Page 1



Kenneth Prewitt Elected President of the Social Science Research Council THE COUNCIL'S BOARD OF DIRECTORs--acting on the recommendation of the Executive Committee-has elected Kenneth Prewitt, professor of political science and director of the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, as president of the Council effective March 19, 1979. Mr. Prewitt succeeds Eleanor Bernert Sheldon, whose decision to leave the presidency when a successor had been selected was announced on May 15, 1978. The Council's new chief executive officer, who is 43 years old, has had a distinguished career in social science research, teaching, and administration. His interests have focused on a number of American and international problems. As a researcher, he has re:. ceived recognition for his expertise in the use of quantitative methods in the study of political behavior and for his broad concern with the theory and functioning of democratic society. As director of the National Opinion Research Center, he initiated research on various aspects of the governance of science, including the tension between the need for autonomy in scientific investigation and the demands for democratic participation in science and technology policy issues. At present, he is co-principal investigator of a "public attitudes toward science" section of the National Science Board's project on science indicators. At the Council's first board meeting after he assumed the presidency-held on March 23 and 24, 1979-Mr. Prewitt and members of the board discussed their ideas about priorities for the Council. Of

Contents of this issue-.fee page 2

particular interest to Mr. Prewitt is the further internationalization of the Council's research planning program that had made substantial progress during the presidency of Eleanor Sheldon. He noted that the near monopoly of ideas and methods enjoyed by American and European social scientists for several decades has been superseded by conditions under which the best social science research is often carried out by international teams of researchers. Mr. Prewitt also spoke strongly about the importance of Council leadership in sustaining scholarly understanding and appreciation of non-Western cultures. Mr. Prewitt noted that Eleanor Sheld "n had initiated the social indicators project of the Council and the establishment of its office in Washington, D.C.initiatives he felt it important to preserve and expand. The social indicators project, he believes, is an example of the Council's helping an incipient intellectual movement become a coherent research tradition.

At this board meeting, Mr. Prewitt also reviewed ticipates close cooperation between the Council and with board members plans that he and the staff are social science and educational organizations that developing for a one-day symposium to be held in share these concerns. In commenting on the "basic conjunction with the annual meeting of the Council in versus applied" issue in research, Mr. Prewitt drew an June. The theme for the symposium will be research analogy with the natural sciences. Just as basic reproblems and prospects in the study of individual and search in the natural sciences often leads to sociallysocial change. important technologies, basic research in the social In discussing his own hopes for the Council, Mr. sciences can clarify and inform socially-important Prewitt emphasized that the Council's future pro- policies. Although good social science research cannot gram must be set by the research community: the guarantee wise policy choices, narrow research and Council sh'Juld plan and facilitate, but ideas them- simplistic analysis can only contribute to inadequate selves must emerge from the research process and policy. Mr. Prewitt's writing has reflected his widely from interaction among researchers. Mr. Prewitt added that the Council today finds itself in a vastly ranging interests-American and East African polichanged research environment than that of 1923, tics, political socialization, democratic theory, the when Charles E. Merriam and his colleagues formu- methods of quantitative research, and the role of the lated the Council's mandate for the support of in- social sciences in society. With Heinz Eulau he novative research in the social sciences. This mandate codirected a large comparative study of urban goverhas not been changed but the means of realizing it nance, the major findings of which were published have varied with the needs of the times. The Council with Eulau in Labyrinths of Democracy (1973). Among should not only preserve its historic interdisciplinary his other books are Institutional Racism in American focus; it should also encourage research on topics Society (1969), coauthored with Louis K. Knowles; Rewhere the social sciences and the humanities con- cruitment of Political Leaders: A Study of Citizen Politicians verge. The Council's long-standing cooperation with (1970); Education and Political Values: Essays on East the American Council of Learned Societies, and the Africa (1971); and Elites and American Democrary welcomed new support of the National Endowment (1973), coauthored with Alan Stone. for the Humanities, illustrate shared interests beAfter earning the B.A. degree from Southern tween social scientists and humanists. Mr. Prewitt Methodist University in 1958, M;. Prewitt did added that he hopes to explore a number of means graduate work at Washington University in St. Louis for closer cooperation between social scientists and and at Stanford University. He was awarded the natural scientists. Ph.D. in political science by Stanfo;d in 1963. His Mr. Prewitt expressed his concern to the board that university teaching career began with appointments private sector support for bask social research seems at Washington University in 1963-64 and Stanford to be declining at a time when federally-supported University in 1964-65. Since 1965, he has been a research is increasingly target-oriented, and he an- member of the Department of Political Science of the University of Chicago, becoming a professor in 1974. He served as chairman of the department in 197576. Since 1976, in addition to his teaching duties, he has been director of the National Opinion Research Center, a national survey research organization loCONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE cated at the University of Chicago. He has also taught Kenneth Prewitt Elected President of the Council at Makerere University in Uganda and the University 3 Population Changes That Affect Federal Policy: Some of Nairobi in Kenya, and has lectured in both India Suggestions for Research-Robert Parke and Thailand. 9 New publications 10 Cun-ent Activities at the Council Mr. Prewitt and his wife Ann-who has been for -Committee on Mathematics in the Social Sciences some years a staff member of the Field Museum of -Summer Training Institute on Neurobiology and Natural History in Chicago-have two children, Mental Illness -Life cycle aspects of employment and the labor Jennifer and Geoffrey. market During the first months of his presidency, Mr. Pre- Economic and physiological components of aging witt is serving part-time at the Council while continu-Kin selection and kinship theory ing his duties at the University of Chicago, pending - Biosocial bases of parenting and early offspring development the appointment later this year of his successor as director at the National Opinion Research Center. 0 2





Population Changes That Affect Federal Policy: Some Suggestions for Research by Robert Parke * POPULATION CHANGES can alter social outcomes in ways that affect the success of federal domestic policies. This article illustrates the effects that recent changes in the population age structure of the United States have had on the employment prospects of the young and on the financing of higher education. It goes on to suggest a number of ways in which social science expertise and research might improve the government's ability to measure and respond to the consequences of population change.

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS AND POLICY ANALYSIS I WANT TO ILLUSTRATE the impact of population change, and the importance of demographic analysis, in two policy areas in which the federal government takes a.strong interest: unemployment and the costs of higher education.

The age structure, unemployment, and inflation Rrichard A. Easterlin and Michael L. Wachter have recently developed a theory of demographic influences on economic trends in this country in the period since World War II,l As I understand their thesis-and I am not an economist-it is that, with immigration under control, and with the federal government assuming responsibility for sustaining aggregate demand since 1946, long swings in employment and unemployment have been driven by labor supply, that is, by changes in the age structure. When young workers became plentiful, as in the period since 1960 when the children of the baby boom started coming of age, their unemployment rate rose; moreover, as the employment difficulties facing young men increased, young women moved the labor market at an increasing rate; they also married later and had fewer children than they had had in the postwar period. The Easterlin and Wachter thesis is that the conventional means by which the government seeks to sustain aggregate demand-fiscal and monetary policy-have been incapable of coping with the compositional sources of the problem, that is, the changing size of cohorts entering the labor market, and that ,efforts to cope in the usual fashion have not lowered unemployment but have simply fueled inflaMARCH 1979

tion. This explanation would help to account for the concurrence of high unemployment with continuing inflation that has puzzled economists for several years. Now it is not news to economists that a major reason for recent high levels of unemployment is the huge influx of inexperienced workers into the labor market as a result of the coming of age of the baby boom. Richard B. Freeman has spelled out the consequences of this development for the relative income of young workers, especially of young college graduates. 2 There are, however, features of the EasterlinWachter analysis that, so far as I know, are new. One is their use of the experience of young men to account for the otherwise peculiar labor force behavior of young women. In their view, after World War II young women entered the labor market at a much slower rate than the increase in job opportunities would have permitted. The slack was taken up by older women, who entered the labor market at a far more rapid rate than did young women. In recent years, by contrast, young women have entered the labor market at a very high rate, despite the fact that their job prospects were less favorable than after the war. This has happened, according to Easterlin and Wachter, in response to the relative disadvantage now experienced by young men, whose prospects, diminished in consequence of their numbers, have made marriage and childbearing less attractive alternatives for women than they were in the earlier pe-

* The author, a sociologist-demographer, is director of the Council's Center for Coordination of Research on Social Indicators in Washington, D.C. This article is adapted from a statement that he made to the Select Committee on Population of the U.S. House of Representatives on June 8, 1978, during the committee's hearings on "Domestic Consequences of United States Population Change." I Richard A. Easterlin, "What Will 1984 Be Like? Socioeconomic Implications of Recent Twists in Age Structure," Demography, 15 (4), November 1978, pages 397-432. First presented as a presidential address to the Population Association of America, Atlanta, Georgia, April 1978. See also Richard A. Easterlin, Michael L. Wachter, and Susan M. Wachter, "Demographic Influences on Economic Stability: The United States Experience," Population and Development Review, 4 (I), 1978, pages 1-22. 2 Richard B. Freeman, "The Effect of the Youth Population on the Wages of Young Workers." Testimony before the SelectCommittee on Population, U.S. House of Representatives, June 2, 1978.


riod. Once again, older women have adjusted, this time by slower rates of labor force entry. Note that there is an implied forecast in the analysis. Indeed, Easterlin has made this forecast explicit. 3 In the 1980s, with young people again scarce, the employment prospects of young men will improve and the trends of marriage, childbearing, and the employment of both younger and older women will accordingly reverse. If this analysis withstands scrutiny-and Easterlin and Wachter w')uld be the first to insist that it be scrutinized-then it seems to me to alter appreciably our understanding of the role of population change in the economy. It offers an explanation of what we have been through, and a forecast of a temporary reversal of the current situation.

Childspacing and college costs My second illustration is drawn from the current debate over whether and how to provide tuition relief to families with children of college age. My purpose is not to argue the merits of such proposals, which rest in part on political and value judgments that have no place in this discussion, but rather to show how population changes alter social outcomes and how our analysis of a problem is changed when the demography of the problem is taken into account. In May 1978 the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report on federal assistance for postsecondary education, which included statistics on college costs over the period 1967 to 1976. The report said: ... although the costs of college have risen faster than the cost of living, family incomes have continued to rise even faster. Student costs actually have declined slightly as a proportion of family income. 4

I have no reason to challenge the CBO's statistics or, if the question is cost per student, the conclusion it drew from the data. But we may reasonably ask not only about cost per student, but also about cost per family. If the number of college-age children per family has changed, then cost per family may have increased even though cost per student has declined. Demographic analysis shows that this, in fact, is what has happened.

Families with two or more children of college age are much commoner now than they were a few years ago. Analyzing data for Michigan, David Goldberg and Albert Anderson of the University of Michigan's Population Studies Center developed measures of what they call "the college age sib squeeze."5 They show that in 1967, 37 per cent of the children of an age to enter college had a brother or sister one or two years older. 6 By 1976 this figure had risen to 48 per cent. If we take a slightly longer view, the change is even more striking. In the period 1964 to 1966, only about one-fourth of the children of an age to enter college had a brother or sister one or two years older. Now, and for the next couple of years, half of such children will have a brother or sister one or two years older. This means there are a lot more families coping with two tuitions over extended periods. The average years of double tuition payment rose from 1.8 in 1965 to 2.2 in 1967 to 2.8 in 1976. 7 This shift is sufficient to convert the declines in relative cost per student of college age to an increase in cost per family with children of college age. Goldberg argues that this shift, and the consequent problems for families in financing their children's college education, were largely responsible for the decline in enrollment rates observed in the early 1970s. What we are looking at here are some underappreciated features of the baby boom. That surge of births reflected, in part, an increase in lifetime childbearing, through reductions in childlessness and one-child families and increases in the proportion of families with two, three, or four children. But mostly the baby boom reflected a dramatic change in the timing of births over the parents' lifetime. s People married younger and had their babies a lot sooner than formerly. Intervals between children were reduced, and the compression of childbearing into the early years of marriage produced families in which the children were closely bunched. The result is the "college age sib squeeze," a phenomenon that is bound to be national, as the baby boom was a national phenomenon, even though the only detailed analysis we have of the "squeeze" is

5 David Goldberg and Albert Anderson, "Projections of Population and College Enrollment in Michigan, 1970-2000." A re3 Easterlin, op. cit. See also David Goldberg, "The Future of port on a sponsored research project of the Governor's CommisAmerican Fertility: Some Speculations". Paper presented at the sion on Higher Education, Lansing, Michigan, July 1974. meetings of the Population Association of America, Atlanta, 6 Ibid., Table II. Where estimates from different census sources Georgia, April 1978. differ, I have averaged them. 4 Congress of the United States, Congressional Budget Office, 7 Ibid., Table l1C, data from last column, for older and "Federal Assistance for Postsecondary Education: Options for younger siblings combined. Fiscal Year 1979." Washington, D.C., USGPO, May 1978, page 8 Norman B. Ryder, "The Family in Developed Countries," XII. Scientific American, 231(3), September 1974, pages 123-132.






limited to the state of Michigan. 9 It is a phenomenon that will pass as the cohorts born in the baby boom grow older. According to Goldberg and Anderson, the squeeze will start to taper off after 1980, but not until six or seven years from now will it fall below the level of 1967. 10

Recommendations These examples suggest to me the importance of raising population questions in our policy analyses. I do not think it is too much to suggest that the Council of Economic Advisors, the Congressional Budget Office, and our other principal bodies responsible for policy analysis ensure that such questions are routinely raised by persons with strong training in demography. Such people might be on the staff, they might be regular consultants, or some other provision might be made; this country has several excellent university centers of demography whose resources could be tapped. The efforts of the policy analyst would, it seems to me, be made more productive if our official statistical agencies would prepare projections that are less mechanical, more clearly grounded in current theory of population change, and more reflective of demographic realities. One thing we know: whatever direction the birth rate takes, it is going to bounce around. Despite the record of the past 40 years, the Census Bureau does not publish projections based on a birth rate that bounces around; their birth rates always flatten out. l l MEASURING POPULATION CHANGES AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES Ultimately policy analysis rests on basic research and statistics. Therefore, if we are concerned with the adequacy of analysis in support of policy development, we must also be concerned with the underlying research and statistics. We need to formulate the changes we want to measure, and we need to take seriously the business of measuring them. 9 Following the preparation of this statement, I received a national analysis of this problem, which supports the Michigan results. See National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education, 1978 edition, pages 205 and 234-235. 10 Goldberg and Anderson, op. cit., Table llC, data from last column, for older and younger siblings combined. 11 Partial information was published from a projection in which the birth component was developed from the "Easterlin hypothesis." Little numerical detail was provided, however, and the data were not presented among the main projection series intended for public use but were given in Appendix Table E3, page 140, of Current Population Reports, Series P-25, no. 60!.



What changes should we measure? High on my list would be tracing the educational, work, and family careers of the cohorts of the baby boom and the cohorts that preceded and have followed them. In the past ten years, the largest birth cohorts in U.S. history have been finishing school and entering the labor market. This has occurred at a time of extraordinary demands from women of all ages for jobs and careers, and rising demands from minorities for the same things. And all this has happened at a time of unusually slow economic growth-at times, a recession. We will not understand the implications of these developments for young people, for women, or for minorities until we ask and answer the following questions: What has happened over the past 10 or 20 years to the match between qualifications and entering job levels? What has happened to the pace of advance from entering level to journeyman level? What has happened to the aspirations and expectations of new workers as they compare their experience with that of their colleagues ten years older? What has happened to their sense of their own future and their commitment to the system?

Taking measurement seriously We want to find out, among other things, what sorts of beginning jobs young high school路 graduates and Ph.D.s are able to get, and how the relationship between qualifications and entering job level has changed. To do this we need information on occupations that is consistent over time. But the Census Bureau periodically changes the occupation categories; new technologies and new occupations are being created all the time, so the Bureau must update its data. To describe the society as it is, we need a current set of occupation categories. But to measure change we have to keep the measure consistent; otherwise, we won't know whether changes in our numbers are the result of changes in our measures. We need to apply the same measure we used before. In a word, whenever we change measures, we need to have our data on two bases: the new categories and the old; we need to calibrate the old measure on its replacement. This is done in part, and for some subjects, but it ought to be done consistently and in detail not now available.l2 12 The Census Bureau conducted a study showing how the total numbers of men and women in the 1970 Census detailed occupation categories would have been counted using 1960 Census occupation coding rules (U .S. Bureau of the Census, "1970 Occupation and Industry Classification Systems in Terms of Their 1960 Occupation and Industry Elements," by John A. Priebe, Joan Heinkel, and Stanley Greene, Technical Paper No. 26, July 1972).


One of the chief vehicles for measuring the work experience of cohorts is the National Longitudinal Surveys of Labor Market Experience (NLS), a basic research effort initiated a dozen years ago under the auspices of the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration. It is a fine set of surveys and has produced many findings of value, which were the subject of an October 1977 conference sponsored by the Council. 13 The Labor Department is to be commended for its decision to continue these surveys, but it is to be faulted for design decisions that have produced a curious gap in the surveys and thereby limited their usefulness for answering the questions raised above. The original cohorts will continue to be observed, and surveys have been started on people 14 to 21 years old. However, the original male cohorts are now 26 years old or older, and that means that the surveys omit males 22 to 25 years old. Does it matter? These males were born from 1953 to 1956, the years when births in this country first exceeded four million annually, and may be thought of as the leading edge of the baby boom. We ought to be finding out how that fact affects the course of their lives, and how their experience differs from the experience of those who came earlier and later. In neither our research nor our statistics have we taken seriously what it means to study change. We need consistent definitions and procedures, consistently applied. We need calibration of new measures on old. And, to relate changes detected in one source to changes observed in another, we need far more consistency between surveys than we have.

Data on transitions The previous discussion has been of the kinds of methods that must be employed if we are to have the (Continued from page 5) The results, while of great use in translating occupation data for all men and women, are of limited use where the focus is on particular age groups and educational levels. The Bureau's report contains no information on the interactions between occupational reclassification and age, education, or other characteristics except sex. Preferably, both the old and the .new occupation codes would appear in the unit records in one of the Census public use samples. Desirable in the past, such a procedure becomes imperative for 1980, given the massive recasting of occupational classifications that is contemplated for that Census. 13 Social Science Research Council, Center for Coordination of Research on Social Indicators, "A Research Agenda for the National Longitudinal Surveys of Labor Market Experience: Report on the Social Science Research Council's Conference on the National Longitudinal Surveys, October 1977." Washington, D.C., SSRC Center for Social Indicators, May, 1978. For a brief report on the conference, see James L. Peterson, "Research on the Socioeconomic Life Cycle," Items, 32 (2),june 1978, pages 27-31 .


measures of change that we need. I turn now to change as the substance of our inquiries-to the need for data on the changes individuals undergo. Our statistical system relies on survey designs that produce the world's best statistics on the state of the population-its enrollment, level of education, labor force status, poverty status, and the like. The system is not, however, producing data on how many people undergo changes in these states and on the differential impact of these changes. I recently attended a conference convened by the Ce.nsus Bureau on statistics about women. One of the chief themes running through the comments at that conference was the need for data on the transitions people undergo from enrolled to dropout, from employed to unemployed to not in the labor force, from nonpoor to poor, from married to divorced, and the like. Isabel Sawhill, for example, remarked at that conference that the rising rate of divorce, by breaking family relationships through which income is distributed, is one of the prime factors throwing women into poverty-another example of population changes confounding public policy. We do a very poor ,job measuring divorces, and next to nothing about measuring the transitions associated with divorce. What we get from most of our surveys is a series of cross-sectional estimates of the numbers of people in various statuses. But when we turn to the subject of change, what we get-with a few exceptions such as the NLS--is net change, measured very roughly by comparing cross-sectional estimates. We get very little on transitions. We don't put up with this in our basic population figures. We insist on the components of change, that is, how many people were born, how many died, and how many migrated. Why? Because it makes an enormous difference how change occurs. The numbers of people involved in these processes have at least as much meaning for us as the size of the net change. This is no less true of employment, marital status, household membership, poverty, and other matters. We need data on transitions between these states, and if our current statistical designs won't produce them, new designs will be necessary. However, our present designs are up to the task; they just have not been used for this purpose. We know how to conduct followup surveys of divorce records. We can learn to get transition data from our major surveys if we use them in a truly longitudinal fashion. For example, the Annual Housing Survey now returns annually .to the same housing units. That gives us longitudinal data on housing units but not on all of the people who live in them. Those who get married or divorced, or get a VOLUME




job, or have another child are quite likely to have left by the time we return. It is essential to follow them, and experience with such followu ps shows that they can be done with great success.

that are tied together by an interest in -population changes and their consequences might be convened in periodic conferences, much in the manner of the periodic conferences on income and wealth sponsored by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Recommendations the proceedings of which are closely read by the proI have been discussing demographic changes and fession. Some of the needed exchange already takes their consequences, and what steps should be taken to place at the annual meetings of demographers, do a better job measuring both. I have tried to suggest economists, and others. With important and, I bewith a few examples what is required to measure lieve, increasing exceptions, however, these discussions take place between people in the same discichange. _ As to what should be done, I am reasonably clear pline. We need labor economists, demographers, stuconcerning statistics. 14 What we need in statistics is a dents of education, students of social and geographmechanism with the manpower, knowledge, and au- ical mobility, and others talking to one another and thority to coordinate the work of the 100 federal finding reason, in the commonness of problems, to departments and agencies producing statistics. We coordinate their work with one another. Such meethave (in the Department of Commerce) the Office of ings ought to be planned on an assumption of repetiFederal Statistical Policy and Standards (OFSPS). tion. Moreover, the topics and participants would However, the OFSPS continues to be severely limited need to be carefully selected. Perhaps the Center for in staff and is limited, by its departmental location, in Population Research in NIH might take the initiative. its authority over most of the government's statistical If not, there are many organizations engaged in social activities. There is, fortunately, a unit of the Presi- science research that would be appropriate. We are dealing with long-term demographic, social, dent's Reorganization Project concerned with the statistical system. The head of that unit is acutely and economic processes that need long-term meaaware that, as with population, most of the emerging surement and analysis if they are to be understood. policy problems requiring statistics cross policy Some important part of that research will get done areas. 15 He sees his problem as designing an institu- only if there is a long-term commitment of funds to it, tion within the government that will provide "a place by contrast with the short terms provided by current to stand" for those who see the need for connecting granting and contracting policy. Provisions for pedisparate statistical activities, so that the statistical re- riodic review provide am pIe protection of the govsources of government may be brought to bear on ernment's interest; commitments can be withdrawn policy questions that transcend the interests of indi- for nonperformance. I believe the government's interest in understanding the consequences of popuvidual departments. I find it more difficult to come up with a prescrip- lation change, as well as its interest in prudent expention for research. Relevant research is conducted by diture of funds, would be well served by more emthousands of scholars in hundreds of organizations in phasis on long-term funding subject to review. and out of government. It is highly varied, and that is RESEARCHING POLICY OPTIONS as it should be. If "coordinating" this work were to The policy that is served by the research, statistics, mean adding a layer of official review, we would be and analysis discussed thus far is mostly policy of an far better off with no attempt at coordination what- "adaptational" rather than an "interventionist" sort. 17 ever. The forms clearance process that researchers This is a very useful contribution. We 'need weather already have to go through provides serious impedi- reports, not in order to change the weather, but in ments which ought to be reduced, not added to. 16 order to adapt our conduct to the weather that is One of the best ways to bring about research coor- expected. We can do nothing about the size of the dination is to get the principals talking to one an- baby boom cohorts, but we can examine the impacts other. In this case, researchers working on the topics of that size and examine ways to soften the impact. 14 See "The Professional Associations and Federal Statistics: We can do research to validate theories of population Report of the Joint Ad Hoc Committee on Government Statis- change that imply forecasts in order to support or tics." Washington, D.C., April 1978. discredit the forecasts, and then tailor our conduct so 15 President's Reorganizati'on Prqject, "President's Reorganizaas to forestall or modify the consequences of the extion Project for The Federal Statistical System: A Proposed Work pected trends. Plan," May II, 1978. 16 Joint Ad Hoc Committee on Government Statistics, op. cit., page 33.



17 I am indebted to Albert D. Biderman and Otis Dudley Duncan for this distinction.


There is an additional kind of research that contributes directly to decisions whether or not to intervene and, if so, how to do it. ls I close with some suggestions for research on childbearing incentives and on immigration.


We ought to decide whether, on balance, negative population growth will be a good thing or a bad thing. In order for this to be done, we need a great deal of research into the social consequences of negative population growth. If the results suggest the need for Childbearing incentives it, we ought then to consider experimental research Charles F. Westoff, tracing the declines in U.s. on the long-term effects of child-care arrangements, fertility and the factors contributing to the decline subsidies, and other arrangements designed to enover the past 20 years, has asked, "How ... is society courage reproduction. What sorts of incentives might going to sustain the levels of reproduction necessary work? What might they cost? Are the projected costs to replace one generation with the next?"19 He says, on a scale the country might conceivably pay? If so, ". . . given current trends it is not difficult to let's test a variety of incentives, as we have tested visualize a society in which perhaps one-third of income maintenance programs, housing allowances, women never have any children, which would mean and educational vouchers; that is, by designing experthat the remaining two-thirds would have to repro- iments. The government has increasingly shown an duce at an average rate of three births per woman to inclination to test the effects of programs before demaintain replacement. Under such circumstances, ciding to introduce them nationwide. We don't need there is little doubt that some types of financial incen- incentives now, and we may never need them. But tives to encourage childbearing will have to be im- knowledge of their effects will take time to accumulate, and if we think there is a serious possibility that plemented ... " What sorts of incentives? On what scale? Westoff we may want them, we ought to begin developing knowledge about them. says: There is no clear evidence that the trivial baby bonuses, maternity care benefits and various employment benefits that have been legislated in European countries have had any appreciable impact on the birthrate. It is difficult to imagine well-paid women with little interest in childbearing being attracted by a few hundred dollars' worth of miscellaneous benefits. There may very well have to be a serious investment in child-care institutions and a willingness to subsidize reproduction on a large scale.

Now, it is not clear to me, and it was not clear to the U.S. Population Commission, that a gradual decline in the size of the U.S. population would necessarily be a bad thing. However, Westoff is right in noting that the prospect of population decline makes nations very uncomfortable,20 and he may well be right in assuming "that governments will not look kindly on negative population growth or, for that matter, even a sustained period of below-replacement fertility ... "21 18 See Henry W. Riecken et aI., Social Experimentation: A Method for Planning and Evaluating Social Intervention. New York: Academic Press, 1974. 19 Charles F. Westoff, "Some Speculations on the Future of Marriage and Fertility," Family Planning Perspectives, 10(2), March/April 1978, page 82. 20 See U.S. Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, Population and the American Future, Report of the Commission. Washington, D.C., USGPO, 1972, page 113, and Michael S. Teitelbaum, "International Experience with Fertility At or Near Replacement Level," in Charles F. Westoff and Robert Parke, editors. Demographic and Social Aspects of Population Growth, Vol. I of Commission Research Reports, Washington, D.C.: USGPO, 1972, pages 645-658. 21 Westoff, op. cit., page 82.


Immigration Westoff notes the availability of immigration as an alternative to subsidizing reproduction, in the event that the country decides to take measures to sustain population growth. While I share his skepticism about this course, I believe it should be the subject of analysis. In the years before it was restricted, immigration played an enormous role in adjusting manpower supply to fluctuating demand. We are now faced with, and will for some time be faced with, wide fluctuations in our native manpower supply, and we ought to prepare ourselves, as well as we can, with foreknowledge of the consequences of adjusting to these fluctuations through immigration. What has been the experience of the countries of northern and western Europe who have responded to problems of labor shortages by bringing in workers from southern Europe, North Africa, and the Caribbean? Have they solved the problem they sought to solve by this means? In so doing, have they created other problems they would rather not have? More to the point, what have we learned from our own vast and continuing experience with immigration? You have heard a good many facts about immigration in the course of these hearings, but-as these questions suggest-I do not believe that you have received an analysis of the role of immigration in an emerging U.S. population policy. We ought to have such an analysis. 0 VOLUME




New Publications from Council activities and committee projects The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes, edited by JuanJ. Linz and Alfred Stepan. Published in connection with a conference partially sponsored by the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies, held in 1973 at Yale University. Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978--79. The editors, Juan J . Linz and Alfred Stepan, both of Yale University, have brought together political scientists, sociologists, and historians to examine a phenomenon that has occurred with depressing regularity during the course of the 20th century. Available in one hardcover volume or in four separate paperbacks, the work is divided into four major sections. The first, Crisis, Breakdown, and Reequilibration, by Juan J . Linz, is an attempt to construct a conceptual framework within which to analyze individual cases of the breakdown of democratic regimes. A last chapter on "reequilibration" discusses the conditions under which democracy may be restored after a period of authoritarian rule. Section 2, Europe, includes essays on the rise of Italian Fascism; the National Socialist takeover in Germany; the Austrian First Republic; the defeat of antidemocratic rightists in pre-World War II Finland; and the decline and fall of the Spanish Republic. Contributors are Risto Alapuro, University of Helsinki; Erik Allardt, Academy of Finland; Paolo Farneti, University of Turin; M. Rainer Lepsius, University of Mannheim ; Mr. Linz; and Walter M. Simon, University of Vienna. Section 3, Latin America, includes essays on conditions in Argentina leading up to the coup of 1930; "oligarchic democracy" in Colombia; Venezuelan democracy since the overthrow of dictator Perez Jimenez in 1958; the decline and fall of Brazil's Tl;1ird Republic; the period between the fall of Peron and the military coup of 1966 in Argentina; and analysis



of the causes behind the 1968 coup in Peru. Contributors to this section are Julio Cotler, Institute of Peruvian Studies (Lima); Daniel Levine, University of Michigan; Guillermo O'Donnell, Center for the Study of State and Society (Buenos Aires); Peter H. Smith, University of Wisconsin; Mr. Stepan; and Alexander Wilde, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Washington, D.C.). The fourth and final section focuses on the most recent case of the collapse of a functioning democracy, Chile. Arturo Valenzuela, Duke University, analyzes structural and short-term factors in order to explain how and why Chilean democracy broke down in the way that it did . He concludes by agreeing with the argument presented by Mr. Linz in Crisis, Breakdown, and Reequilibration that it is not forces on the extreme Right or Left that bring down democracies; rather, it is the failure of those committed to popular rule to respond effectively to threats posed by antidemocratic forces that leads ultimately to the breakdown of democratic regimes. Cognition and Categorization, edited by Eleanor Rosch and Barbara B. Lloyd . . Papers based upon conferences held in 1974 and 1976, sponsored by the Committee on Cognitive Research. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1978. Distributed by the Halsted Press Division of John Wiley and Sons. 328 pages + viii . A conceptual revolution has been taking place in the study of language and cognition. In the past, most researchers treated the categorization of the external world as though it were entirely arbitrary. Contributors to this volume of essays outline a new direction of thought, challenging the assumption that classification reflects an arbitrary segmentation of the


world. None of the authors suggests that categories exist a priori in the real world, waiting to be discovered. Rather, a more complex argument is presented: categories are seen to arise out of an interaction between stimuli and process. The essays examine the structures, processes, and representations of human categorization by drawing upon new approaches that have emerged in psychology, linguistics, and anthropology. There is an extensive examination of semantics, which employs paradigms and techniques from both anthropology and cognitive psychology. The papers in this volume offer new perspectives on the representation of knowledge, including imagery, internal structure, and the role of practical knowledge . They analyze the structural properties of stimuli and evaluate their influence on various cognitive processes. They discuss some of the implications of these differing structures for learning in children and adults. The volume thus describes a new paradigm of reference that will be of interest to social scientists concerned with categorization and cognitive processing. The book has been edited by Eleanor Rosch, University of California, Berkeley, and Barbara B. Lloyd, University of Sussex . The contributors in addition to Eleanor Rosch are: Ursula Bellugi, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies (San Diego, California) ; Brent Berlin , University of California, Berkeley; Lee Brooks, McMaster University; W. R. Garner, Yale University; ltamar Gati, The Hebrew University (jerusalem); Stephen Michael Kosslyn, Harvard University; George A. Mi11er, The Rockefeller University; Elissa L. Newport, University of California, San Diego; Stephen E. Palmer, University of California, Berkeley; Bryan E. Shepp, Brown University; and Amos Tversky, The Hebrew University (Jerusalem).


Current Activities at the Council

Committee on Mathematics in the Social Sciences The Council has recently reconstituted the Mathematical Social Science Board as a research planning committee. The Board, established in 1964 as an independent body, was an outgrowth of the Committee on Mathematics in Social Science Research (1958-1964), which was in turn a successor to the Committee on Mathematical Training of Social Scientists (1952-58). In absorbing the Board into its committee structure, the Council is thus reaffirming its sense of the importance of mathematics for the social sciences. The committee is currently developing a five-year program of activity. The goal is to improve the effectiveness of mathematical, statistical, and computational work in the social sciences by organizing workshops, seminars, conferences, publications, and other means of scholarly communication. In a change of emphasis from the previous activities of the Mathematical Social Science Board, the proposed program will (I) stress collaboration between social scientists in fields that make relatively extensive use of mathematics and those in fields that rarely use mathematics; (2) tailor its programs for each field, as appropriate to the current quality and quantity of mathematicallybased work in the field; and (3) seek to increase the involvement of mathematicians, statisticians, and computer specialists in social science research and teaching. The initial members of the committee are Charles Tilly, University of Michigan (chairman); Richard A. Easterlin, University of Pennsylvania; Edward A. Feigenbaum, Stanford University; Samuel Goldberg, Oberlin College; Eugene A. Hammel, University of California, Berkeley; Gerald H. Kramer, Yale University; Kenneth C. Land, University of Illinois; Marc Nerlove, Northwestern University; Barbara Hall Partee, University of Massachusetts; Thomas W. Pullum, University of Washington; Frank Restle, Indiana University; Herbert A. Simon, Carnegie-Mellon University; and Waldo R. Tobler, University of Michigan.


Summer Training Institute on Neurobiology and Mental Illness Twenty-two participants were selected by the Committee on Biological Bases of Social Behavior to take part in the Summer Training Institute on Neurobiology and Mental Illness, held at the Department of Psychobiology, University of California, Irvine, June 26-August 4, 1978. The institute, supported by a grant from the Training Branch, National Institute of Mental Health , was the last of such institutes planned by the committee and was under the direction of Richard F. Thompson, University of California, Irvine, and a member of the committee. The purpose of the 1978 summer institute was to provide pre-and postdoctoral social scientists with training in basic neurobiology, in the neurobiology of mental illness, and in clinical applications. Prior training in the biological sciences was not required for participation in the institute. The participants selected for the 1978 institute include 12 predoctoral and IO postdoctoral students-l 0 women and 12 men. Twenty participants were from various fields of psychology, one was an anthropologist, and one was a linguist.

Postdoctoral: Gary Evans, assistant professor of social ecology, University of California, Irvine; Ellen Grober, assistant professor of psychology, Livingston College, Rutgers University; John Houlihan, Veterans Administration Hospital (Brentwood, California) and assistant clinical professor of psychology, University of California, Los Angeles; Ray London, Santa Ana, California; Jacqueline Ludel, assistant professor of biology and psychology, Guilford College; James Lyons, associate professor of psychology, Northeast Missouri State University; Dell Marcoux, lecturer in linguistics, California State University, Fullerton; James McKenna, assistant professor of anthropology, Pomona College; Jane E. Platt, assistant professor of psychology and social relations, Harvard University; Andrew J . Sostek, research fellow, Unit on Perceptual and Cognitive Studies, Biological Psychiatry Branch, NIMH.

Predoctoral: Anne F. Brennan, Department of Psychology, University of South Florida; Alan Frilund, Department of Psychology, University of Mississippi; Marguerite Gilbert, Department of Psychology, Stephens College; Jordan Grafman, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin; Bob Gene Knight, Department of Psychology, Indiana University; Kathleen M. Redington, Department of Psychology, Columbia University; Michael Reiner, Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota; Jacqueline M. Shohet, Department of Psychology, California Graduate Institute; Steven Sparta, Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles; Mitzi White, Department of Psychology and Social Relations, Harvard University; Ward M. Winton, Department of Psychology, Columbia University; Rita Yaroush, University of Denver and National Jewish Hospital and Research Center (Denver).

Life cycle aspects of employment and the labor market On October 19-21 , 1978 the Committee on the Methodology of Longitudinal Research sponsored a conference on life cycle aspects of employment and the labor market at the Seven Springs Center in Mt. Kisco, New York. Supported by funds from the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Education, the conference brought together 27 social scientists, including economists, mathematical statisticians, and sociologists, to examine recent research and analytical methods which employ longitudinal data for the study of occupational careers and labor market participation. Discussions at this conference focused upon four thematic pre5entations and three reports of ongoing research. VOLUME




Seymour Spilerman, a sociologist at the Russell Sage Foundation, discussed various life cycle approaches to the study of employment in sociological research, emphasizing the need to study the influence of institutional rules and mechanisms upon career decisions and occupational mobility. James J. Heckman, an economist at the University of Chicago, presented an extensive methodological review of longitudinal studies in labor economics. Burton H. Singer, a mathematical statistician at Columbia University, described and evaluated several approaches to the measurement of life cycle aspects of employment. Gary Chamberlain, an economist at Harvard University, outlined some advantages of panel data for the study of labor economics and assessed the adequacy of some recent analytical techniques for use with such data. In addition to the presentation of these thematic papers, the conference included reports on three research projects that currently employ longitudinal data for the study of careers. These presentations were made by Boyan Jovanovich (Department of Economics, Columbia University), Thomas MaCurdy (Department of Economics, Stanford University), Aage Sf5renson (Institute of Sociology, University of Oslo), and Nancy B. Tuma (Department of Sociology, Stanford University). The conference provided a forum for the discussion of emerging analytical techniques for use with panel data. Two primary concerns were evident in the discussions: (I) the need to identify research questions concerning employment careers and associated labor market phenomena for which panel data are superior to cross sectional data; and (2) the need to develop analytical techniques that capture the unique dynamic information on careers contained in panel data. In addition to those listed above, the participants in the conference were the following. Mathematical statisticians: David Bartholemew, London School of Economics and Political Science; Stephen Fienberg, University of Minnesota; Paul Holland, Educational Testing Service (Princeton, New Jersey); Niels Keiding, University of Copenhagen; and Charles Mode, Drexel University. Economist.{: Paul Andrisani, Temple University; Zvi Griliches, Harvard University; Jack Habib, The Hebrew University Oerusalem);John Hause, State University of New York, Stony Brook; Finis Welch, University of California, Los Angeles; and David Wise, Harvard University. MARCH


Sociologists: William Bielby, University of California, Santa Barbara; David Featherman, University of Wisconsin; Robert Hauser, University of Wisconsin; Arne Kalleberg, Indiana University; Peter B. Read, Social Science Research Council; Matilda White Riley, Bowdoin College; Shelby Stewman, Carnegie-Mellon University; and Ross Stolzenberg, University of Illinois.

Economic and physiological components of aging The Committee on Life-Course Perspectives on Middle and Old Age convened a conference on the economic and physiological components of the aging process at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, California, on October 27-28, 1978. The conference brought together committee members and representatives from two well-known longitudinal studies, the Duke Longitudinal Study and the Michigan Income Dynamics Panel. The Duke Study, represented at the conference by John B. Nowlin and Ilene C. Siegler, is a two-phase panel study of men and women enrollees in a North Carolina health insurance plan. The data, obtained by personal interview and medical examination, cover demographic, social, and behavioral topics as well as medical and economic histories; the aging process is the focus of the study. The Michigan Income Dynamics Panel, represented at the conference by Greg J. Duncan and James N. Morgan, consists of about 6,000 families interviewed on a yearly basis. With the II th wave now in progress, the study has obtained data on a variety of variables of household composition and economic well-being. Other participants at the conference were Ronald P. Abeles, American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral Sciences (Palo Alto, California); Caleb E. Finch, Andrus Gerontology Center, University of Southern California; and John Modell, Department of History, University of Minnesota. Also present were the following 1978-79 Center fellows and members of the Center's Life Cycle and Aging Group: Margaret Baltes, James E. Birren, Margaret Clark, David L. Featherman, Victor Fuchs, Seymour S. Kety, John W. Riley. Jr., Eugene Roberts, Martin E. P. Seligman, and George Vaillant. The committee and its guests examined the relationships over the life course between (I) people's work lives and economic well-being and (2) their health and physical functioning-as reflected in the

Duke and Michigan studies and in other relevant research. The committee's second thematic meeting will also be held at the Center, on May 4-5, 1979. and will focus on linkages between issues of physiology and psychology across the life course. The members of the Committee on Life-Course Perspectives on Middle and Old Age are Matilda W. Riley. Bowdoin College (chairman); Paul B. Baltes. Pennsylvania State University; Orville G. Brim. Jr .• Foundation for Child Development (New York); Glen H. Elder,Jr., The Boys Town Center for the Study of Youth Development (Boys Town, Nebraska); M. Brewster Smith. University of California, Santa Cruz; staff. Lonnie R. Sherrod. Mrs. Riley and Mr. Baltes are also 1978-1979 fellows at the Center.

Kin selection and kinship theory Under the auspices of the Committee on Biosocial Science. an international conference on kin selection and kinship theory was held at the Maison des Sciences de I'Homme, Paris. on October 27-29, 1978. The conference was organized by Irven DeVore. Harvard University. and Robin Fox. Rutgers University. with the assistance of Anne RochaPerazzo, Maison des Sciences. and David L. Szanton. Social Science Research Council. It was jointly sponsored with the Maison des Sciences and the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation of New York. The meeting brought together American and European sociobiologists attempting to apply kin selection (inclusive fitness) theory to human behavior and social institutions, with social and behavioral scientists working on these same topics from a variety of other theoretical perspectives. Introductory and concluding comments were provided by Irven DeVore and Robin Fox. In addition. papers or formal presentations were prepared by Richard D. Alexander. University of Michigan, "Organic and Cultural Evolution: Correspondences and Contrasts"; Napoleon A. Chagnon. Pennsylvania State University, "Kin Selection Theory and Yanomamo Reproductive and Social Behavior"; Richard Dawkins, Oxford University, "Some Misunderstandings about Kin Selection"; Mildred Dickeman, Sonoma State College. "The Ecology of Mating Systems in Hypergynous Societies"; William Irons. Pennsylvania State University, "Is Yomut Social Behavior Adaptive?"; Jeffrey A. Kurland,




Biosocial bases of parenting and early offspring development 路

Pennsylvania State University, "Structure and Function in Matrilineal Societies"; John Maynard Smith, University of Sussex, "The Biology of Incest Avoidence"; Robert Trivers, University of California, Santa Cruz, "A Biological Approach to the Family"; and Richard W. Wrangham, Cambridge University, "Primate Kin Groups as Coalitions." The other conference participants were Anthony Ambrose, Institute for Advanced Study in Development Sciences, Oxford; Fredrik Barth, University of Oslo; Bernardo Bernardi, University of Bologna; Mireille Bertrand, Research Unit, INSERM, Paris; Norbert Bischof, University of Zurich; Mario von Cranach, University of Bern; John H. Crook, University of Bristol; Meyer Fortes, Cambridge University; Jack Goody, Cambridge University; Fran~oise He路ritier, Laboratory for Social Anthropology, College de France; AlbertJacquard, National Institute for Demographic Studies, Paris; Roger D. Masters, Dartmouth College; Andrew Strathern, University of London; Lionel Tiger, Rutgers University. The membership of the Committee of Biosocial Science is listed at the end of the article that follows. Prepared by Robin Fox

Three members of the Council's Committee on Biosocial Science have organized a series of workshops on the biosocial bases of parenting and early offspring development. The first workshop, held at the Council offices on November 31 to December 2, 1978, brought together anthropologists, developmental and other psychologists, pediatricians, primatologists, psychiatrists, and sociologists to explore cross-cultural and crossspecies perspectives on issues surrounding pregnancy, the birth process, and early infant care. One outcome of the workshop has been the preparation of summary time tables of human and nonhuman primate development for use in comparative work. The project organizers-Jane B. Lancaster, University of Oklahoma; Melvin J. Konner, Harvard University; Alice S. Rossi, Uni-, versity of Massachusetts, and staff, Lonnie R. Sherrod, met with Gordon W. Bronson, Mills College; Anke A. Ehrhardt, New York State Psychiatric Institute (Division of Child Psychiatry); Kathleen R. Gibson, University of Texas; Beatrix A. Hamburg, National Institute of Mental Health; Nancy Howell, University of Toronto; Nicholas G. Blurton




Jones, University of London; I. Charles Kaufman, University of Colorado; Anneliese F. Korner, Stanford University; Robert B. McCall, The Boys Town Center for the Study of Youth Development (Boys Town, Nebraska); Niles Newton, Northwestern University Medical School; Leonard A. Rosenblum, Downstate Medi~ cal Center (Brooklyn); Daniel N. Stern, Cornell University Medical Center; Charles M. Super, Harvard University; Edward Tronick, University of Massachusetts; and S. L. Washburn, University of California, Berkeley. The second workshop, to be held at the Council later this year, will examine child development beyond the infancy period. A comparative, biosocial perspective will again be employed as a major theme of the workshop. The members of the Committee on Biosocial Science are Eleanor Bernert Sheldon (chairman), Social Science Research Council; Irven DeVore, Harvard University; Robin Fox, Rutgers University; David A. Hamburg, Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences; Melvin J. Konner, Harvard University; Jane B. Lancaster, University of Oklahoma; Allan C. Mazur, Syracuse University; Alice S. Rossi, University of Massachusetts; and Lonnie R. Sherrod and David L. Szanton, staff.





Officers and StafI








Executive Associate;



Items Vol. 33 No. 1 (1979)  
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you