SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

VOLUME 36 • NUMBER 3 • SEPTEMBER 1982 605 THIRD AVENUE. NEW YORK, N.Y. 10158

The Political Economy of National Statistics

THE U.S. CENSUS OF 1980 was the most scrutinized and litigated one in our history. Ethnic and racial classifications, the sexism of the definition of house­hold heads, the right to privacy and the "right to be counted," the technical procedures of adjustment, and the possibility that enumerators and tally clerks selected through local patronage might conspire to inflate local counts were all forcefully debated. There have also been dozens of lawsuits, several still pend­ing, about alleged undercounts, the inclusion of il­legal aliens, apportionment and redistricting, and the use of 1970 figures in certain intergovernmental allo­cations when 1980 figures should have been available.

At stake was the distribution of money and power in society: the numbers, definitions, and procedures of the Census have come to matter as never before. The Census is a complex activity, imbedded in the social, economic, and political processes of the nation: it is both the product of these processes and a signifi­cant actor in them. It is appropriate, therefore, on the occasion of the 1980 Census, to examine that curi­ously neglected topic: the political economy of statis­tics.

To read a newspaper in the United States or in any advanced society is to be bombarded by statistics: the cost of living and the unemployment rate; lagging and leading economic indicators; birth rates; reading scores; life expectancies; and statistics on crime, di­vorce, and oil reserves.

* Mr. Alonso is Saltonstall professor of population policy and Mr. Starr an assistant professor of sociology at Harvard Univer­sity.

A preview of a forthcoming Council conference on "the politics of numbers"

by William Alonso and Paul Starr*

Most of these statistics are "official" in the sense that they are produced by government. In some countries, of course, official statistics are routinely disbelieved, but in general people trust their veracity in line with the overall legitimacy of government and the perceived professionalism and integrity of the statistical agencies. Such statistics are commonly pre­sented and accepted as neutral observations, like a weatherman's report on the day's temperature and atmospheric pressure.

This view is too simple because official statistics do not merely hold a mirror to reality: they are the product of social, political, and economic interests which are often in conflict with each other; they are shaped by presuppositions and theories about the nature of society; and they are sensitive to method­ological decisions made by complex bureaucracies

CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE

29 The Political Economy of National Statistics-William Alon.m and Paul 5/(/1"-

:~5 A New Committee for the Intellectual Development of the China Field-Michel Oksellberg

39 Social Indicators of the Status of Children-Haro!d W. WalL~

41 Council Fellowships and Grants Offered in 1982-83 43 SSRC-Fulbright (;I'ants for Research on Economic

Policy Coordination Among Industrial Countries 44 Current Activities at the Council

-Popular religion and politics in Latin America (p.44)

-Child development in life-span perspective (p. 44) -School-age pregnancies and parenthood (p. 45) -Research on New York City (p. 45)

46 Newly-issued Council Publications

29

with limited resources. Moreover, official numbers, especially continuing series, often do. not reflect in­stantaneously all these factors: they echo their past as the surface of a landscape reflects its underlying geology.

Official statistics have always been subject to these influences, but more is now at stake. In the United States, an increased share of federal money is distrib­uted to the states and localities according to various statistical formulae and criteria. Standards for affirm­ative action and school desegregation depend on official data on the ethnic and racial composition of the population. Several states now limit their budgets to a fixed share of projected state income, and a proposed "balanced budget" amendment would do the same for the federal government-in effect, writing the inexact science of economic measurement and forecasting into the Constitution.

Official statistics have come to affect directly the lives of millions of individuals: they determine the cost-of-Iiving adjustments of many wages and of So­cial Security payments; they determine who qualifies as poor for food stamps and school lunches; they are used in regulating firms; and they determine whether a local hospital will be allowed a new wing.

I t is no wonder that we have become a nation of statistics watchers, from the congressman worried about redistricting to the elderly couple on Social Security worried about paying bills, from the stockbroker watching changes in the money supply to the farmer watching the figures on parity. So well institutionalized are statistics such as the unemploy­ment rate, the money supply, and various price indi­ces that the date and even the hour of their release are regular events in the political and economic calendar, setting off debates on the performance of Administration policy and influencing both stock markets and elections.

Official statistics influence politics in subtler ways as well, defining issues by the categories employed, the questions asked (and not asked), and the tabulations published. The methods of ethnic classification and measurement determine who will be counted as what, thereby affecting shares of jobs and representatives in a variety of institutions. For example, the categories "Hispanic" and "Native Alaskan" are recent inven­tions, but they are already influencing lines of politi­cal conflict and coalitions of various groups within and without these labels. Such numbers shape society while they measure it.

Silences may also carry meaning. Lebanon has long not had an official census because of fear that count-:. ing Christians and Moslems might upset their

30

. negotiated balance of power. The Saudi census has never been officially released. The U.S. Bureau of the Census does not ask about religious affiliation: when such a question was asked in a 1957 survey, the opposition of several religious groups prevented publication of the findings. Recently, Scotland Yard created a furor when, for the first time, it broke down its statistics on crime according to race. Some objected tha~ the mere publication of the data was inflam matory.

Statistics are lenses through which we form images of our society. Frederick Jackson Turner announced his famous views on the significance of the dosing of the frontier on the basis of d~ta from the 1890 Cen­sus. Our national self-image today is confirmed or challenged by numbers which tell of drastic changes in the family, the reversal of rural-to-urban migration, our productivity or military strength compared to that of other countries, lowered reading scores, and many others. Whether the meanings read into the data are reasonable or fanciful, these numbers pro­vide a common reference in popular and professional discussion. Even when they misrepresent reality, they often standardize our perceptions of it.

The process is thus recursive. Winston Churchill observed that first we shape our buildings and then they shape us. The same may be said of our statistics.

Lest there be confusion, the view that official num­bers are products and agents of society is not meant to imply that they are "politicized" in the sense of being corrupted. They may indeed be corrupt, like any other social process, but that is not our point. Far from it: in the United States there are institutional safeguards and traditions that for the most part shield the statistical agencies from meddling by politicians and interest groups. These safeguards are a political achievement and an essential foundation for public trust in the numbers. Our point, rather, is that politi­cal judgments are implicit in the choice of what to measure, how to measure it, how often to measure it, and how to present and interpret the results. Politics in this sense does not mean intrigue or the strategies used by opposing factions to gain advantage or control-although these are of course a part of poli­tics. Rather, by politics we mean political economy: the interplay of forces-political, economic, and social-that shape institutions and, in particular, de­fine the assumptions, the agenda, and the choices of government.

PRINCIPAL THEMES

There is no generally-accepted theory of the role of statistics in modern nations. There is a wealth of in-

VOl.UME 36, NUMBER 3

teresting materials on some of the issues raised above, although . mostly scattered, and there is virtually nothing on others.

Any general approach would speak to those themes which permeate the subject. These include the ten­sion between the scientific and the political modes in official statistics; the historical development of ideas and institutions; the matter of legitimacy; the dif­ferences from one society to another; and the changes over time in anyone society. This list could be ex­tended and its emphasis changed.

We cannot claim to have developed a theory, but we offer below a compressed inventory of some of the principal issues as we see them now.

The framing of inquiry

The scope of inquiry. Among an infinity of possible questions, some are asked and some are omitted. These choices reflect changing interests and sen­sitivities-political issues as well as technical choices. Thus, in the 1890 Census, when the issues of immi­gration and the changing "racial" composition of the American population were in the forefront, the cate­gory of "black" was subdivided into black, mulatto, quadroon, and octoroon, and 13 questions were asked on mental or physical disabilities (insane, idi­otic, deformed, etc.), reflecting the importance at the time of social Darwinism, eugenics, and racial theories. In 1980, when very similar issues were politically alive but the way of thinking about them had changed substantially, the Census expanded the number and complexity of the racial-ethnic questions along quite different lines, and the questions on disabilities were few and of a totally different nature.

Systems of classification. One can only count within categories, and the construction of categories is as much a social as a technical process. The most obvious case is that of ethnic and racial categories, but it is true across the board: geographical categories (met­ropolitan, disaster, impacted, and economically dis­tressed areas); Standard Industrial Classification categories; occupational categories; families and households; the residence attributed to college stu­dents or servicemen; the definition of poverty; types of housing; and so forth. Quite often, statistics re­ported with several digits' accuracy do not mean what they seem to mean because the operational definition does not really fit the intuitive or common sense in­terpretation. For instance, in 1970 over 30 per cent of the nation's rural population lived in metropolitan areas, and 90 per cent of the surface area of met­ropolitan areas was classified as rural; on the other

SEPTEMBER 1982

ABOUT THIS ARTICLE ...

The accompaning article was written as a background statement for a conference on the Census as a social, political, and economic institution, to be held under Council auspices in June 1983. The authors will edit a volume based upon the papers presented.

The forthcoming conference is a project of the National Committee for Research on the 1980 Census, which is sponsored by the Council, the Russell Sage Foundation, and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, in collaboration with the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Funds for the committee's activities have been obtained from the Ford Foundation, the National Science Foundation, the Russell Sage Foun­dation, and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; additional funding is being sought. The members of the committee are Charles F. Westoff, Princeton University, chairman and executive director; John S. Adams, University of Minnesota; Anthony Downs, The Brookings Institution (Washington, D.C.); Leobardo Estrada, University of California, Los Angeles; Reynolds Farley, University of Michigan; Victor R. Fuchs, Stanford University; Bernard R. Gifford, University of Rochester; Paul C. Glick, Arizona State University; Sidney Goldstein, Brown Uni­versity; Charles V. Hamilton, Columbia University; Ta­mara K. Hareven, Clark University; Nathan Keyfitz, Har­vard University; Cora B. Marrett, University of Wiscon­sin; Robert K. Merton, Columbia University; Frederick Mosteller, Harvard University; Isabel V. Sawhill, The Urban Institute (Washington, D.C.); William H. Sewell, University of Wisconsin; Michael S. Teitelbaum, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (New York); James R. Wetzel, U.S. Bureau of the Census; and Raymond E. Wol­finger, University of California, Berkeley. David L. Sills and Robert Parke serve as staff.

hand, over 40 per cent of the non metropolitan popu­lation was classed as urban.

The disposition of ambiguity. The production of num­bers requires definitions with hard edges. A met­ropolitan (or any other) area must have clear bound­aries, in on one side, out on the other: so must each and every other category. In our normal under­standing, there are no such pencil-sharp boundaries to metropolitan areas, or to poverty, industries, or ethnic groups. But to count is to define a set. and match its elements to the set of positive integers: an element is either in or it is out. In practice, an enumerator is given a set of boxes to check off; if he does not do so, perhaps because no category clearly applies, the tally clerk back at the office probably will; and if he does not, the answer may ultimately get thrown out.

The mathematical logic of counting is joined with the Weberian bureaucratic logic of standardized

31

classifications and procedures. Both these forces tend to handle counting and classification more rigidly and mechanically than would be warranted from intuitive concepts of the categories or from the disposition of particular cases according to their circumstances and shadings.

Consistency and change in time and space. There is a strong logic in having statistics comparable over time, so that change may be studied. Comparability, how­ever, is often in tension with changing realities and evolving ideas. In the case of ethnic statistics, for instance, no time series exists for Hispanics because earlier censuses used noncom parable categories such as Spanish-surname; similarly, the number of Native Americans grew in the last decade by nearly 80 per cent-not so much from natural increase as from changing attitudes underlying individual self­designation. In other cases, the difficulties can be more nearly technical, as in the definition of indus­trial categories or of metropolitan boundaries in situ­ations of rapid change; but even these cross over easily into political territory when they involve anti­trust or revenue-sharing issues. The political potential is evident when adjustments of definitions and pro­cedures are made in statistics such as those for unem­ployment, poverty, and the cost of living.

National statistics must also be comparable from one locality to another, although local circumstances may be misrepresented by such standardization. For instance, when Hawaii was a territory, it evolved a long and complicated set of ethnic categories suited to its complex mix of people; when it became a state a generation ago, it was forced to adopt the general ethnic categories of the Census, which are largely inapplicable to its society. There are exceptions made for local particularities-such as the use in New Eng­land of cities and towns instead of counties as SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area) building blocks-but they are rare. The tension between local exceptionalism and centralized standardization in censuses has been a political issue since the 18th cen­tury.

Information, allocation, and norms

Growth of the allocative functions. There has been a remarkable shift in emphasis in the 'use of census and other statistics, from information for a broad variety of purposes to much greater stress on the purpose of allocation. The allocative functions are not new, of course, dating from the Constitutional distribution of seats in the House of Representatives and having been used extensively in areas such as regulation and

32

antitrust enforcement. What is new is the pervasive­ness of their use to allocate money and power. This now occurs throughout the process of government: the many examples already given have stressed legis­lative and executive aspects, and for balance we point here to their increasing role in the judiciary in areas such as the selection of juries and the approval of redistricting and school integration plans. Indeed, it is the growing importance of official numbers as counters of exchange that has generated the rain of lawsuits in which the courts are asked to pass on the validity or legitimacy of these numbers.

Information and normf. Many statistics are imbued with normative meanings and judgments. In some cases, the norms are quite conscious, as in poverty levels, persons per room, crime statistics, per cent of income spent for housing, or tax effort; in other cases, the normative aspect is implicit, as is the case, sad to say, for single-parent households, illegitimacy, and even the proportion and growth of minority populations. These normative interpretations are the fodder of policy positions and are every day incorpo­rated into formulae, program design and implemen­tation, regulation, cost-benefit analysis, and other evaluations. While the normative function of statistics is widely prevalent, and in some ways has been a premise of the social indicators movement, little seems to have been written on the phenomenon as a whole.

Estimates, projections, andforecasts. Many of the num­bers used to distribute money by formula must be updated in intercensal years, when direct observation is not available. Estimating the populations of lo­calities, for instance, requires federal, state, and local participation in a process that involves some tech­nique and frequently much politics. By contrast, comparable estimates of local income or poverty levels require elaborate data manipulation which can be done only by the federal agencies. This does not necessarily make local income and poverty figures better than those for population, but it does change the political context of their production and accep­tance. In either case, estimation is an uncertain art. This very uncertainty makes it interesting to look at how techniques and politics are used to produce esti­mates and to give them consensual legitimacy.

In this respect, projections are like estimates--only more so. To distribute long-term federal envi­ronmental money, the U.S. Department of Com­merce is now charged by law to produce projections of the population and the economy of the 3,000 counties of the United States for the year 2050. Be­cause the technical uncertainties and theoretical de-

VOLUME 36, NUMBER 3

mands in such an exercise are enormous, the re­quirement has already produced not only political responses from local governments but also bureau­cratic in-fighting among the technical agencies.

An interesting asymmetry in such estimates and projections is that, as growth of national population and manufacturing employment slows down, many more localities and even entire regions begin to show losses. The political response to projected or esti­mated loss is much more vehement than it is to gain, and since the technical position is usually weak, there will usually be a bias against estimating or projecting a decline.

The dark side of society. Official statistics, precisely because they are produced by government, have dif­ficulty measuring what people want to conceal from government. The underground economy, illegal aliens, gambling, and drug traffic tend to escape offi­cial measurement. The issue, for our purposes, is not so much the social control of illegal acts as it is the undermining of the system of social statistics, arguably leading to underestimates of GNP, money supply, and local populations, and overestimates of the poor and the unemployed. The problems can cas­cade through other parts of the statistical system; for instance, the United States cannot admit officially that it will be unable to control illegal immigration, and thus its projections of active and retired workers used in the current debates about Social Security for the coming decades assume that there will only be that rate of immigration set by policy and law.

The economics of statistics

Census, sample, and administrative data. The decennial Census is now only one element in a vast gov­ernmental statistical enterprise. In statistical terms, it provides geographical and small group detail and serves as a base for subsequent sampling. But official statistics rely increasingly on periodic surveys and on administrative data for more frequent information, much of it on subjects not covered in the Census, but with less geographical and small group detail. This shift in instruments reflects the steep rise in the relative price of direct interviews and the lowering of that of processing and integrating information. Ad­vances in sampling techniques and especially in com­puters enable government to integrate bodies of data in ways that were unimaginable a few years ago.

This development has raised important questions of confidentiality and privacy, which have already been much discussed if not resolved. It has also mod­ified relations among government agencies, as when

SEPTEMBER 1982

information agencies seek data from administrative agencies and vice versa, or when higher levels seek to monitor lower ones. Such changes in the relations of power are to be expected with changes in statistical capacity; the word "statistics" has the same root as "state," and social or political control has always been a major purpose in gathering such information.

Boundaries between public and private in statistics. The boundaries between the private and the public sector in the production and use of statistics are not always clear: some privately produced statistics are granted quasi-public status, such as Dun & Bradstreet's re­ports on business failures or the Dow Jones stock averages. And the boundaries sometimes shift. For instance, after the 1973 oil shock there was a complex technical and political process of moving a consider­able portion of the production of energy statistics from the private to the public sector.

The present Administration has raised at least two fundamental questions of statistical policy. First, it holds that government has intruded itself into many social and economic areas where it should not; as government withdraws from these areas, its need for statistics about them is reduced. Second, it holds that many statistics valuable to private users should not be provided free at taxpayers' expense, but that users should pay for them if they want them; in other words, that a market should be created for some statistics that are currently treated as public goods. This policy would in effect privatize such informa­tion, denying it to those private users who could not or would not meet the price. A recent instance has been the sale to a consortium of retail and marketing firms of exclusive rights to 1980 Census data by ZIP­codes for a period of 18 months. These two issues are of major importance and call for serious discussion and consideration.

The ri~e of the statistical brokemge industry. An industry of information brokerage is rising rapidly, although clearly still in its infancy. Closely allied to computer and information technology, it is taking many tenta­tive forms. One is a profusion of consulting firms that provide forecasting, data summaries, maps, and analysis to private companies (mostly, it seems, for marketing). Another is the current emergence of commercial computerized networks of information and services, including official statistics. The early participants in these developments range from indi­vidual entrepreneurs to giants such as Time-Life, IBM, Dun & Bradstreet, and AT&T. Already, for many purposes, statistics are supplied in computer-readable form rather than published on paper. Technological changes have increased enormously the capacity to

33

retrieve and analyze data according to specific users' needs at a remarkably low marginal cost; but they require very substantial investment in physical and human capital. This combination of high fixed costs and very low marginal costs is the basis of the new industries of information brokerage and electronic publishing. Additionally, the sudden rise of such an industry will likely redraw the uncertain line between public and private in statistics discussed above, be­cause private and public users of statistics will in­creasingly find it cheaper and quicker to use these new services than to use the primary governmental sources.

STATISTICS IN ADVANCED SOCIETIES

Two questions will be posed here: (1) Why has there been such a spectacular rise in the production and use of statistics in advanced societies? (2) How and why does their production and use vary among advanced societies?

The growth of statistics

Statistics had their origin in ancient states, when they were inventories of people and resources used for the raising of taxes and the levying of armies. From the beginning, then, one use of statistics has been the control by the state of local and private activity. Conversely, opposition to the central statisti­cal enterprise has frequently come from groups or districts resisting such control, including today's libertarians.

The growth of statistics is surely tied to the growth and evolution of the modern state. Taxes and armies remain with us, but statistics are now gathered and used for the multitude of other functions which mod­ern governments have undertaken.

This expansion of the areas of concern of the state is an obvious cause of the growth of statistics, but not the only one. The development of modern concepts of planning and budgeting would probably have in­creased the need for statistics even in the absence of an' expansion of functions; the modern practices re­quire taking into account many more factors and in much more detail. Even were a nation to limit itself to macroeconomic planning, the statistical base needed to construct estimates of national income, money supply, unemployment, productivity, etc. exceeds by far anything which might have been imagined at the turn of the century. In practice, of course, even in the most devout laissez-faire nations, governments are

34

involved in matters ranging from transportation to social programs, from industrial and research policy to the regulation of pollution.

While the growth of the state accounts for much of the growth of statistics, it is likely that the evolution of the statistical enterprise has itself contributed both to its own growth and to that of the state. A modern statistical system needs an institutional structure, technology, and ideas; without them, neither statistics nor the modern state could have developed as they have.

The history of the U.S. federal statistical apparatus can be traced from a handful of clerks after the Rev­olution to its present maze of interdependent agen­cies. The evolution of these institutions reflects the course of the nation's history. It is also molded by such technical changes as advances in sampling and statistical theory and in the mechanics of computation from the Bureau of the Census' use of Hollerith punch cards in 1890 to today's computer networks. And, not least, it is shaped by the social construction and operationalization of concepts such as GNP, un­employment, metropolitan areas, and various indices. Institutions, technology, and ideas all playa part in the gro~th of the statistical enterprise.

The mutually reinforcing growth of the state and of the statistical apparatus are central to understanding the growth of statistics. But the sea of statistics washes upon other aspects of society as well, and these create additional demands. Statistics provide contextual in­formation to managers of state and private enter­prises. Statistics can distribute power, as in the appor­tionment of congressional seats. They can inform the debate on public issues among contending factions, or serve as state propaganda to produce conformity. They can, dialectically, change the nature of social perceptions by the sheer force of numbers.

A more detailed inquiry into the historical devel­opment of statistics in the United States would cer­tainly change emphases and add new facets to the factors just suggested. But it is equally intriguing to ask about differences in the statistical processes among countries at comparable levels of develop­ment.

Variations in statistical systems

When comparing countries, the focus changes from the common rise of their statistics to the varie­ties of their sociopolitical structures and the structure of their statistics. Do democratic and authoritarian nations differ in the statistics they collect and in their

VOLUME 36, NUMBER 3

dissemination? Is a federated nation different from one under unitary government? How do ethnically homogeneous nations differ from the ethnically di­verse? What is the relation of the degree and style of national planning to the statistical system? How do prevailing concepts, norms, and ideologies affect the range and mode of inquiry?

The answers to such questions are not obvious. For instance, do democratic, pluralistic societies or au­thoritarian ones make greater use of statistics? Does centralized planning or a market system call for greater publication of statistics? Do federated or unitary systems make greater use of statistics for dis­tributing resources? How does ideology affect the formation of statistical categories? How does concern for privacy and freedom relate to the increased use and integration of administrative data?

It seems probable that pursuing these comparative questions might produce surprises and puzzles. For instance, less planning and more reliance on the market might call for more information rather than less; authoritarian systems might broadcast more statistics to the public than democratic ones; some of the democracies in northern Europe are considering giving up censuses because of their increasing ca­pacity to use and integrate administratively created data, while such developments are opposed in the United States in order to preserve privacy.

The political economy of statistics is an important and underexplored topic. Intelligent inquiries, be they structural, historical, or comparative, are much needed. We hope that this article and the forthcom­ing conference volume will encourage them. D

A New Committee for the Intellectual Development of the China Field

THE NEWLY-APPOINTED Joint Committee on Chinese Studies-sponsored by the American Coun­cil of Learned Societies (ACLS) and the Social Science Research Council (SSRC)-held its first meeting on March 19, 1982. The new committee resulted from a merger of the Joint Committee on Contemporary China (JCCC), which was first appointed by the ACLS and the SSRC in 1959, and the Committee on Studies of Chinese Civilization (CSCC) of the ACLS, founded in 1963.

The scholarly China field in the United States had been divided along temporal and methodological lines for several decades. The meeting signaled the termination of these divisions.

The two previous committees had sponsored a

* The author is a professor of political science at the University of Michigan. He was formerly chairman of the Joint Committee on Contemporary China, and he served as acting chairman of the Joint Committee on Chinese Studies during its formative period. He is now a member of the committee.

SEPTEMBER 1982

A report on the recent merger of two China committees into a new Joint Committee on Chinese Studies

by Michel Oksenberg*

substantial amount of scholarly activity. The JCCC, for example, had sponsored a series of path­breaking conferences on the Chinese economy, pol­ity, family, and city-all of which culminated in im­portant volumes. The CSCC had sponsored major conferences on such diverse topics as Ming thought, Tang history, Mongol rule, and the Chinese tradi­tion of warfare. Both committees awarded research grants to senior scholars which supported many in­novative research projects through the years. The JCCC administered the Councils' doctoral research fellowships for China since the early 1970s. The competitive programs sponsored by the new com­mittee are listed in the box on the next page.

Reasons for the merger

In spite of their records of accomplishments, both committees increasingly felt uncomfortable with the delineations between them. Originally, their temporal boundary of responsibility was 1949, the 'year of the

35

Chinese Communist Party's assumption ()f power. but by the mid-1960s the specialists on the contemporary period concluded that the founding of the People's Republic had not marked a sudden break in China's development. The demarcation between the "con­temporary" and "traditional" periods was thus pushed back to 1911 and the overthrow of the impe­rial system. Even that date proved inadequate as the modernists relentlessly traced the roots of recent phenomena to ancient times. Meanwhile. students of Chinese civilization began to move forward in time. as they sought to discover the contemporary manifesta­tions of the tradition. Clearly. no arbitrary. single date separates China's deep past from its recent past and the contemporary era; periodization. as for all na­tions. is always somewhat arbitrary and depends on the topic under scrutiny.

Competitive Programs Sponsored by the Joint Committee on Chinese Studies

Programs Predoctoral research fellowships Postdoctoral research grants

Mellon Program in Chinese Studies: (1) Postdoctoral research and study

fellowships for advanced work in any field or for the acquisi­tion of new training and skills

(2) Postdoctoral language training fellowships for advanced Chinese or Japanese language study

(3) Travel grants for scholars to par­ticipate in research confer­ences in China and forChinese scholars to participate in re­search conferences in the United States

(4) Support for workshops and seminars for research training

Inqujrje.~ should be addreJsed to: Jason H. Parker American Council of Learned

Societies 800 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 Tel: (212) 888-1759

Application deadlines.

November 1, 1982 December 1, 1982

December 1, 1982

December 1, 1982

October 1, 1982 January 1, 1983

April 1, 1983 July 1, 1983

October 1, 1982 February 1, 1983

The boundary between the traditionalists and modernists had arisen from more than an ill­conceived temporal division of labor. The intellectual origins of the two communities were also quite dis­tinctive. Scholars of traditional China a generation ago had been heavily influenced by the Sinological traditions of Germany. France. and Sweden. AI-

36

though these traditions had their differences. they tended to stress mastery of the classical texts-so much so that traditional Sinologists frequently could read ancient texts but could not speak the living lan­guage. Reflecting as well the scholarly traditions of imperial China. the Sinological tradition before World War II emphasized textual exegesis in its re­search. while in its theory it offered extremely broad but not well-verified generalizations about the long sweep of Chinese history. Sinologists frequently ex­hibited little scholarly interest in the modern period. considering it more the province of journalists and diplomats.

Modernists. on the other hand. frequently had only a superficial acquaintance with Chinese history and often did not have a firm command of the written language. As the social science disciplines began to influence the study of the modern and contemporary periods. some scholars briefly exhibited a penchant for indiscriminately applying concepts drawn from Western experience to the Chinese case. The hubris which swept the social sciences in the 1950s-that concepts and methodologies are immediately and easily transferable from one culture to another-had its impact on Chinese studies as well.

In the last 15 years or so. however. major changes have occurred. For better or worse, the Sinological tradition has lost its grip on students of traditional China. Many historians of the Han or Tang. for example. now reflect the writings of Max Weber. Emile Durkheim. and Talcott Parsons. Moreover, most stu­dents of traditional China have now spent two or more years in Taiwan and have acquired a fluency in the spoken language.

Meanwhile. the social scientists-products of the area centers-have acquired a keener interest in the Chinese past. They also have found that their ana­lytical tools require both modification and elaboration in order to illuminate the Chinese case. In discipline after discipline. researchers increasingly have been drawn to the past in an effort to trace China's social, political. and economic development-not just from 1911, but from the 1800s. or the 1400s. or even ear­lier. For example, note the intellectual migration of Benjamin I. Schwartz. Harvard Univ~rsity. who be­gan his career in the 1950s studying the origins of Maoism but hasjust obtained aJCCS grant to write on pre-Han political thought. Or that of G. William Skin­ner. Stanford University, who began with studies of contemporary marketing systems in Sichuan and Chinese leadership in Bangkok. but by the 1970s had advanced a major theory of the development of urban commercial centers from Song times (960-1280). Or

VOLUME 36, NUMBER 3

that of Dwight H. Perkins, Harvard University, who moved from a doctoral thesis on central planning in post-1949 China to a landmark study of Chinese ag­riculture from 1368 to 1968.

The opening of China to Western scholars made even more obvious the need to merge the two com­mittees. The realization that such time-honored Chinese concepts as quanxi (relations), pai (factions), zhong (loyalty), and ganqing (affect) are still central to the social fabric has underscored the need for con­temporary specialists to understand the culture in all its historical complexity. At the same time, traditionalists find themselves doing research in a so­ciety which they must understand-but frequently have not been equipped to understand-if they are to function effectively.

Program planning

A primary responsibility of the committee is to work with scholars in the field to identify research frontiers and to plan conferences for exploring these frontiers. Thus, at its first meeting, the new commit­tee mapped out an ambitious program of conferences and workshops for the coming two years, organized around these major themes:

• Pre-Han studies, under the leadership of David N. Keightley, University of California, Berkeley. A con­ference on the Shang dynasty is scheduled for Sep­tember 1982, which will be attended by scholars from China as well as the United States. Drawing on mate­rials only recently discovered concerning the Shang, this conference should point the way for future work on the pre-Han period.

• Chinese statecraft, under the leadership of Wm. Theodore de Bary, Columbia University. Over the past 20 years, Mr. de Bary has pioneered the study of intellectual thought during the Song and Ming dynasties. He now believes that attention must be turned to understanding how political thought and action were interrelated during these periods. Draw­ing on both the Sinological tradition and Western organizational theory, he proposes to convene with others a series of workshops and conferences on how the Chinese conceptualized and exercised leadership from the Song dynasty onwards.

• Chinese economic history, under the leadership of Robert F. Dernberger and Albert Feuerwerker, both of the University of Michigan, and Robert M. Hartwell, University of Pennsylvania. The quest here is for a more thorough understanding of the dynamics of Chinese economic development from Song times to the present. The assumption is that SEPTEMBER 1982

these dynamics cannot be captured unless they are seen in spatial (i.e., regional) terms. Drawing in part on the seminal work of G. William Skinner, Stanford University, research will be defined spatially in terms of macroregions and will trace some of the complex economic relationships which existed over time among the various types of urban areas and rural villages in China.

• Chinese population studies, under the leadership of G. William Skinner, Stanford University. A series of workshops is being planned on Chinese lineage de­mography, birth planning and fertility control, and the 1982 Chinese census. The goal is to be well­positioned to take swift, maximum advantage of the 1982 census now under way in China, an event of considerable consequence for the understanding of recent Chinese social history and of future trends. The longer run objective is to link the study of Chinese demography to the study of Chinese politics, economics, and society. How has the Chinese econ­omy or polity, for example, reflected over-time changes in the nation's demographic profile? Draw­ing upon China's rich population data from Song times, it may be particularly rewarding to develop theoretical propositions based on the Chinese case or to test some of the notions now emerging from the use of population registers from early modern Europe. To encourage this research, the China field will have to encourage more scholars to acquire com­petence in both demography and Chinese society. The committee is seeking special funds for this pur­pose.

• Chinese literature, originally developed under the leadership of Cyril Birch, University of California, Berkeley. A workshop organized by John Berning­hausen, Middlebury College; Mr. Birch; Milena Dolezelova-Velingerova, University of Toronto; and Theodore Huters, University of Minnesota, is sched­uled for December 1982. It is intended to encourage specialists in Chinese literature to draw upon recent perspectives in Western literary criticism in their study of both classical and modern Chinese literature.

• Chinese politics, under the leadership of Michel Oksenberg, University of Michigan. A workshop, or­ganized by David Michael Lampton, Ohio State Uni­versity, is planned for 1983 to explore policy im­plementation in post-Mao China. It will be followed, in 1984, by a conference, organized by Mr. Oksen­berg, to analyze the reforms since 1976 in the light of reforms in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe after Stalin and in the light of previous efforts to transform China through reform rather than through revolu­tion. The Cultural Revolution prompted students of

37

Chinese politics to investigate the ideological origins, inducements, and limits of rapid, violent change of elites and institutions. The post-Mao era promises to stimulate a generation of investigation into the origins and factors promoting and constraining gradual, peaceful, bureaucratically-directed transformation.

In addition, the committee has asked its members to assume responsibility for developing proposals for its fall meeting in these topical areas, each to encom­pass a suitably broad time period:

• Victor H. Li, East-West Center (Honolulu), on Chinese law

• Robert F. Dernberger, University of Michigan, on the economy of East Asia

• Evelyn S. Rawski, University of Pittsburgh, on the Chinese way of death (e.g., burial and mourning rituals)

Finally, Hok-Iam Chan, University of Washington, has responsibility for developing a program of activity for the Han through Tang and the subsequent period of disunion; and Frederic E. Wakeman, Jr., Univer­sity of California, Berkeley, has similar responsibility for local social history. Within the latter context, Guy A litto , University of Chicago, is conducting a survey of the field with the prospect of developing plans for a workshop or conference on county-level social his­tory.

New publication series

The committee has established a new publication series to consist of volumes resulting from confer­ences and workshops sponsored by the committee and its predecessor committees. The first book in the series will be The Origins of Chinese Civilization, edited by David N. Keightley, University of California, Berkeley, from a conference of the same title held in 1978. It is being published by the University of California Press.

Role of the new committee

The committee has discussed its role in relationship to four other major organizations with an impact on scholars engaged in China studies: the Committee on

38

Scholarly Communication with the People's Republic of China (CSCPRC), the China Council of the Asia Society, the National Committee on U.S.-China Re­lations, and the National Council on U.S.-China Trade. The chief administrative officer and the chief academic advisor to each of these organizations had met in early January to assess their funding prospects, to define their respective tasks, and to ascertain ways of increasing cooperation. The CSCPRC, as its name implies, sponsors academic exchanges with China; overlapping membership with the committee ensures coordination. The China Council engages in public education and outreach, drawing in part upon JCCS­sponsored research for the knowledge it seeks to dis­seminate. The National Committee on U.S.-China Relations engages in cultural exchanges with China, aiming especially at leaders in such professions as urban planning and education. The Trade Council serves the business community primarily, but its U.S.-China Business Review counts China scholars among its principal readers.

The committee, for its part, has as its major respon­sibility the carrying out of the program described in this article: the development of academic research on China through sponsorship of conferences and work­shops and through awards of research grants and fellowships. The creation of a single committee for this purpose will contribute to fulfilling this responsi­bility to the field of China studies.

The new chairman of the Joint Committee on Chinese Studies is Frederic E. Wakeman, Jr., Univer­sity of California, Berkeley. The other members are Hok-Iam Chan, University of Washington; Wm. Theodore de Bary, Columbia University; Robert F. Dernberger, University of Michigan; Jack L. Dull, University of Washington; Albert Feuerwerker, Uni­versity of Michigan; Victor H. Li, East- West Center (Honolulu); Michel Oks enberg, University of Mich­igan; Evelyn S. Rawski, University of Pittsburgh; G. William Skinner, Stanford University; and An­thony C. Yu, University of Chicago. Jason H. Parker, American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS), and Sophie Sa, Social Science Research Council (SSRC), serve as staff to the committee.

o

VOLUME 36, NUMBER 3

Social Indicators of the Status of Children

IN 1979, the Foundation for Child Development granted funds to the Council's Center for the Coor­dination of Research on Social Indicators to establish a Child and Family Indicators Advisory Group. This Advisory Group was asked to consider the state of the collection and reporting of data related to the changing well-being of children and their families, and to prepare a report on its assessments and rec­ommendations.

The report is now completed. It examines the social indicators that are available for monitoring the situa­tion of children and families, assesses their strengths and weaknesses for the task of facilitating research and an informed public and policy debate, and rec­ommends ways in which they can be improved and supplemented. This article summarizes some of the main recommendations in the report. 1

At the outset of the Advisory Group's work, it was clear that much had to be done to expand the area covered by existing social indicators and to enrich the presentation of facts in areas that have traditionally received some, but not enough, attention. These tasks were begun at a time when many major federal statis­tical programs were either in operation or projected for early implementation and when the implementa­tion of additional major data collecting activities did not seem fanciful.

When the report was written, however, the situa­tion was extraordinarily different. Essential data sources within the federal government that had once

* The author is a professor of economics at Columbia Univer­sity. This article is adapted from a report published in Social Indicators Newsletter, 17:3-5, August 1982, a publication of the Council's Center for Coordination of Research on Socia l Indica­tors.

I The Child and Family Indicators Advisory Group was ap­pointed in 1979. Mr. Watts served as chairman. Other members were Paul C. Glick, Arizona State University; Robert B. Hill, Bureau of Social Science Research (Washington, D.C.); Lois Wladis Hoffman, University of Michigan; Mary Grace Kovar, National Center for Health Statistics; Robert Merrill, University of Rochester; and Maris Vinovskis, University of Michigan.

The report of the Advisory Group is edited by Mr. Watts and Donald]. Hernandez, now of Georgetown University, who served as staff to the group. Copies may be obtained from the Social Science Research Council, Center for Coordination of Research on Social Indicators, 1755 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Wash­ington, D.C. 20036.

SEPTEM8ER 1982

The recommendations of a group ap­pointed by the Council to examine data bases for research on children

by Harold W. Watts*

been taken confidently for granted had been targeted for postponements, cancellations, or reductions, and others were in jeopardy. Even where the basic data collection is currently slated to continue, expectations of additional budget and personnel cuts made the prospects for maintaining, let alone improving, the quality and extent of the tabulations and other analy­tic efforts bleak. Consequently, the Advisory Group's first and most urgent recommendation had to be de­voted to defending the most basic and fundamental data sources against drastic cuts in federal funding for research and statistics.

The Advisory Group recognized the seriousness of the current budget cutting efforts. But it also recog­nized that social costs are not well measured by the size of federal budget outlays. Major unnecessary so­cial costs result from ill health, and other wastes of the human potential that exists at birth. It is imperative that the reduction of these costs continues to be a part of our nation's agenda. Impairing (or failing to im­prove) the social intelligence mechanism by which such wastes of human p'otential can be identified and measured is likely to prove a very costly strategy in the long run.

The specific recommendations of the Advisory Group were based upon six general guidelines for structuring social indicators on the status of children and families.

(1) Data with the child as the unit of observation and statistical description must be developed. Most relevant survey data are currently tabulated for household or family units, but the same data bearing on children can be recast to associate with each child the characteristics of the household, the family, and even broader contexts such as the community.

(2) Greater breadth must be achieved in measuring the contextual and environmental variables within which individual children and their families live.

(3) Indicators must be developed that reflect a child's cumulative experience as contrasted with his or her current, and perhaps transitory, status. Knowing the number of children who are living in one-parent households at one point in time, for example, is not the same as knowing how many are ever in a one-parent household sometime during

39

their childhood, or how many are in such households for a substantial part of their childhood years.

(4) Consistent definitions and rules of tabulation must be promoted that will allow direct comparisons across data sources, thus making the most of limited resources. Such conventions certainly should include the establishment of consistent child-age groupings. In many cases it may be possible to maintain year-by­year age classes, but where they are aggregated, it would be a great step forward to use uniform categories.

(5) A distinction between families and households must be scrupulously observed. Conventional surveys relate mainly to households or to coresident families-causing neglect of the potentially major role of family members who live in other households.

(6) The time separating the collection of data from their publication and public availability for detailed analysis must be reduced. Valuable resources invested in collecting data are lost if exploitation is not timely. Basing policy on old information can be hazardous and costly.

The specific recommendations of the Advisory Group are excerpted and listed here in descending order of urgency and ascending order of additional expense.

Recommendation 1: Maintenance and improvement of basic data collection programs

Highest priority must be given to sustaining the quality, comprehensiveness, and timeliness of six fundamental surveys and data collection programs on which our basic social indicators depend:

• Decennial Census of the Population • Current Population Survey • Vital Statistics Registration System • National Health Interview Survey • National Assessment of Educational Progress • Consumer Expenditure Survey

Three additional data collection systems contribute crucial depth to specific important aspects of the status and circumstances of children:

• National Health and Nutrition Examination Sur-vey

• National Survey of Family Growth • Panel Study of Income Dynamics

Other surveys, which would, if dropped or seri­ously impaired, leave damaging gaps in the fabric of our knowledge about the nation's children include:

40

• National Longitudinal Surveys of Labor Market Experience

• National Center for Education Statistics Surveys of the High School Classes of 1972, 1980, and 1982

• Monitoring the Future Survey • American Council on Education Surveys of

American College Freshman • National Natality Follow-back Survey

Recommendation 2: Publication of a biennial report on children

We urgently recommend the publication of a federally-sponsored biennial report on children to bring together in a single volume the major child and family indicators that exist but are currently scattered widely among many public and private publications concerned primarily with other topics. In addition, this report should contain articles dealing with cur­rent topics or research on child and family indicator methodology or on the results of empirical studies germane to the state of the child, the family, and related influences on children.

Recommendation 3: Establishment of a data archive for child indicators

We strongly recommend the establishment of a data archive to make available in a readily accessible form the substantial data that already exist on chil­dren, but which are not widely known, easily usable, or readily comparable. The archive should provide access, documentation, publicity, and, where ap­propriate, public use data tapes. Such an archive would not only facilitate the development of new indicators; it would also provide the basis for improving existing indicators and the data bases upon which they de­pend.

Recommendation 4: New indicators and new questions

Many new indicators can be developed without im­plementing additional data collection systems. New tabulations of existing data and the opportunity for collecting new data from questions added to existing data collection mechanisms should be maximally exploited. The task of coordinating the development and funding of new indicators by these means should be guided by a panel of experts with special interests in the development and growth of children.

VOLUME 36, NUMBER 3

Recommendation 5: Replication and fielding of new surveys

The National Health Examination Surveys of chil­dren should be replicated. This is the only major American data collection effort that includes physical examinations.

A national time-use study of children and associ­ated adults should be developed and fielded every 5-10 years. The Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan has a small pilot survey under way which can be used as the starting point for such an effort.

A National Youth Panel Study should be conceived, designed, and implemented over the next several years. Preliminary assessment suggests that the panel might consist of two 5-year age cohorts-of young children and of adolescents-from whom informa-

tion might be collected annually for a period of five years, with questions appropriate for the current age of each group. The National Center for Education Statistics is a logical home for this effort. It can build on the experience from its longitudinal High School and Beyond surveys.

Replications of other surveys, not currently planned, deserve serious consideration. The follow­ing merit particular attention:

• National Survey of Children by the Foundation for Child Development

• Purdue Opinion Panel Studies of Social and Political Attitudes of Youth

• Mid-decade Census of Population • Survey of Income and Program Participation

(never fielded, but designed and ready for im­plementation) 0

Fellowship and Grant Programs Sponsored by the Council for 1982-83

THIS ARTICLE DESCRIBES the fellowship and grant programs that the Council sponsors either indepen­dently or jointly with the American Council of Learned Societies. These programs provide disserta­tion fellowships and postdoctoral research grants in the social sciences and the humanities. Also described are opportunities for advanced study and research in China offered by the Committee on Scholarly Com­munication with the People's Republic of China.

Unless otherwise specified, funds for the Councils' international programs are provided by the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Ford Foun­dation. Funds for fellowships in employment and training are provided by the U.S. Department . of Labor.

Fellows and grantees are selected by committees of scholars appointed for this purpose. Awards are made only at stated times, so that all applicants under each program will compete on an equal basis. Pros­pective applicants should write to the Council for a copy of the 1982-83 fellowship and grants brochure. Applications for fellowships and grants are particu­larly invited from women and members of minority groups.

SEPTEMBER 1982

Fellowships for doctoral research in employment and training

The purposes of this program are to encourage basic and applied research in the social and behav­ioral sciences on public and private employment and training activities, policies, and programs; to develop the capability of the social and behavioral sciences relative to employment and training issues; and to insure the continued availability of trained personnel as program administrators, researchers, and spe­cialists. The program is supported by the U.S. De­partment of Labor and is conditional upon the receipt of funds for 1983.

The program supports the dissertation research of graduate students who have completed all require­ments for the doctoral degree except for the disserta­tion, or who will have met these requirements before the award becomes effective. Recipients in recent years have earned degrees in such fields as econom­ics, education, political science, psychology, and sociology.

Applications should be submitted to the Council by a university in the name of the candidate and must include a written recommendation from the candi-

41

date's doctoral advisor. Closing dates for receivIng applications are December 1, 1982 and March I,June 1, and September 1, 1983. Application forms should be requested from:

Director, Program in Employment and Training Social Science Research Council 1755 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20036

Fellowships for international doctoral research

Fellowships are offered for doctoral dissertation research in the social sciences and the humanities to be carried out in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, the Near and Middle East, or Western Europe. Program purposes and eligibility require­ments vary slightly from one area to another but all programs are designed to support scholars who in­tend to become specialists in the area where they will conduct their research. Applicants must have com­pleted all requirements for the Ph.D. except the dis­sertation by the time the fellowship is activated. (The Asian program also supports the advanced research of students in professional schools where the doctoral degree is generally not offered.) There are no age or citizenship restrictions for students enrolled in full­time study at universities in the United States or Canada. The deadline for the receipt of completed applications is November 1, 1982. Application forms should be requested from the Council.

Postdoctoral grants for international research

Grants for international research are offered to scholars whose competence for research in the social sciences or humanities has been demonstrated by their previous work and who hold the Ph.D. degree or have equivalent research experience. The grants are offered for research in or on Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Near and Mid­dle East.

42

These programs are designed to support research in one country, comparative research between coun­tries in an area, and comparative research between areas. The grants are not for training and candidates for academic degrees are not eligible. Applicants are encouraged to apply both to their universities and to other organizations for support of their research.

Grants are normally made for periods of three months to one year. Budgetary limitations may make it impossible, however, to provide full maintenance for the duration of an award. The application dead­line for all programs is December 1, 1982. Applica­tion forms should be requested from the Council.

Advanced study and research in China

The Committee on Scholarly Communication with the People's Republic of China (CSCPRC), which is sponsored jointly by the Council, the American Council of Learned Societies, and the National Academy of Sciences, has announced opportunities for graduate students and postdoctoral scholars in the natural sciences, engineering, social sciences, and humanities for 1983-1984. This program makes pos­sible long-term study (10 to 12 months) or research (3 to 12 months) in affiliation with Chinese universities and research institutes. Grants include transportation to and from China, a stipend, living and travel allowances while in China, and a limited research and educational materials allowance. The program has two components; application should be made either to the Graduate Program or to the Research Pro­gram. The deadline for the receipt of applications is November 5, 1982. Application forms should be re­quested from:

Committee on Scholarly Communication with the People's Republic of China

National Academy of Sciences 2101 Constitution Avenue Washington, D.C. 20418

o

VOLUME 36, NUMBER 3

SSRC-Fulbright Grants for Research on Economic Policy Coordination

Among Industrial Countries

WITH THE FINANCIAL SUPPORT of the U.S. Informa­tion Agency (formerly the u.s. International Com­munication Agency) and a number of the Fulbright commissions in Western Europe, the Joint Committee on Western Europe l sponsored last year a program of grants for American, Western European, and Israeli scholars whose research projects promise to increase understanding of the opportunities and constraints that condition economic policy coordination among the advanced industrial countries. A specially­appointed review panel-Charles S. Maier (chair­man), Rudiger Dornbusch, John H. Goldthorpe, Mark Kesselman, and Jan Pen-recommended, and the Board of Foreign Scholars approved, the follow­ing awards for the 1982-83 academic year: William H. Branson, professor of economics and in­

ternational affairs, Princeton University, for re­search in France and Greece on exchange rate pol­icy and international coordination

David P. Calleo, professor of European studies, School of Advanced International Studies, The Johns Hopkins University, for research in the United Kingdom, West Germany, Belgium, France, and Italy on the problem of military spending, na­tional budgets, and international interdependence

Werner Clement, professor of economics, Vienna University of Commerce, for research in the United States on patterns of labor force mobility and labor market policy

Bennett Harrison, associate professor of economics and urban studies and planning, Massachusetts In­stitute of Technology, for research in Italy, France, West Germany, and the United Kingdom on in­dustrial restructuring and employment

I The Joint Committee on Western Europe is sponsored by the Council and the American Council of Learned Societies. The members for 1982-83 are Philippe C. Schmitter, European Uni­versity Institute (Florence), chairman; Peter A. Gourevitch, Uni­versity of California, San Di~go; Gudmund Hernes, University of Bergen: Peter J . Katzenstein, Cornell University; Charles S. Maier, Harvard University; Jose Maria Maravall, University of Madrid; and Fritz W. Scharpf, International Institute of Man­agement (Berlin). Robert A. Gates serves as staff.

SEPTEMBER 1982

A supplement to the listing of fellowships and grants published in the June 1982 issue of Items

Bernard Haudeville, lecturer in economics, Univer­sity of Orleans, for research in the United States on the coordination of industrial policy at the national level

Elhanan Helpman, associate professor of economics, Tel-Aviv University, for research in the United States on macroeconomic policy and interdepen­dence under flexible exchange rates (in collabora­tion with Assaf Razin)

Robert E. Lipsey, professor of economics, Queens College, City University of New York, for research in Sweden on multinational corporations and for­eign trade in the United States and Sweden

Assaf Razin, professor of economics, Tel-Aviv Uni­versity, for research in the United States on mac­roeconomic policy and interdependence under flexible exchange rates (in collaboration with Elha­nan Helpman)

Paul N. Reding, associate professor of economics, Facultes Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix (Namur), for research in the United States on domestic and foreign determinants of short and long term interest rates in Belgium

Michele Saint Marc, professor of economics, Univer­sity of Orleans, for research in the United States on specific U.S. monetary structures and international monetary coordination

Alfredo A. Sousa, professor of economics, New Uni­versity of Lisbon and Catholic University of Portugal, for research in the United States on in­come distribution and growth in an open economy

Gabriele A. Tuitz, staff associate, Vienna Institute for Comparative Economic Studies, for research in the United States on the anticipated impact on growth, trade, and employment of the accession of Spain, Greece, and Portugal to the European Economic Community

Alessandro Vercelli, professor of economics, Univer­sity of Siena, for research in the United States on the coordination of anticyclical policies among in­dustrial countries

o 43

Current Activities at the Council

Popular religion and politics in Latin America

The Joint Committee on Latin Ameri­can Studies-sponsored by the Council and the .-\merican Council of Learned Societies-has initiated a project on popular relig-ion and politics. A confer­ence on this topic was held at the Belmont Conference Center, Elkridge, Maryland, on March 1-3, 1982. Partial support for the conference from the Inter-American Foundation enabled three of the Latin American participants to attend.

Daniel Levine, a political scientist at the University of Michigan, and Robert Was­serstrom, an anthropologist with the I nter-A merican Foundation (Rossyln, Virginia) were coordinators for the con­ference. Latin Americanists from various disciplines convened to assess the political significance of Latin American popular religion and to discuss new approaches to understanding the roles of these religions in shaping and expressing political action and political consciousness. Traditional theories concerning the role of religion in economic development predict either that development will lead to increasing sec­ularization, and to a steadily decreasing role for religion, or that religion will promote continued oppression, rather than liberation, among the poor. The re­cent history of these religions in Latin America has clearly challenged these as­sumptions. Not only has religion shown continued expansion and dynamism: it has also shown an increasing tendency, particularly notable within sectors of the post-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church, to become directly involved in programs of social justice and political change.

The conference hoped to stimulate new approaches to research on popular reli­gion, to focus attention directly on the people who believe and practice, and to examine the significance of religious par­ticipation in the daily lives of people and in the formation of their political actions and aspirations. It was felt that this per­spective would extend our understanding of how religious beliefs and participation are involved in shaping the current Latin American political scene. In addition, it would counter a tendency among stu­dents of Latin American religions to focus primarily on religious institutions and their leadership and to give insufficient

44

attention to the active role which follow­el's have in reshaping practices and beliefs to express their own views of society and their goals for changing it.

Issues raised during the discussions in­cluded how to reformulate the concept of popular religion and its interface with so­cial class, popular culture, and politics. A particular focus for debate was on the Christian "base communities"-grass roots groups organized by the Catholic Church in poor and working class areas. These have proliferated in many Latin American countries, and exemplify the current movement toward religious ac­tivitism and forceful support for pro­grams of social justice. These have most hequently been analyzed from the top down, that is, as progressive directions from within the Catholic Church hierar­chy itself.

Comparisons of the differential success of the communities in various Latin American countries were made during the conference. These further revealed that their popularity appears to be stim­ulated by conditions of political repres­sion, as occurred in post-Allende Chile and post-1964 Brazil, and is often inhib­ited by strong church-state relations, as in Colombia. However, conference par­ticipants agreed that too little is known of the effects of these communities on the beliefs or the daily lives of those who join them. Nor is the influence of their mem­bership upon the character of the Chris­tian base communities well understood. Further, almost nothing is known of the relationship between these communities and other forms of popular religiosity, including more trad itional forms of popular Catholicism, Pentecostal Protes­tantism, and various forms of Spiritism.

Participants in the conference included Phillip Berryman, Philadelphia, Pennsyl­vania; Thomas Bruneau, McGill Univer­sity; Marilena Chiaui, University of Siio Paulo; Rubem Cesar Fernandes, The Na­tional Museum, Federal University of Rio de Janiero; Elizabeth Hansen, Interna­tional Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Cali, Colombia; Thomas Ksel­man, University of Notre Dame; Mr. Levine; Servando Ortoll, Columbia Uni­versity; Charles Reilly, Inter-American Foundation (Rosslyn, Virginia); Martin de la Rosa Medellin, Michoacan Institute for Social Research (Mexico); Jan Rus,

Harvard University; Juan LUIS Segundo, Montevideo, Uruguay: Brian Smith, Mas­sachusetts Institute of Technology; Vel'­ena Stokke, Autonomous University of Barcelona: Michael Taussig, University of Michigan: and Mr. Wassel·strom.

Child Development in Life-Span Perspective

The Subcommittee on Child Develop­ment in Life-Span Perspective (of the Committee on Life-Course Perspectives on Human Development) held its first conference on March 5-6, 1982, at the Center for Advanced Study in the Be­havioral Sciences, Stanford, California.

The subcommittee met with a number of child developmentalists to examine the relevance of life-span theory for research on two important social and cognitive phenomena: aggressive behavior and concept formation. On the fi rst day, chaired by E. Mavis Hetherington, University of Virginia, Gerald R. Patterson, Oregon So­cial Learning Center (Eugene), and Dan Olweus, University of Bergen, presented longitudinal research on the development of aggression from childhood to adoles­cence. Judith Dunn, University of Cam­bridge, and Ross D. Parke, University of Illinois, were discussants.

The second day's discussion was chaired by Ellen M. Markman, Stanford University. Frank C. Keil, Cornell Uni­versity, discussed constraints on young children's concept formation and Michael Cole, University of California, San Diego, discussed the effects of schooling. Susan Carey, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Eleanor Rosch, Univer­sity of California, Berkeley, were discus­s.mts. Other participants included Anne Colby, Henry A. Murray Research Center of Radcliffe College; Eve Clark, Stanford University; Falk Fabich, Max Planck In­stitute for Human Development and Education (Berlin); David L. Featherman, University of Wisconsin; John Flavell, Stanford University; Tamara Hareven, Clark University; Eleanor E. Maccoby, Stanford University; Wolfgang Schneider. Stanford University; Barbara Tversky, Stanford University, and Fred

VOLUME 36, NUMBER 3

Verdonik, City Uni\'ersity of New York. A conference on Pubertal and Psychoso­cial Change is scheduled for December 10-12, 1982 in Tucson, Arizona.

Members of the subcommittee are Paul B. l\altes, ~ax Planck Institute for Human Development and Education (Berlin): Orville G. Brim,Jr., Foundation for Child Development (New York): Judith Dunn, University of Cambridge: Glen H. Elder, Jr . , Cornell University: E. Mavis Hetherington, University of Virginia: Richard M. Lerner, Pennsylvania State University: Ellen M. Markman, Stanford University: John W. Meyer, Stanford University: Ross D. Parke, University of Illinois: Martin E. P. Seligman, University of Pennsylvania: M. Brewster Smith, Uni­versity of California, Santa Cruz: and Franz E. Weinert, Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research (Munich). Lonnie R. Sherrod serves as staff to the subcommittee.

School-age pregnancies and parenthood

A conference on school-age pregnan­cies and parenthood was held on May 23-26, 1982, at the Smithsonian Institu­tion's Belmont Conference Center, Elk­ridge, Maryland, sponsored by the Committee on Biosocial Perspectives on Parent Behavior. The meeting brought together findings and theory on the topic from cross-cultural studies, laboratory and field animal research, historical and evolutionary approaches, and human de­velopmental studies. Sessions were held on the timing of pregnancy and par­enthood in the life cycle; the use of ani­mal models; emotional and cognitive de­velopment in relation to physical matura­tion; adolescent sexuality; cross-cultural and ethnic perspectives; and special cir­cumstances in the modern world. The aim was to examine many different facets of school-age pregnancy and parenthood in order to contribute to an understand­ing of the secular trend in the United States and of the consequences for the school-age parent and his/her child's de­velopment. Beatrix A. Hamburg, Chil­dren's Hospital Medical Center (Boston), and Jane B. Lancaster, University of Oklahoma, chaired the meeting. The agenda was organized around presenta­tions as well as specific and general dis­cussions. Participants' presentations in­cluded Jeanne Altmann, University of Chicago, "Timing of Pregnancy in the

SEPTEMBER 1982

Life Cycle of Wild Primates: Social, Ecological and Phyletic Factors"; Catherine S. Chilm,m, University of Wis­consin, Milwaukee, "Adolescent Sexuality in Changing American Society: Attitudes and Behavior"; David Elkind, Tufts Uni­versity, "Adolescent Cognition and Par­enthood"; Arthur B. Elster, University of Utah, "Adolescent Fathers: Their Influ­ence on Child Development"; Phyllis Eveleth, Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health, "Timing of Menarche: Secular Trend and Population Differences"; Tiffany Field, University of Miami, "Maternal Sensitivity and Mother-Infant Interaction in Adolescent Mothers"; Stanley M. Garn, University of Michigan, "The Biology of Teen-Age Pregnancy: The Mother and the Child"; Richard Gelles, "School-Age Parenthood and Child Abuse"; Beatrix A. Hamburg, "Adolescent Emotional and Cognitive Development: Subsets of Adolescent Mothers"; Jane B. Lancaster, "Evolution­ary Perspectives: Human and Nonhuman Primate Research"; Anne Petersen, Uni­versity of Chicago, "Cognitive Develop­ment, Gynecological Age, and Parental Style and Decision Making"; Edward O. Reiter, University of Massachusetts, "The Neuroendocrine Regulation of Pubertal Onset"; Stephen Suomi, University of Wisconsin, "Laboratory Research on Adolescent Parenthood in Primates"; Charles M. Super, Harvard University, "Developmental Consequences of School-Age Parenting for Infants"; Maris Vinovskis, University of Michigan, "His­torical Views on School-Age Par­enthood"; John W. M. Whiting, Harvard University, "Age of Marriage and First Pregnancy Across Cultures"; Carol M. Worthman, University of Nairobi, "De­velopmental Dysynchrony as Normal Ex­perience: Kikuyu Adolescents."

A volume from the conference is in preparation, edited by Beatrix A. Ham­burg and Jane B. Lancaster. Members of the committee are Jane B. Lancaster, (chairman); Richard J. Gelles, University of Rhode Island; Kathleen R. Gibson, University of Texas, Houston; Beatrix A. Hamburg; David A. Hamburg, Harvard University; Melvin J. Konner, Harvard University; and Charles M. Super, Har­vard University.

Research on New York City

In February 1982, the Council con­vened a small meeting to develop plans

for a new multidisciplinary and compara­tive project on the historical development of New York City. The participants dis­cussed the potential value to the social sciences and the humanities of a long­term focus on New York as both a na­tional and an international city, one which is in certain respects typical of other urban places, in other respects atypical, and in still others, archetypical.

The initial planning discussions ranged across a wide variety of issues. These in­cluded political and economic ideas and forms generated in the city, their impact on the national and international com­munities, and their reciprocal impact on the structure and development of the city itself. The meeting stressed the utility of comparative studies with other major cities, e.g., London, Paris, Tokyo, and their differential contributions to the structure and content of international commercial, financial, and political net­works, as well as to the formulation and national and international dissemination of both high and popular culture over the past several centuries. It was also sug­gested that the city has often contained in concentrated form conflicting forces that have eventually come into play across the society as a whole. This, in turn, makes New York City a particularly fruitful set­ting for systematic examinations of (I) the forms and processes of assimilation, so­cialization, and eventual dispersion of migrant populations; (2) ethnic conflict and accomodation; (3) neighborhood de­velopment and evolution: (4) urban mobilization ; and (5) the numerous social, cultural, political, and economic innova­tions initiated in the city-and often then propagated well beyond it-which have arisen in response to these various pro­cesses and problems.

Participants in the initial planning meeting included Ira Katznelson, Univer­sity of Chicago, chairman; Dall Forsythe, City of New York; Herbert Gutman, The Graduate Center, City University of New York; John Mollenkopf, The Graduate Center, City University of New York; Frances Fox Piven, Boston University; Kenneth Prewitt, Social Science Research Council; Martin Shefter, Cornell Univer­sity; and David L. Szanton, Social Science Research Council.

The Council is now planning to con­vene several additional small planning meetings on these and related issues towards the formulation in mid-1983 of a research agenda and program of activities for this new activity.

45

I

V

Newly-issued Council Publications The Five-Year Outlook for Science

and Technology: Social and Behavioral Sciences, prepared by the Social Science Research Council. In National Science Foundation, The 5-Yeflr OUllookfol Science find Techllolo!-,'Y. Source :\1aterials, Volume 2. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1981. 154 pages. Paper, for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. x + 854 pages, both volume~. Paper, $23.00 both vol­umes.

This is a volume of essays prepared under Council auspices for the National Science Foundation. It contains the fol­lowing chapters: Kenneth Prewitt and the staff of the Council, "Introduction." (1) Kenneth Prewitt, "Assessing the Significance of Social Science Research." (2) David S. Krantz, David C. Glass, Richard Contrada, and Neal E. Miller, "Behavior and Health." (3) Judith M. Tanur, "Advances in Methods for Large-Scale Surveys and Experiments." (4) David L. Featherman, "The Life-Span Perspective in Social Science Research." (5) Albert J. Reiss, Jr., "Statistical Mea­surement of Social Change." (6) Martin L. Hoffman, "Social and Emotional Devel­opment in Children." A description of each essay appears in Roberta Balstad Miller, "Social Science in the National Sci­ence Foundation's Five-Year Outlook on Science and Technology," ltem,l, June 1981, pages 7-10.

Social Accounting Systems: Essays on the State of the Art, edited by F. Thomas Juster and Kenneth C. Land. Papel's based on the Workshop on Social Ac­counting Systems: Critique and Assess­ment of PJOspects, sponsored by the Ad­visory and Planning Committee on Social Indicators, held in Washington, D.C., March 24-26, 1980. New York: Aca­demic Press, 1981. xxi + 479 pages. Cloth, $45.

At least since the publication of Ber­tram M. Gross's 1966 article! "Social Systems Accounting," many social scien­tists have recognized that the standard National Income and Product Accounts do not provide adequate information for

I Bertram M. ( :.-oss, "The State of the !'I:.ltion: So· cial Systems \ccollnt ing.-· in R:OYlllond ,\ , Baller, edilo)". Social /mli((IIOI \ (Cambridge. Mas"al.husett~: MIT Press, 1966), page_ 154-271.

46

the assessment of the state of the nation, the measurement of social change, or the development of public policies , Two m;uor empirical approaches to more gen­eral models of national social accounts have since developed: time-based ac­counts and demognlphic accounts. These two approaches have developed in rela­tive isolation from each other, with time­hased accounts being primarily the work of economists, and demographic accounts primarily that of demographers. A Coun­cil conference was convened in 1980 to bring together leading researchers in both areas, to review progress, and to identify remaining conceptual and em­pirical problem~. The organizers of the conference and editors of the volume al 'e F. Thomas Juster, University of Michi­gan, and Kenneth C. Land, University of Texas.

Time-based accounting systems rest on economic theories .tbout the production of goods and services within households and on theories about the production of public goods. Data from surveys on the use of time provide information on the allocation of time to various activities within the household. This information is used to assign values to household pro­duction, such as the repair of auto­mobiles, house maintenance, cooking, and care of the ill. This information may be combined with the tr.tditional mea­sures of market good~ and services to produce more general systems of national soci;11 accounts , It also serves to estimate the economic value of, for ex,lInple, the work of homemake) s.

Demographic accounts build on demo­graphic and sociological models of popu­lation stocks in, and flows among, the various social demographic states. In a simple case, the inflows of a population into a given geographical area and time period should be precisely equal to the outflows hom that time pel iod and area. That is, the pupulation count for time I for an area (consisting of residents sur­viving from the preceding time period, births, and in-migrants) must equal the uutflow count for that area at time I + 1 (consisting of residents surviving into the time period I + 1, deaths, and OUl­

migrants). This simple population-by­area-by-time-period classification can be extended to other social demographic classifications, including sex, race, marital

status, age, and parity. The emphasis is on quantifying change in the structure of society, as reflected in these matrices, in terms of patterns of transitions and dis­trihution of populations among the \'ari­ous demographic states.

Nine papers were commissioned, four on time-based accuunting systems and two on demographic accounts. One paper related subjective social indicators­measures of people\ perceptions of such matters ,I~ their personal well-being-to social accounting systems. Two papers critically evaluated both time-based and

. demographic accounting systems. Con­trihutors to the volume include Frank M. Andrews, University of Michigan; Paul N. Courant, University of Michigan; Greg K. Dow, University of Michigan; Marcus FeI· son, University of Illinois; Karl A. Fox, Iowa State University; Syamal K. Ghosh, Indian Institute of Management (Cal ­cutta); James S. House, University of Michigan; Mr. Juster; Mr. Land; Marilyn M. Mc:\1illen, Social Security Administra­tion; AlbertJ. Reiss,Jr., Yale University; Richard Ruggles, Yale University; Richard Stone, University of Cambridge; and Nestor E. Terleckyj, National Plan­ning Association (Washington, D.C.).

In his foreword to the volume, AlbertJ. Reis3, Jr., chairman of the sponsoring Advisory ,lI1d Planning Committee on So­cial Indicators, suggests that the volume is "a fundamental basis for investigating the util ity of social accounting models for the study of social change and the analysis of social policy ." But he challenges re­searchers in the "rea tu examine theil' as­~lIl1lptiuns. He calls for increased atten­tion to the accu racy of measurement and the semitivity of social accounting models to various sources of inaccuracy. Noting that organizations are fundamental to the social life of complex societies, he sug­gests that attention he given to the he­havior3 of organizations apart from the individual properties of their consti tuent membe rs. And he briefly considen problems of the development, in­stitutionalization, ,lIld organization of procedures for data collection.

The editors intend the book to be of interest to students of contemporary su­cial change, as well as 1O re~earchen con­cerned with social indicators and the de­velopment of national social accounting systems.

VOLU ME 36, :--.lUMBER 3

Comparative Studies of How People Think: An Introduction, by Michael Cole and Barbara Means. Sponsored by the Committee on Cognitive Research. Cam­bridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Univer­sity Press, 1981. 208 pages. Cloth, S 15.00.

The psychology of thinking has traditionally involved making compari­sons between different groups of people. On the whole, these comparisons have rendered a substantial body of knowl­edge; but they have also suffered the pit­falls of faulty organizational logic and un­founded or invidious conclusions. In this volume. Michael Cole and Barbara Means layout the problems involved in com­paring how people think. They show, for example, how variables confounded with the constitution of two groups can lead to the wrong interpretation of group dif­ferences. More subtly, they demonstrate how cognitive differences between groups can destroy the equivalence of the tests used to make comparisons. They also discuss the unfortunate way that ob­served differences between groups have led to prejudicial interpretations in which mental differences are transformed into mental deficits.

Cole and Means illustrate all these problems with a rich variety of examples drawn from the research literature in comparative cognition. Because they use real examples, Cole and Means offer much more than the usual remedies for improving research design . Instead of merely telling the student to run the right control groups, for example, they show how theory enters into the selection of appropriate controls and how atheoretic comparative work can easily run amok.

The preparation of this book was made possible through the Council, whose Committee on Cognitive Research spon­sored it. A series of workshops in the mid-1970s sponsored by the committee explored the severe interpretive prob­lems posed by research on human beings that is comparative in nature. The volume is based upon discussions in these work­shops as well as on private conversations and several years of teaching and re­viewing for journals by the individual authors.

Michael Cole, a member of the com­mittee, is professor and director of the Program in Communications, University of California, San Diego. Barbara Means is assistant professor of educational psy­chology, University of Maryland, Balti­more County.

Other members of the committee are

SEPTEMBER 1982

John Bransford, Vanderbilt University; Aaron V. Cicourel, University of Califor­nia, San Diego; Charles J. Fillmore, Uni­versity of California, Berkeley; James G. March, Stanford University; Herbert L. Pick,Jr., University of Minnesota; Naomi Quinn (cochairman), Duke University; and Eleanor Rosch (cochairman), University of California, Berkeley. Lonnie R. Sher­rod serves as staff.

II An Assessment of Research-Doctorate

Programs in the United States: Mathe­matical and Physical Sciences, edited by Lyle V. Jones, Gardner Lindzey, and Porter E. Coggeshall. A publication of the Conference Board of Associated Re­search Councils. Washington, D.C.: Na­tional Academy Press. 1982. xii + 243 pages. Paper. $10.50.

This is the first publication of a series sponsored by the Committee on an As­sessment of Quality-Related Charac­teristics of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States, a project of the Con­ference Board of Associated Research Councils. Subsequent publications will be on programs in the Humanities. En­gineering. the Life Sciences, and the So­cial and Behavioral Sciences. The Con­ference Board is comprised of represen­tatives of the American Council of Learned Societies. the American Council on Education, the National Research Council. and the Social Science Research Council.

With this series of volumes the Confer­ence Board continues a tradition pioneered by the Amel'ican Council on Education. which in 1966 published An A. .. .I"e.~\-ment a/Quality ill Graduate Education, the report of a study conducted by Allan M. Carner. and in 1970 published A Rating 0/ Graduate Pro/51"am.'i, by Kenneth D. Roose and Charles J. Anderson. The Cartter and Roose-Anderson reports have been widely used and frequently cited.

The Conference Board realized that to sponsor a study comparing the quality of programs in 32 disciplines and from more than 200 doctorate-granting uni­versities is to invite criticism, friendly and otherwise. The Board believes that the present study. building on earlier crit­icisms and adopting a multidimensional approach to the assessment of research doctorate programs, represents a sub­stantial improvement over past reports. Nevertheless. each of the diverse mea­sures used in the reports has its own Iim-

it.Jtions. and none provides a precise index of the quality of a program for educating students for careers in re­search. No doubt a future study. taking into account the weaknesses as well as the strengths of the present one. will repre­sent still further improvement. One mark of success for the present study, the Board believes. would be for it to take its place in a continuing series. thereby con­tributing to the indicator base necessary for informed policies that will maintain and perhaps enhance the quality of the nation's research-doctorate prognlms.

Large-Scale Macro-Econometric Mod­els, edited by J. Kmenta and J. B. Ram­sey. Amsterdam: North-Holland Pub­lishing Company. 1981. xiv + 462 pages. Cloth. $56.00.

This is a collection of essays on interna­tional monetary economics sponsored by Project LINK. an activity of the Commit­tee on Economic Stability and Growth.

Labor Commitment and Social Change in Developing Areas, edited by Wilbert E. Moore and Arnold S. Feldman. Westport. Connecticut: Greenwood Press. 1982. xv + 378 p'lges. Cloth. $35.00.

This is a reprint of a book first pub­lished by the Council in 1960. sponsored by the Committee on Economic Growth (1949-68). In 1960, the committee mem­bers were Simon Kuznets. Harvard Uni­versity. chairman; Richard HartshOJ'ne, University of Wisconsin; Melville J. Herskovits, Northwestern University; Edgar M. Hoover. Pittsburgh Rebrional Phmning Association; Bert F. Hoselitz, University of Chicago; Wilbert E. Moore. Princeton University; and Joseph J. Spengler. Duke University.

The editors provide a preface. four in­troductory chapters. and a postscript. Other contributors are Stanley H. Udy. Jr., "Preindustrial Forms of Organized Work"; Cyril S. Belshaw. "Adaptation of Personnel Policies in Social Context"; Peter B. Hammond. "Management in Economic Transition"; Melville J. Herskovits, "The Organization of Work"; Peter Gregory, "The Labor Market in Puerto Rico"; Morris David Morris, "The Labor Market in India"; Richard H . Holton. "Changing Demand and Con­sumption"; Bert F. Hoselitz. "The Market Matrix"; Walker Elkan and Lloyd A. Fallers, "The Mobility of Labor"; Milton Singer. "Changing Craft Traditions in

47

India"; Melvin M. Tumin. "Competing Status Systems"; William H. Knowles. "Industrial Conflict and Unions"; Man­ning Nash. "Kinship and Voluntary Asso­ciation"; David E. Apter. "Political Orga­nization and Ideology"; and Clark Kerr. "Changing Social Structures."

Research on Labor Mobility: An Ap­praisal of Research Findings in the United States. by Herbert S. Parnes. Press, 1982. xi + 205 pages. Cloth, $25.00.

This is a reprint of Council Bulletin 65, published in 1954, sponsored by the Committee on Labor Market Research (1943-56). In 1954, the committee mem­bers were Dale Yoder, University of Min­nesota, chiarman; E. Wight Bakke, Yale University; Philip M. Hauser, University of Chicago; Clark Kerr, University of California, Berkeley; Charles A. Myers, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Gladys L. Palmer, University of Pennsyl­vania; and Carroll L. Shartle, Ohio State University.

The book was commissioned by the committee as the final volume of a series on labor mobility. Other volumes in the series are Gladys L. Palmer, Research Planning Memorandum on Labor Mobility (1947); Gladys L. Palmer and Carol P. Brainerd, Jlbor Mobility in Six Cities: A Report on the Suroey of Patterns and Factors in Labor Mobility, 1940-1950 (1954); and E. Wight Bakke et aI., Labor Mobility and Economic Opportunity (1954).

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL 605 THIRD AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10016

Incorporated in the State of lIIinot{, Deumber 27, 1924, for the purpose of advancing research in the social .{cienus

Directors, 1982-83: STEPHEN E. FIENBERG, Carnegie-Mellon University; HOWARD E. GARDNER, Veterans Administration Hospital (Boston); CHARLES O. JONES, University of Virginia; MICHAEL KAMMEN, Cornell University; ROBERT W. KATES, Clark University; ROBERT A. LEVINE, Harvard University; GARDNER LINDZEY, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences; ELEANOR E. MACCOBY, Stanford University; MARC NERLOVE, University of Pennsylvania; HUGH T. PATRICK, Yale University; KENNETH PREWITT, Social Science Research Council; MURRAY L. SCHWARTZ, University of California, Los Angeles; DoNNA E. SHALALA, Hunter College, City University of New York; STEPHEN M. STIGLER, University of Chicago; SIDNEY VERBA, Harvard University; IMMANUEL WALLERSTEIN, State University of New York, Binghamton; WILLIAM JULIUS WILSON, University of Chicago.

OffICers and Staff: KENNETH PREWITT, President; DAVID L. SILLS, Executive Associate; ROBERT A. GATES, MARTHA A. GEPHART, BROOKE LARSON, ROBERT PARKE, ROBERT W. PEARSON, PETER B. READ, RICHARD C. ROCKWELL, SOPHIE SA, LONNIE R. SHERROD, DAVID L. SZANTON; RONALD J. PELECK, Controller.

48 VOLUME 36. NUMBER 3