in the distribution of income, what is happening of low-interest export credits to foreign buyers. The to certain groups absolutely and relatively. It is possible trading companies are an intermediate case. They were that all the benefits of industrialization accrue to only subsidized heavily in the nineteenth century in order to a few, but that does not appear to be true in an absolute reduce the share of foreign trading firms in Japan's sense even for prewar Japan. It appears that the material trade. Since then they have perhaps been on their own. living conditions of virtually all Japanese improved beHow long it took these industries to become competitive tween the early Meiji years and the mid-1930's. Howis of interest: within about 15 years cotton spinning ever, this is far from completely demonstrated; we need firms were exporting substantially; it took shipbuilding to know more about the rural poor and the poor among some 70 years. minorities. Yet the inequality of income distribution widened up to the mid-1930's, within both agriculture and other sectors, as higher-income families became relaSOCIAL CONSEQUENCES tively better off. After World War II the distribution The social consequences of Japanese industrialization of income became significantly more nearly equal, a have been profound, but our understanding of them consequence of zaibatsu dissolution and land reform in is tentative and far from conclusive. For example, a inflationary circumstances and, in the last 15 years, of basic feature of the past century has been the tripling of the ending of abundant labor supplies with attendant lI4
sharp rises in wages, especially for relatively unskilled workers. Data on income distribution are abysmally poor for the prewar period, and poor even for the postwar period. Probably equally important have been the major changes in the distribution of wealth. Owners of land and corporate stock have gained dramatically in comparison with holders of bonds, loans, and savings deposits. In organizing the conference we were well aware that there have been many social costs of Japanese industrialization, but we did not attempt to provide a comprehensive accounting of those costs. Their estimation is empirically and conceptually difficult (as is true of social benefits, too). What is one group's benefit may be ano~her group's loss. Comparisons and weighting involve value judgments. For example, do we regard the increase in importance of nuclear families-a consequence of industrialization-as good or bad? Or, how do we compare increases in absolute incomes with worsening in relative income distribution? Chubachi and Taira, in
examining urban poverty, concluded that it was not caused by industrialization; indeed, the urban poor are eventually absorbed-but probably the last and the least to benefit. On the other hand, the absolute worsening of the environment-pollution of air, water, and land, crowding, and the like-is a social cost of growth, a cost which only recently, as income levels have risen and pollution explosively increased, has become widely perceived. Good research begets frustration as well as temporary euphoria. It heightens awareness of unanswered questions, and the need for further research. The conference demonstrated that Western knowledge of the Japanese economy and society has come a long way from that of prewar years or even a decade ago. We have a much stronger core of knowledge from which to operate. Yet, we must admit that Western social scientific knowledge and understanding of Japan are still rudimentary. It is hoped that the conference will stimulate fresh efforts in research on the issues discussed by its participants.
PERSONNEL FREDERICK BURKHARDT TO RETIRE AS PRESIDENT OF ACLS The retirement this summer of Frederick Burkhardt as President of the American Council of Learned Societies and hence as collaborator in many joint enterprises of the ACLS and SSRC is deeply regretted by officers and staff of the SSRC who have been privileged to be associated with him in these activities. The 17 years of his presidency have seen a remarkable growth and strengthening of the relations between the two Councils, centered mainly on the development of programs of research and training for research in most of the major areas of the world, and of scholarly exchanges with them. When he took office in 1957 there was one joint area committee of the Councils, that on Slavic Studies, appointed in 1948. The number has increased to 13, and a few more existed for various terms during the 17 years. Outstanding among these was the Joint Committee on the Foreign Area Fellowship Program, 196273, whose offerings are now integrated with the programs of the joint committees on the separate foreign areas. The intellectual and administrative tasks represented by this growth and change in foreign area programs have been numerous and demanding of time and talent. Without the wide knowledge of fields and personnel, vigorous attention, imagination, and wise counsel of Frederick Burkhardt these tasks might have been too formidable. His colleagues at the SSRC feel deeply indebted to him and will miss his skills, his wit, and his abundance of common sense. Looking to the future, they extend a warm welcome to Robert M. Lumiansky, who will become President of the JUNE 1974
ACLS on July I, 1974, and look forward to working directly with him. Mr. Lumiansky will succeed Mr. Burkhardt as Chairman of the International Research and Exchanges Board and as a member of the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils. GRANTS FOR SOUTH ASIAN STUDIES The Joint Committee on South Asian Studies~ cosponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies (which administers its program)-Charles J. Adams, Edwin D. Driver, Ainslie T. Embree, Rosane Rocher, Susanne H. Rudolph, John W. Thomas, and Helen E. Ullrich-at its meeting on February 23, 1974 awarded grants to the following 14 scholars: Harry W. Blair, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Bucknell University, for research on the election process and socioeconomic determinantS in Bihar Bernard S. Cohn, Professor of Anthropolo~ and History, University of Chicago, for research on Imperial rituals and ideologies in nineteenth-century South Asia Jean Ellickson, Assistant Professor of Sociology and Anthropology, Western Illinois University, for research on the relationship between dietary changes and food beliefs in Bangladesh Suzanne Hanchett, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Queens College, City University of New York, for research on ritual and social structure in South India Savak Katrak, Associate Professor of Foreign Area Studies, State University of New York, College at Oneonta, for research on the life and thought of Dadabhai Naoroji David N. Lorenzen, Professor of Oriental Studies, College of Mexico, for research on North Indian devotional Hindu sects of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in their sociopolitical context !5
Michelle B. McAlpin, Visiting Assistant Professor of Economics, Reed College, for research on farmers' responses to recurrent threat of famine: agriculture in Bombay Presidency, 1840-1939 Morris David Morris, Professor of Economics, University of Washington, for research on effects of urban development on rural economic growth in Gujarat, 1800-1914 Gananath Obeyesekere, Professor of Anthropolgy, University of California, San Diego, for research on religion and social change in modern Sri Lanka Theodore Riccardi, Jr., Assistant Professor of Middle East Languages and Cultures, Columbia University, for a study of traditional Nepalese historiography Donald E. Smith, Professor of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania, for research on secularization and political change in Sri Lanka Myron Weiner, Professor of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for research on early twentiethcentury migrations in India and their effects on ethnicity Theodore P. Wright, Jr., Professor of Political Science, Graduate School of Public Affairs, State University of New York at Albany, for research on the politics of the Muslim minority in India Lawrence Ziring, Professor of Political Science, Western Michigan University, for research on the Pakistan Muslim League, 1947-58 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 16, 1974 awarded grants for research relating to Revolutionary Russia and the Soviet Union to the following 10 scholars: Zvi Gitelman, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Michigan, for research on the political socialization of Soviet and American immigrants in Israel Antonina F. Gove, Assistant Professor of Germanic and Slavic Languages and Literatures, Vanderbilt University, for research on the role of woman in the poetics of Marina Cvetaeva James C. McClelland, Assistant Professor of History, Uni路 versity of California, Santa Barbara, for research on the role of higher education in the transformation of Russian society, 1917-41 William G. Rosenberg, Associate Professor of History, University of Michigan, for research on railroad workers and Russian labor, 1917-21 Alvin Z. Rubinstein, Professor of Political Science, Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania, for research on the Soviet-Egyptian influence relationship since the June 1967 war Donald V. Schwartz, Assistant Professor of Political Economy, University of Toronto, for research on recent adaptations of systems theory to administrative theory in the Soviet Union Robert M. Slusser, Professor of History, Michigan State University, for research on Soviet-American relations and the internal political struggle in the Soviet Union from November 1960 to June 1961 Peter H. Solomon, Jr., Assistant Professor of Political Economy and Sociology, University of Toronto, for research on specialists in Soviet policy-making: criminologists and criminal policy in the 1960's Rex A. Wade, Professor of History, University of Hawaii at Manoa, for research on arming the Revolution: workers' militia and Red Guards in the Russian Revolution of 1917 Robert C. Williams, Associate Professor of History, Washington University, for research on the genesis of early Soviet culture, 1905-30
PUBLICA rlONS The Allied Occupation of Japan, 1945-1952: An Annotated Bibliography of Western-Language Materials, compiled and edited by Robert E. Ward and Frank Joseph Shulman, with the assistance of Masashi Nishihara and Mary Tobin Espey, for the Joint Committee on Japanese Studies and the University of Michigan Center for Japanese Studies. Chicago: American Library Association, March 1974. 887 pages. $50.00. Computer Simulation in Human Population Studies, edited by Bennett Dyke and Jean W. MacCluer. Papers prepared for a conference sponsored by the Committee on Biological Bases of Social Behavior, June 12-14, 1972. New York: Academic Press, February 1974. 539 pages. $16.00. Modern Chinese Society: An Analytical Bibliography. 3 volumes. Prepared under the auspices of the former Subcommittee on Research on Chinese Society, Joint Committee on Contemporary China. Stanford: Stanford University Press, January 1974: Vol. 1. Publications in Western Languages, 1644-1972, edited by G. William Skinner. 880 pages. $35.00. Vol. 2. Publications in Chinese, 1644-1969, edited by G. William Skinner and Winston Hsieh. 877 pages. $38.00. Vol. 3. Publications in Japanese, 1644-1971, edited by G. William Skinner and Shigeaki Tomita. 600 pages. $32.00.
SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL 605
Incorporated in the State of Illinois, December 27, 1924, for the purpose of advancing research in the social science$ Directors, 1974:
WILUAM J. BAUMOL, ALLAN G. BOGUE,
CREMIN, LEON EISENBERG, LEON D. EPSTEIN, SUSAN M. ERVIN-TRIPP, RICHARD
F. FENNO, JR., LEO A. GOODMAN, EDWARD E. JONES, LAWRENCE R. KLEIN, GARDNER LINDZEY, LEON LIPSON, CORA BAGLEY MARRETr, HERBERT MCCLOSKY, SALLY FALK MooR'E, JAMES N. MORGAN, MURRAY G. MURPHEY, ALFONSO ORTIZ, JOHN W. PRATT, ALICE S. ROSSI, 'VILLIAM H. SEWELL, ELEANOR BERNERT SHELDON, ELLIOTT P. SKINNER, M. BREWSTER SMITH, JANET T. SPENCE, EDWARD J. TAAFFE, KARL E. TAEUBER, JOHN M. THOMPSON, ROBERT E. WARD, CHARLES V. WILLIE
Officers and Staff:
ELEANOR BERNERT SHELDON,
DAVID L. SILLS,
GORDON M. ADAMS, MICHAEL W. DONNELLY, JAMES
FENNESSEY, LoUIS W. GOODMAN, ELEANOR C. ISBELL, DAVID JENNESS, PATRICK G. MADDOX, ROWLAND L. MITCHELL, JR., ROBERT PARKE, MICHAEL POTASHNIK, DOROTHY SODERLUND, DAVID A. STATT, ROXANN A. VAN DUSEN, NICHOLAS ZILL; NORMAN MANN, RONNAN,