Items Vol. 33 No. 3-4 (1979)

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

VOLUME 33 • NUMBERS 3/4 • DECEMBER 1979 605 THIRD AVENUE. NEW YORK, N.Y. 10016

A Decade of Research by Project Link

Genesis and purpose

Project LINK is a cooperative, international research activity aimed at increasing basic understanding of the nature and strength of economic relationships that bind individual countries into a world economy and serve to transmit both stabilizing and destabilizing disturbances across national boundaries. Structural econometric models of the various countries and regions included in the system are linked through a central world trade matrix of commodity flows and prices and of exchange rates and capital flows.

The LINK system is global in scope and virtually complete in its geographical coverage. From its inception, it has been used for ex-ante forecasts of both the level and composition of world production and trade and of inflation and unemployment rates. Numerous applications have also been made of international multipliers and of policy simulations and scenarios of the effects of international disturbances. Over the decade of its existence, the project has expanded substantially in the degree of country coverage, the scope of linkage mechanisms, and the length

* The authors are, respectively, professor of economics at Stanford University and Benjamin Franklin professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania. They have served as members of the Council's Committee on Economic Stability and Growth since its appointment in 1959; the committee has been chaired by Mr. Hickman since 1962. The other members of the committee, which sponsors Project LINK, are: Irma Adelman, University of California, Berkeley; Rudiger Dornbusch, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Otto Eckstein, Harvard University; Stephen M. Goldfeld, Princeton University; Franco Modigliani, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Geoffrey H. Moore, Rutgers University, Newark; William D. Nordhaus, Yale University; and Arthur M. Okun, Brookings Institution (Washington, D.C.).

by Bert C. Hickman and Lawrence R. Klein*

of the forecast horizon. Methodological contributions have been made to the theory of trade linkages and world trade models, to the solution algorithms for large systems of linked models, to the integration of national and commodity models, and to the incorporation of exchange-rate determination and capital flows into multinational models.

The methodological basis of the project is the idea of integrating independently-developed national models into a world system. Early in 1968, the Committee on Economic Stability and Growth concluded that the flourishing state of macroeconometric modeling at home and abroad provided the necessary foundation for such a program. Its feasibility was examined at a planning session held at Stanford U niversity under the auspices of the committee on July

CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE

49 A Decade of Research by Project LINK-Bert C. Hickman and Lawrmce R. Klein

56 The Accident at Three Mile Island: Social Science Perspectives-C. P. Wolf

61 Council Symposium on Individual and Social Change 62 Pendleton Herring Receives the Merriam Award 63 Current Activi ties at the Council

-The representation of cultural knowledge -Institute on life-span development -Law and social structure in the !'lear and Middle East -Parenting behavior -Comparative stratification research -Early socialization in Japan and the United States -Staff appointment: Ronald J. Peleck

66 Recent Council Publications

49

8-9, 1968. 1 The group decided to go forward with the program, and the Committee on Economic Stability and Growth agreed to secure financial support.

Project LINK draws on intellectual resources and local expertise from around the world. This means that the national models are built and maintained by resident economists who know local institutional and behavioral characteristics and are well informed about the economic outlook a.nd the evolution of economic policy of their particular country. The individual models vary considerably in size and specification, thus broadening the information base and enriching the theoretical and methodological content of the system as compared with a centrally-constructed multiregional model with a uniform structure across countries. In addition to these advantages, participants in the group, and through them, other economists in the various countries, have benefited from the exchange of ideas and scientific papers at the periodic LINK conferences. The papers themselves have been disseminated to a broader audience through journal articles, research memoranda, and three volumes on LINK research [2, 20, 21]. A complete bibliography appears in [20], Modelling the International Transmission Mechanism, edited by John A. Sawyer.

Organization and implementation of the project

The committee has been fortunate to obtain financial support for the project from many sources, with principal sustaining contributions during the formative years from the International Monetary Fund and the National Science Foundation. 2 Principal uses of the project funds include support for LINK-related research on the national models at the various participating centers, the travel and maintenance expenses for the annual spring and summer meetings of the participants, and the maintenance and operation of the centralized system under the direction of Mr. Klein at the LINK Secretariat, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania. The national models themselves are built, maintained, and oper-

1 In addition to Messrs. Hickman and Klein, the participants in this planning meeting consisted of two then-members of the committee. R. A. Gordon, University of California, Berkeley, and Rudolf R. Rhomberg, International Monetary Fund (Washington, D.C.). as well as R. J. Ball, London Graduate School of Business Studies; Hidekazu Eguchi, Bank of Japan; John A. Sawyer, University of Toronto; Petrus J. Verdoorn, Central Planning Bureau (The Hague);Jean Waelbroeck, Free University of Brussels; and Tsunehiko Watanabe. Kyoto University.

50

ated at the individual national centers, mostly without use of LINK funds. Project funds, however, have been instrumental in getting some new model centers started and in training their personnel.

Semiannual meetings provide the forum for appraising and modifying forecasts, presenting papers on new national models, the modeling of specific aspects of the transmission mechanism, simulation studies with the complete system, and other relevant subjects. The spring meetings focus primarily on the preparation of ex-ante forecasts and the summer meetings are devoted to presentations and discussion of new research results. Guests are invited to present papers on aspects of international and domestic modeling related to the ongoing work of the project and to serve as external critics of LINK research.

Since research takes place at each participating institution, provisions are made for frequent coordination. The LINK Secretariat serves as the central repository for the associated models and data bank and keeps participants informed about project research, meeting plans, and administrative affairs. The basic research agenda is formulated at the annual meetings by the group as a whole, and an Executive Committee oversees the general implementation of the project. 3

Evolution of the system

The basic framework for the LINK system emerged from two days of intensive discussion by the planning group inJuly 1968. (1) Each national model would be accepted in the form put forward by the local econometricians, subject to group critique. (2) The principal linkages would come initially through the

2 In keeping with the cooperative international spirit that characterizes LINK, funding has also been provided for various purposes during the project's history by the Austrian National Bank. the Bank of Finland, the Bank of Greece, the Bank of Japan, the Bank of Sweden, the Belgian National Science Foundation, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Canada Council, the Center of Planning and Economic Research (Athens), the European Economic Community, the German Bundesbank, the German Research Association, the Institute for Advanced Studies (Vienna), the Italian Science Foundation. the Japan Economic Research Center. the United Nations, and the U.S. departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, State, and Treasury.

3 The Executive Committee currently includes Mr. Hickman. chairman; R. J. Ball, London Graduate School of Business Studies; Mr. Klein; Wilhelm Krelle, University of Bonn; Stanislav Menshikov, United Nations; Chikashi Moriguchi, Kyoto University; V. K. Sastry, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (Geneva); John A. Sawyer, University of Toronto; and Jean Waelbroeck, Free University of Brussels.

VOLUME 33, NUMBERS 3/4

merchandise trade accounts and would be implemented by national import functions for four internationally-standardized (SITC) commodity groupings in each national model. (3) Adopting a suggestion put forward by Mr. Rhomberg, instead of estimating bilateral import functions among all pairs of trading countries, exports would eventually be determined by allocating each country's imports among all supplying countries according to a matrix of trade shares. (4) Since the export-shares approach would involve difficult theoretical, data, and computational problems, it was also decided to experiment with simpler methods for obtaining a consistent world trade solution while development of the shares approach progressed.

The next three or four years were devoted to carrying out this broad program of research, beginning with the first world conference of Project LINK, held in Hakone, japan, September 16-20, 1969.4 At first, short-cut methods-Mini-LINK and Midi-LINK-were used to solve the system and forecast world trade, but the Maxi-LINK method involving the shares approach was operational by 1972.5

Although conceptually straightforward, Maxi-LINK solutions are computationally complex and involve formidable problems of data management. As it stood in mid-1972, there were 1,178 simultaneous nonlinear equations in the set of 12 national models for industrialized countries and several hundred further equations were included in the full system to cover trading relationships in the rest of the world and to provide the international linkages. The countries represented by full-blown national models included Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, West Germany, Italy, japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The nonsocialist world trading system was closed geographically by assuming constant trade shares for the remaining OECD countries as a group and by the use of

4 For reviews of this formative period, see B. G. Hickma'h [6] and L. R. Klein [12].

5 The primary source on LINK research during the years 1969--72 is the volume edited by R. J. Ball [2]. The theoretical structure of model linkage is presented in contributions by B. G. Hickman, R. R. Rhomberg, and J. Waelbroeck in Part I, and the initial empirical implementation is described in Part V by L. R. Klein and A. Van Peeterssen. Subsequent modifications and refinements in the solution algorithm were made by Van Peeterssen, C. Moriguchi, and K. Johnson, as described in Johnson and Van Peeterssen, "Solving and Simulating the LINK

System," in J. L. Waelbroeck, editor [10]. This volume also contains complete equation listings of the 13 models for industrialized countries and the four regional models of developing countries comprising the LINK system in the mid-1970s.

DECEMBER 1979

reduced-form trade equations for 11 regional blocs of developing countries. Socialist trade was not covered at that time.

In the years since 1972, the LINK system has expanded in virtually every dimension. Many of the original models have been revised and enlarged to broaden their scope for the analysis of capital flows, interest rates, exchange rates, energy developments, and inflationary trends. A model has been added for France, and the less-developed countries are represented by regional models for Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. The socialist world is covered by models for Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and the U.S.S.R. Exchange rates and capital flows among the developed countries are determined endogenously as part of the linkage mechanism along with trade flows and prices. The complete system now includes more than 5,000 equations.

The system is maintained in computer-ready form at LINK Central, which is also the site for the preparation of the annual forecasts and for many of the scenarios and policy studies. Other LINK research centers that have the entire system on their computers are in Austria, Italy, japan, and the United Kingdom. A new interactive version which greatly facilitates simulation studies has recently been installed at the United Nations. As a matter of policy, all participants in LINK are encouraged to install and operate the system in their own centers.

Turbulent events

When the LINK project was conceived and initiated in 1968-69, the world had just experienced a period of unusual and fairly steady growth in the volume of total trade, growing at about 10 per cent yearly towards the end of the decade. We were on the verge then of a period when the international economy was to undergo a series of large shocks and when international economics was to assume a greater importance. In the decade of the 1970s, the United States grew to appreciate more and more the internationalization of its economic affairs through recognition that we are truly an open economy. During this decade, EastWest trade has also flourished. Both the U.S.S.R. and China opened their economies to an increasing involvement with trade linkages. The design and functioning of the LINK system captured these changing roles of the big powers-the U.S., the U.S.S.R., and China-and dealt successively with a stream of important international issues and events.

Project LINK began during the waning years of the 51

system of fixed parities for exchange rates between countries, which resulted from a 44-nation meeting convened in 1944 at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. Under this system, exchange rates were kept constant until the pressure of imbalances (surplus or deficit on current account) mandated a change. These changes were usually limited and occurred frequently enough to give flexibility to the system. LINK initially studied the international transmission mechanism within the terms of this system. The principal linkage methods of the system were centered around the use of the world trade matrix-a square array showing all possible bilateral flows of trade between pairs of a given list of countries or areas-and the stability of this matrix became a matter of great concern once the turbulent events of the 1970s began to unfold. The first, the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system, introduced significant changes in relative prices as a result of exchange rate realignments and these, in turn, induced major changes in bilateral trade relationships.

With the help of the staff of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), LINK assembled a whole time series of world trade matrices. Eventually, the project itself undertook this statistical task in order to keep the matrix more up-to-date (no more than two years' delay) and produced an informative paper by Paul Beaumont, Ingmar Prucha, and Victor Filatov on redirections in world trade between 1970 and 1975. The paper was first presented at the LINK meeting in Kyoto, Japan, in September 1977 and subsequently published in 1979 [3]. The fundamental work on the assembly of data was undertaken by Y. Kumasaka of the LINK research staff. Beaumont and Filatov were also members of the LINK staff; Prucha was a LINK

trainee from the Institute for Advanced Studies (Vienna). Beaumont is now at the U.S. Bureau of the Census; Filatov is at the United Nations.

The project studied the effects of the Smithsonian realignments of parity under the 1971 Smithsonian Agreement, projecting at the time that they would not accomplish as much as public officials had claimed because the relevant elasticities were not large enough and because the cyclical position of the world economy was unfavorable. As it turned out, the Smithsonian rates were not adequate for the restoration of international equilibrium, and another wave of revaluations took place in early 1973. (See L. R. Klein, C. Moriguchi, and A. Van Peeterssen [13] and L. R. Klein [11].)

A prior investigation on a , smaller scale had been introduced to LINK by Wilhelm Krelle for the study of German exchange rates. He showed, before the Smith-

52

sonian and later developments in foreign exchange markets, that a German revaluation would not eliminate a persistent surplus on a lasting basis unless it was accompanied by an associated expansionary fiscal policy. The German LINK model was simulated without linkage to the rest of the world system (in preLINK mode) for this study in 1969.

During 1973, a large-scale grain purchase by the Soviet Union sparked a series of price escalations in basic commodities that were closely followed in LINK

simulations for inflationary impact and policy response. Relevant cells of the trade matrix for categories associated with trade in agricultural products were adjusted in LINK simulations to reflect the commodity flows involved. In later years, especially in 1975 and 1977, the workings of the Soviet model in the LINK system were closely monitored in order to reflect the effects of harvest shortfalls and resulting trade flows. A special paper was prepared for LINK

participants on a 1978 scenario for a hypothetical worldwide harvest failure as a result of the experience of 1972-73 [see 18].

The speculative run-up of commodity prices in 1973 led to inflationary developments in a number of major importing countries. Since the LINK system separates trade and price formation in different commodity groups, a number of these price effects were studied in simulations prepared for the Stockholm meeting of LINK, in September 1973, and the Washington meeting in September 1974, reported in the Waelbroeck volume [21].

It was noted at the 1973 Stockholm meeting that a number of major industrial countries were following restrictive anti-inflationary policies in order to deal with price rises that occurred during 1973. A mild slowdown in the growth of the world economy was projected at that time, but soon after the meeting, the Arab oil embargo was imposed, and the LINK system was quickly adapted to forecasting the oncoming world recession. (See L. R. Klein and K. N. Johnson [14] and L. R. Klein [15].)

Many kinds of commodity price changes have been investigated in the LINK context, but oil prices, in particular, have received a great deal of attention since the stepwise changes introduced by OPEC, starting in 1974. The effects were isolated by attempting to examine what would have happened in the international economy had oil prices remained at their 1973 levels for the next three years. Each subsequent round of OPEC increases has been individually monitored. In addition, some general findings on the sensitivity of the system to standardized increments of $1.00 per barrel or 10 per cent price


changes have been prepared for general use. These studies have been kept up-to-date, right through the days and weeks of the 1979 Iranian Revolution and its spillover effect on world oil prices.

The 1971 Smithsonian Agreement set up, in principle, new currency parities, but these rapidly gave way to the present system of floating rates-partly free and partly managed. This development introduced an entirely new consideration for LINK, namely, the shift from exogenous to endogenous exchange rates. Many of the individual models introduced exchange rate equations, and in 1978 a system-wide set was introduced and implemented for the projections discussed at the Athens meeting in October of that year.

Applications

The turbulent events of the 1970s, mentioned in the preceding section, allIed to complications or new considerations in the development of Project LINK. They also motivated many fruitful investigations, usually by dynamic simulation techniques. Some of these have already been cited. In this section, we lay out more systematically the applications that have been made-apart from their responsiveness to particular events.

Every year, LINK goes through a forecasting cycle. Each model operator, covering either a country or region, prepares new forecasts and sends these, together with all model revisions and data files (for historical samples used in parameter estimation and for latest data used in forecasting), to the LINK Secretariat, where all the models are tested on a single computer system to see if the individual center's results can be duplicated. These pre-LINK forecasts are then assembled and solved on a world basis, in the LINK mode, to generate post-LINK forecasts, usually for a three-year horizon. Recently, eight-year simulations have been completed.

Forecasts are sent to the various LINK centers for critical commentary and new information. During the summer months, a completed forecast is made for the annual LINK meeting and, after the meeting, a final revision is made for public release. The forecast thus achieves computable consistency through the LINK algorithm and judgmental consistency by repeated criticism, both in and out of LINK meetings. An updated version of the year-end forecast serves as input for the spring meeting, and the first look at fresh pre-LINK forecasts takes place there.

On several occasions, reviews of the accuracy of LINK forecasts have been made, both for world DECEMBER 1979

aggregates and for selected variables across individual countries. (See Klein [15],johnson and Klein [9], and Helliwell [4] for error tabulations.) On an overall basis, the system was perceptive in foreseeing the inadequacy of the 1971 Smithsonian Agreement, the impending slowdown after 1973, the worldwide recession of 1974-75, and the slower pace of world growth since 1978.

Although plain forecasting is always a necessary application of econometric models, a more important use is for policy analysis. Among the various policies that have been considered are:

(1) fiscal policies-public expenditures or tax changes

(2) monetary policies-money supply, reserve, and discount rate changes

(3) tariff policies (4) exchange rate policies (5) energy price policies

A straightforward application would be the analysis of policy change in anyone country, say a fiscal change in Germany, japan, the United States, or any other major industrial country. There is interest in measuring the effect both on the country making the change and on the world as a whole. Typical examples are the effect of fiscal stimuli in either japan or Germany on their activity levels, inflation rates, imports, and trade balances. Particular attention has centered on the trade aspect. A more sophisticated policy alternative, one that is especially well-suited to the entire LINK concept, is a coordinated policy in which two or more countries simultaneously undertake policies designed to bring the world economy as a whole towards some stated goals, such as better payments balances, faster overall growth, or lower overall inflation. (See L. R. Klein, V. Su, and P. Beaumont [17].)

The coordinated policies might be either fiscal or monetary. All the main LINK models of OEeD countries have explicit fiscal policy variables or coefficients. Most also have monetary policy variables. It has been a major achievement of LINK to push each country model operator towards the best common practice in model building. This has meant the introduction on an increasing scale of monetary sectors in models to emulate those in the project who have, at any time, proceeded furthest in this respect.

As difficulties, especially in the form of persistent payments imbalances, have become more apparent and prevalent in the world economy, countries have turned to protectionist policies-in pursuing their own

53

self-interest, not the world's best interest. Accordingly, the virtues of free trade under a liberal commercial system have been studied in LINK simulation exercises, by L. R. Klein and V. Su [19]. This study, in effect, validates the time-honored propositions of Adam Smith on an international, macroeconomic basis. Since many new forms of protection are developing, this is an interesting new area of LINK application.

It is relatively simple to simulate the LINK system or parts of it under alternative exchange rate configurations, exogenously set. These show the impact of rates on system activity. Exchange rate policy can also be analyzed in single country simulations. A number of studies of coordinated exchange-rate policy changes or individual country changes have been carried out. They show high degrees of sensitivity of trade and payments balances to these changes, especially for those yen, mark, and dollar policies. There is enormous scope for future policy applications within the rules of the new European Monetary System and with model specifications that endogenize exchange rates.

The other major valuation change that has occurred, and continues to occur, concerns energy pricing. Different OPEC pricing strategies and U.S. domestic energy policies have major worldwide effects. Simulations of LINK have shown that each 10 per cent change in world oil prices has an approximate effect of raising world inflation rates by about 0.25 per cent, lowering world economic growth rates by about 0.2 per cent, and lowering the volume of world trade by about 0.75 per cent. Sensitivity (or multiplier) analysis of this sort has proven to be extremely useful to international policy makers. Many . more complicated oil-price policy scenarios have also been evaluated. Among the most recent developments, scenarios with new OPEC pricing decisions following the Iranian Revolution (with associated physical restraints) and decontrol in the United States domestic market have been executed. Intermediate to long range effects of alternative energy prices must now be studied.

Some of the policy studies made are highly realistic, since they are interpretations of actual or prospective policies that are up for discussion. Alternatively, hypothetical scenarios, policy-oriented or otherwise, have been worked out. The protectionist analysis, referenced above, is a hypothetical scenario, developed mainly to analyze the principle of trade liberalism and protectionism. Some scenarios are prepared in response to external shocks that may potentially arise, such as a harvest failure, not controlled, but acted upon, in response to external devel-

54

opments. There is virtually no end to the possible designs of scenarios of external events.

In order to gain insight into the workings of scenarios involving external disturbances, let us review the issues of commodity price determination in LINK. Agricultural materials, fuels, and industrial materials are all separately linked in the LINK system. This means that export prices for these materials must be generated in the models of producing countries, many of which are less-developed. The factors determining price transcend internal domestic affairs. They should be generated through equating of world demand and supply. This is, in fact, done in a series of commodity market models constructed by F. G. Adams and phased into the LINK system in an enlarged model called COMLINK [1]. Prices, determined in world markets, affect export earnings of primary producing countries or areas. World demand depends on activity levels and other variables generated by the LINK system. This provides feedback into the commodity models. On several occasions, it has been found that prices generated by the world commodity models were quite different from those being used in LINK, without benefit of COMLINK results; therefore, commodity analysis had an important influence on the world economy outcome.

In addition to the foregoing policy simulations and scenarios, LINK has been used for analytical studies of within- and between-country multipliers in response to hypothetical domestic shocks. Price and income responses to demand shocks in the form of government spending increases were studied by B. G. Hickman [5]. In these simulations, each national model was shocked in turn and the responses were measured in both the originating country and the other industrialized countries. A complementary study of the responses in the various countries to wage shocks in individual countries may be found in Hickman and Lima [7], and further analysis of both sets of simulations is contained in Hickman and Schleicher [8]. The latter paper also considers the implications of the principal finding from these multiplier experiments-that disturbances in large countries are spread out over so many trading partners that the transmission effects of individual country shocks are rather small-for the existence and synchronization of worldwide economic fluctuations. The paper brings other evidence to bear on this question.

Apart from the LINK series of project volumes [2, 20, 21], and numerous articles about the project by participants, there have been a number of doctoral dissertations prepared at the University of Pennsyl-


vania. Six are in preparation, and the two listed below have been completed:

Jorge Gana, An Automatic Program Generator for Model Building in Social and Engineering Sciences, Moore School of Electrical Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, 1978.

Keith N. Johnson, Balance of Payments Equilibrium and Equilibrating Exchange Rates in a World Economic Model, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, 1979.

Apart from formal Ph.D. training, several young economists from all over the world have been sent to LINK Central for training. Many have been from Europe, Japan, and Latin America, but the representation is now changing to be more internationally diversified.

New directions

The most obvious and pressing need for LINK is incorporation of equations that generate exchange rates within the model itself. This line of research is being pursued at the main model centers separately, through equations for domestic financial flows, international capital flows, and exchange rate determination. In addition to this research at individual model centers, it is also being pursued at LINK Central for the system as a whole, through the construction of cross-country (cross-section) estimates of capital flows and exchange rate equations. The cross-sections have been estimated for pooled years, 1973-77. In the year-end LINK forecasts for 1978, exchange rates were endogenously determined, together with other LINK variables, on a world scale for the first time.

As always, the research program of LINK reaches out for new horizons, both in space and time. The extension of the space horizon involves the introduction of new country models. At the present time, model's are being introduced for the People's Republic of China, Denmark, Greece, and Switzerland. France has been represented until now by the POMPOM model, built and maintained at the Free University of Brussels. From 1979, a French model from Paris will be introduced. In the near future, other models of individual countries will probably be introduced.

At the March 1979 forecast meeting held at the United Nations in New York, a full day was devoted to modeling and forecasting for developing countries. Beyond the area models of the developing countries that are now in LINK, work started some two years ago on building an Asia-Pacific sublinkage of models of individual developing countries. That effort con-

DECEMBER 1979

tinues, but models of individual developing cou ntries, like those presented at the recent meetings, will be candidates for early introduction. Models are well developed for Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, the Central American Common Market countries, some Persian Gulf countries, and India, and it is intended that they will be incorporated soon.

Individual models for the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) countries in Eastern Europe have been estimated at the United Nations and are presently included in LINK. A new Polish model from the University of Lodz is being prepared for introduction, through the efforts of Polish trainees who work at LINK Central and the Stanford Center. In addition, attention is being given to the preparation of trade matrices among the CMEA countries of Eastern Europe and the U.S.S.R. The emphasis will be on classification and on the estimation of intra-CMEA trade.

As for the time horizon, the terminal year of simulation has now been pushed forward to 1985. This enables us to examine intermediate-run cumulative effects in dynamic multiplier analysis, and policy simulations or scenarios that involve significant distributed lag effects. Eventually, the horizon may be pushed another five years into the future. This will be especially important for energy analysis, and the study of long-term policies, such as those that search for instruments to bring about stable, noninflationary growth.

The LINK system is complicated and very large. Over the years, a great deal of progress has been made in streamlining the computer programs used, but this is a never-ending task. It is particularly challenging to develop a high level programming language so that the system is easier and cheaper to use. Some progress along these lines was made in the Jorge Gana dissertation cited above, but a new, prolonged effort must be made in order to carry this work much further. 0

References 1. Adams, F. G. "Primary Commodity Markets in a World

Model System," in Stabilizing World Commodity Markets, F. G. Adams and S. A. Klein, editors. Lexington: Lexington Books, 1978, pages 83-104.

2. Ball, R. J., editor. The International Linkage of National Economic Models: Contributions to Economic Analysis. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1973.

3. Beaumont, Paul, Ingmar Prucha, and Victor Filatov. "Performance of the LINK System: 1970 versus 1975 Base Year Trade Share Matrix." Empirical Economics, 4: 11-42, 1979.

4. Helliwell, John F. Discussion of "Disturbances to the International Economy," in After the Phillips Curoe: Persistence of High Inflation and High Unemployment, Robert M. Solow,

55

editor. Boston: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 1978, pages 104-16.

5. Hickman, Bert G. "International Transmission of Economic Fluctuations and Inflation," in International Aspects of Stabilization Policies, Albert Ando et al., editors. Boston: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 1974, pages 201-231.

6. --. "Project LINK in 1972: Retrospect and Prospect," in Modelling the Economy, G. A. Renton, editor. London, 1975, pages 657-669.

7. ---, and Anthony Lima. "Price Determination and Transmission of Inflation in the LINK System," in Modelling the International Transmission Mechanism, John A. Sawyer, editor. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1979.

8. --, and Stefan Schleicher. "The Interdependence of National Economies and the Synchronization of Economic Fluctuations: Evidence from the LINK Project." Weltwirtschaftsliches Archiv, 114(4): 642-708, 1978.

9. Johnson, K. N. and L. R. Klein. "Error Analysis of the LINK Model," in Modelling the International Transmission Mechanism, John A. Sawyer, editor. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1979, pages 45-71 .

10. ---, and A. Van Peeterssen. "Solving and Simulating the LINK System," in The Models of Project LINK, Jean L. Waelbroeck, editor. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1976.

11. Klein, L. R. Comment in "The Trade Effects of the 1971 Currency Realignment," by W.. H. Branson. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1 :59-65, 1972.

12. ---. "Project LINK: Entering a New Phase." Items, 27(2) :13-16, June 1973.

13. --, C. Moriguchi, and A. Van Peeterssen. "The LINK Model of World Trade with Applications to 1972-73," in International Trade and Finance, P. Kenen, editor. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1975, pages 453-483.

14. ---, and K. N. Johnson. "LINK Simulations of International Trade: An Evaluation of the Effects of Currency Realignment." Journal of Finance, 617-30, May 1974.

15. ---. "Five Year Experience of Linking National Econometric Models and of Forecasting International Trade," in Quantitative Studies of International Economic Relations, H. Glejser, editor. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1976, pages 1-24.

16. --, K. N.Johnson,J. Gana, M. Kurose, and C. Weinberg. "Applications of the LINK System," in The Models of Project LINK, Jean L. Waelbroeck, editor. Amsterdam: NorthHolland, 1976, pages 1-16.

17. --, V. Su, and P. Beaumont. "Coordination of International Fiscal Policies and Exchange Rate Revaluations," in Modelling the International Transmission Mechanism, John A. Sawyer, editor. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1979, pages 143-159.

18. --, M. Politi, and V. Su o "Scenqrioofa World Wide Grain Shortage," LINK memorandum, July 1978.

19. --, and V. Suo "Protectionism: An Analysis from Project LINK." Journal of Policy Modeling, 1 :5-35, January 1979.

20. Sawyer, John A., editor. Modelling the International Transmission Mechanism. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1979.

21. Waelbroeck, Jean L. The Models of Project LINK. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1976.

The Accident at Three Mile Island: Social Science Perspectives

by C. P. Wolf*

The accident on March 28, 1979 at the Three Mile Island nuclear power facility near Middletown, Pennsylvania forcibly and dramatically brought into public question the adequacy of reactor safeguards and the social controls for insuring their effectiveness. It strikingly revealed deficiencies both in emergency preparedness and in crisis management by public authorities and private interests alike. It freshly rekindled the nuclear debate throughout our society and the world. To characterize the accident as a "natural experiment" from which managers, regulators, and experts can learn does not describe the anxiety and anguish of its unwilling participants. Nevertheless, physical and social scientists have both a professional interest and a social responsibility to analyze the accident and appraise the lessons to be learned from it.

The appointment of the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island provided the Council with a special stimulus. John G. Kemeny, president of Dartmouth College, who had previously served on the Council's Committee on Mathematical 56

Training, was appointed chairman of the Commission, and Cora Bagley Marrett, University of Wisconsin, currently a member of the Council's board of directors, was selected as one of the twelve commissioners. In order to bring the perspectives of the social sciences to bear upon the work of the Commission, the Council convened a panel of consultants to prepare a report that would identify and illustrate areas of social inquiry useful to an investigation of the accident. This article is an account of that activity and its results; a book-length revision of the Council's report to the Commission is being prepared for publication.

When the Commission was established and its pro-

* The author is research professor of social sciences at the Polytechnic Institute of New York. He served as principal consultant to the Council's project on Three Mile Island; David L. Sills, executive associate at the Council, served as principal investigator; and Vivien B. Shelanski, Mamaroneck, New York, served as editorial consultant. Mr. Sills was chairman, and Mr. Wolf a member, of the Sociopolitical Risk/Impact Resource Group of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Nuclear and Alternate Energy Systems (CONAES).


fessional staff was recruited, it was generally assumed that technical and legal issues would dominate its deliberations. The pattern of staffing reflected this understanding; experts were assembled mainly from the fields of nuclear engineering, radiology, law, and journalism. This definition of the accident situation appeared overly restrictive to us as social scientists. We therefore sought to bring other perspectives on the accident into focus. From previous research on energy policies and technologies, we were convinced of their social character and of the need for a social definition to capture this essential quality. "Energy," we believed, was as much a social concept as a physical one; it is the product of a social process that defines materials as resources and converts them to serve social purposes.1

A view of the accident as primarily a social systems failure gained prominence in the Commission's thinking through its own learning experience. Its report observes, "as the evidence accumulated, it became clear that the fundamental problems are people-related problems and not equipment problems."2 The crux of these "people problems" was found to lie in the perceptions and predispositions of operators, managers, vendors, and regulators. As the Commission report states, "In the testimony we received, one word occurred over and over again. That word is 'mindset.'''3 Its attitudinal and ideological components are easily recognizable in the intellectual and research traditions of the social sciences, and this is reflected in several of our consultants' reports. In sociotechnical systems such as nuclear power reactors, operators and equipment are of course not readily separable. The Commission pointed to their mutual isolation as a root cause of the accident:

The most serious "mindset" is the preoccupation of everyone with the safety of equipment, resulting in the down-playing of the importance of the human element in nuclear power generation. We are tempted to say that while an enormous effort was expended to assure that safety-related equipment functioned as well as possible, and that there was backup equipment in ~epth,

I In historical perspective, for example, "Except in China, coal seems not to have been considered a valuable natural resource until the seventeenth century; there is, for example, no mention of it in the Domesday Book of I08~1086, which listed everything of economic value in England. Electricity was abundant, but was not considered a source of energy until the eighteenth century; petroleum had only magical and medical uses until the nineteenth century; and uranium was unimportant until the development of atomic energy in the 1940's." David L. Sills, "Population, Pollution, and the Social Sciences," Social Education, 36, 4 (April 1972), page 380.

2 Report of the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island (Washington, D.C., October 1979), page 8.

3 Itnd.

DECEMBER 1979

what the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] and the industry have failed to recognize sufficiently is that the human beings who manage and operate the plants constitute an important safety system.4

In the call for "a comprehensive system ... in which equipment and human beings are treated with equal importance" (page 9), there is again agreement with the findings of our consultants.

The consultants who worked on the project, and their topics, are as follows:

MalcolmJ. Brookes, Human Factors/Industrial Design, Inc. (New York), "Human Factors in the Design and Operation of Reactor Safety Systems"

Shelton H. Davis, Anthropology Resource Center (Cambridge, Massachusetts), "Local Community Responses to Nuclear Power Plant Siting: The Case of Plymouth, Massachusetts"

Steven L. Del Sesto (Cornell University), "Social Aspects of Regulating Nuclear Power"

Roger E. Kasperson (Clark University), "Responding to Three Mile Island: Institutional Pathways"

Ralph L. Keeney, Woodward-Clyde Consultants (San Francisco), "Methodologies to Aid Decision Processes and Regulation of the Nuclear Industry"

Todd R. La Porte (University of California, Berkeley),"Design and Management of Nearly Error-Free Safety Control Systems"

Allan Mazur (Syracuse University), "Three Mile Island and the Nuclear Debate"

Robert C. Mitchell, Resources for the Future (Washington, D.C.), "Public Opinion About Nuclear Power and the Accident at Three Mile Island"

Dorothy Nelkin (Cornell University), "The Expert at Three Mile Island"

Elizabeth Peelle, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Oak Ridge, Tennessee), "Nuclear Host Communities: Impacts and Responses Reassessed after Three Mile Island"

Lewis J. Perelman, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Pasadena, California), "Nuclear Power: Social Dimensions"

Charles B. Perrow (State University of New York, Stony Brook), "TMI: A Normal Accident"

Allan Schnaiberg (Northwestern University), "Who Should Be Responsible for Public Safety of Nuclear Reactors?"

Paul Slovic, Decision Research, Inc. (Eugene, Oregon), "Images of Disaster: Perception and Acceptance of Risks from Nuclear Power"

In selecting topics for consultant reports, the Council as far as possible sought to complement, not

4 op. cit., page 10.

57

duplicate, areas of inquiry that were assigned to others. Accordingly, the project did not include (1) the postaccident reactions of the local community, since these were examined by a Behavioral Effects Task Group headed by Bruce P. Dohrenwend, Columbia University; (2) the problems involving the evacuation of residents, studied by the Emergency Preparedness and Response Task Force, headed by Russell R. Dynes, American Sociological Association; or (3) the coverage of the accident by the mass media, examined by the Public's Right to Information Task Force, which was headed by David M. Rubin, New York University.

In preparing their reports, the consultants drew upon their specialized knowledge of organizational analysis, risk assessment, human factors research, institutional analysis, community studies, decision analysis, public opinion research, the sociology of science, and other relevant fields. Because of time and other constraints, on-site research was not attempted.s

Following circulation of the draft reports, a workshop was held at the Council's offices on September 7, 1979. The workshop was attended by the consultants, members of the Commission staff, Commissioner Marrett, and members of the Council staff. Based on the workshop discussion, four areas were identified as being substantive contributions of the social sciences to a preliminary assessment of the accident: (1) organizational behavior, (2) the process of regulation, (3) public participation in community and national decision making, and (4) the processes of conflict and consensus.

There is considerable overlap' among these areas. For example, regulation may be intended to compensate for shortcomings in organizational performance (although the extent to which this can actually be achieved is open to serious question). Regulatory reform itself might provide for greater access by the public to the policy process, including access· by nuclear opponents. In turn, greater access may lead to a moderation of the nuclear debate, although the conditions for effective societal consensus may not be attainable short of arresting nuclear development at the current planned level. The following summary statements indicate some of the complex interrelations that surrounded the accident and suggest where the weight of so.cial science opinion may fall in analyzing and resolving them.

S Considerable field research has been conducted in the Middletown area by Commission staff, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and various scholars. A comprehensive bibliography of this work will be included in the Council's published report.

58

Organizational behavior

o The accident was a "normal" one, with familiar characteristics-unheeded warnings, multiple equipment failures, operator judgment errors, and systemic effects which made the event incomprehensible and almost unmanageable. We cannot expect any large, complex organization to avoid normal accidents, even if they are rarely of serious size, but with nuclear plants the risks are several orders of magnitude greater than in other types of organizations. (Perrow)

o There were no operator errors as such; the events that occurred seem "inevitable," given existing instrumentation (which is typical to the industry) . The events were a direct function of the electro-mechanical system design and detail, e.g., computer update rates, alarming, wrong placement of controls and displays, wrong instrumentation giving the wrong sort of information. The fundamental errors were in system design. (Brookes)

o Reactor operations can be made very much safer, but at very great costs (e.g., in backfitting). The costs are probably impractical to impose in a cost-competitive, free enterprise bidding system. (Brookes)

o While necessary, technical improvements will have only a small impact on the risk of accidents, since accidents involve operator error and systemic effects beyond the scope of technically solvable problems. Improvements may even breed more complexity, leading to more chances of systemic effects. (Perrow)

o The addition of 10 or 20 or 100 new plants will (1) overwhelm an already inefficient Nuclear Regulatory Commission, (2) further strain personnel resources, (3) geometrically increase the chances of a serious accident, and (4) increase public opposition to nuclear power as local protests increase. (Perrow)

o Precise relationships between scale, complexity, and reliability need further specification. In the relationship between reliability and organizational complexity, the costs of measures for improving reliability are a function of organizational scale, and the behavioral and group dynamics requisite to reliable performance are a function of organizational scale and performance longevity. (La Porte)

o Because the limits of regulatory complexity are being approached, institutional innovations are


needed that will internalize accountability fOf safety at the level of the facility. Employees represent an informed and concerned "public" not presently tapped. Incentives to greater accountability may come through amendments to the Price-Anderson Act and other methods of internalizing external costs. (Brookes, Mitchell, Schnaiberg)

Regulation

o It is axiomatic that the more complex and large scale the technology, the more complex and enormous must be the regulatory apparatus to control it. Technological and regulatory systems will increase in scale and complexity as public concerns for reliability increase and dependence on nuclear energy production increases. (La Porte, Peelle)

o The nuclear industry is too complex to be regulated more extensively than is done now-short of establishing a generic system model and enforcing standardization to it. The accident at Three Mile Island generated strong pressures toward greater decentralization in regulatory decision making, with more attention to "states rights" and local concerns. This trend is likely to increase regulatory delays and other costs. (Brookes, Del Sesto, Perelman)

o Regulation is an administrative means for achieving political and societal ends. Regulatory shifts are only temporary institutional and technological "fixes" for complex social problems involving societal choices over resource use, energy policy, and technology development. Regulation mirrors class interests on societal priorities and can become an arena in which symbolic battles over these are waged. Regulation's statutory basis must be continually reevaluated to account for shifting value preferences in the society at large. (Del Sesto)

o There are inherent problems with the "captivation" aspects of regulation-subjugating the "public interest" to special interests. "Promotion" and "regulation" are not necessarily inconsistent, however. (Del Sesto)

o Better regulation and operator training, while necessary, will have only a small impact on the risks of accidents. Better regulation will be hard to achieve without large increases in operating costs and risks of further accidents incurred because of imposed complexity. (Perrow)

o Regulation under "normal conditions" is not necessarily useful in emergencies. In any case,

DECEMBER 1979

decision making under conditions of uncertainty is a crucial area for further investigation. (Nelkin)

o A zero-based assessment of socioeconomic benefits and costs of nuclear and alternative energy systems is needed to provide a sounder basis for regulatory decision making, and energy policy formation in general. (Keeney, Perelman)

Public participation

o Public participation is an important part of the regulatory process itself. It is a primary area of attention in any effort to decentralize the regulatory process. It is a key element in gaining public credibility around the proposed site of a nuclear plant, and is probably a key element in establishing the credibility of the nuclear program as a whole. (Del Sesto)

o The trend toward increased and effective participation has been accelerated by the accident at Three Mile Island. Procedures for incorporating public participation into decision making remain indefinite. There is much "participation without power." Even where authorized, past efforts have been desultory and perfunctory. Pro forma participatory mechanisms may serve only to reinforce the power and increase the influence of experts against the perceived wishes and interests of publics. "Who controls" is a major question coming out of the nuclear debate, and the tension between expertise and democracy is a major source of nuclear opposition. (Nelkin, Schnaiberg)

o Nuclear plant siting and other licensing decisions need to include more (quantity) and more significant (quality) public participation. This should include financial support for locally-controlled technical expertise, broadening the areas of allowable concerns, and provision for including such input at earlier stages in the planning process. Citizen input into siting decisions should be initiated long before the construction stage in order to meet the conditions of "informed consent." Public participation often raises nontechnical questions which go beyond the defined scope of licensing proceedings. These questions should be heard and their underlying concerns heeded. (Davis, Del Sesto, Peelle)

o At the local level, there is a need to develop accountability on the part of the managers of plants toward their surrounding communities. One institutional innovation might be for each site to

59

have a citizen advisory committee appointed (or elected), whose members have the right of access to full information about plant operation and who are required to make periodic status reports to the community. (Mitchell)

o We are at a point where reactor siting policy could go either in a democratic or an authoritarian direction. In the light of possible local and state opposition, means should be provided to reduce the right of federal authorities to dominate siting decisions. Communities (and states and regions) should be provided with real options for different energy paths, not just nuclear or fossil fuel alternatives. (Davis)

Conflict and consensus

o Participation does not necessarily lead to consensus. On the contrary, it may encourage opposition by reinforcing adversary roles and relations, just as public information efforts under conditions of polarization are more likely to exacerbate than abate conflict. Such conflict is not undesirable if it can find open avenues of expression and lead to the formulation and exploration of alternatives. However, by themselves, institutional reforms to meet participatory demands (legal standing, freedom of information, etc.) do not increase the likelihood of public acceptance. (Mazur, Nelkin)

o Conflict accommodation requires: (1) a distribution of expertise, (2) real options, (3) a clear definition of the real source of the dispute that is acceptable to both sides, and (4) a perception of a common stake in a satisfactory outcome. (Nelkin)

o There are no achievements in nuclear safety realizable over the short term which will end conflict and produce consensus. Whatever happens, continuing opposition should be expected; it can only be enlarged or reduced. Many nuclear opponents will accept nothing less than the complete and immediate end of nuclear power, and will not relent unless that end is in prospect. The general public's response to the accident has become quite attentive; most people seem willing to be convinced that nuclear energy can be made "safe enough," although how safe that might be remains unresolved. (Mitchell, Nelkin)

o The risks involved with nuclear power have unique aspects, e.g., a small probability of large consequences imposed on people who often are not beneficiaries of that power. The public is more exacting of nuclear safety as compared with many other

60

technologies, but this double standard is not unreasonable. It is anchored in the catastrophic nature of the hazard and its social history. Other such double standards exist for other technologies (e.g., air transportation) and for other hazards. (Kasperson, Mitchell, Slovic)

o Two critical elements in the societal conflict over nuclear energy are scale and the open-ended nature of nuclear development. Two specific pathways for possible resolution are to recognize nuclear energy as a transitional energy source and to limit the total size of the commitment to those plants in operation, under construction, or already ordered. (Kasperson)

o Increased credibility of nuclear institutions is as important as better regulation and improved safety. For this to occur, it is necessary to accord nuclear opponents full representation at all institutional levels and at all stages in decision making-in other words, to "internalize" the nuclear debate institutionally. (Kasperson)

o There is no intrinsic incompatibility between nuclear power and democratic institutions, but postTMI responses which lead to greater dominance by experts, closure of the decision process, quasimilitary professionalism, and injudicious security precautions will exacerbate tensions with democratic processes and deepen the public distrust of nuclear energy. (Kasperson)

o Increased public acceptance of nuclear power over time will require: (1) an incontrovertible long-term safety record, (2) responsible institutions that are respected and trusted, (3) a clear appreciation of the benefits derived from nuclear energy, and (4) a recognition of the risks of alternative energy sources. (Slovic)

This is a representative sampling of expert social science opinion on the accident at Three Mile Island. The statements do not reflect perfect consensus but rather a range of professional judgments. Narrowing that range will be a matter for further research, the need for which has been demonstrated at many points. If nothing else, it may be hoped that the accident has underscored this need and that positive steps will be taken in meeting it.

In the present state of the art: social scientists are left with more questions than answers. To remedy this condition will require a vigorous and sustained program of energy-related social research and training. High on the agenda of needed research is a general social science of regulation, building on the earlier work of economists. The institutional and be-


havioral analysis of regulatory structures and measures is becoming an urgent matter in many areas of concern, e.g., the management of toxic and hazardous substances. The energy education of social scientists to facilitate their involvement in these areas is a counterpart need. We have identified gaps in knowledge-e.g., between human factors and organizational design-that future research and application can assist in filling. The social assessment of technology and management of its risks demand and deserve research attention across a broad spectrum of disciplines.

Through this study, we hope to have encouraged a wider consideration of these social problems and research possibilities. By engaging and enlisting the

interests and abilities of colleagues in many disciplines and professions, we have sought to mobilize some of the intellectual resources that can contribute towards meeting them. There will be many future occasions at which these problems and possibilities will be raised and renewed. On April 8-10, 1980 the New York Academy of Sciences will sponsor a major conference on the lessons and implications of the accident at Three Mile Island, organized by David L. Sills of the Council staff and Thomas H. Moss (staff director, Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives). This is but one of many opportunities for the more active collaboration of social and physical scientists in the assessment of energy policies and technologies. 0

Council Symposium on Individual and Social Change

Onjune 15, 1979, the Council sponsored an all-day symposium in New York on individual and social change. Held at japan House, the headquarters of the japan Society, it was attended by some 60 invited social scientists active in academic and research institutions, foundations, and government agencies.

The symposium was chaired by Kenneth Prewitt, president of the Council; its purpose was to bring together scholars from both a variety of disciplines and a number of theoretical and methodological perspectives to examine recent advances and continuing problems in conceptualizing and studying processes of individual and social change. The symposium was divided into two half-day sessions; panel presentations were followed by audience discussion.

The morning panel on the study of individual change was chaired by Philip E. Converse, political science, University of Michigan, and included presentations by David L. Featherman, sociology, University of Wisconsin; Tamara K. Hareven, history, Clark University; jerome Kagan, psychology, Harvard University; and Sidney Verba, political science, Harvard University. The afternoon session on macrolevel social and cultural change was chaired by Charles S. Maier, history, Duke University, and included presentations by Bernard S. Cohn, anthropology, University of Chicago; Stephen L. Klineberg, sociology, Rice University; Robert D. Putnam, political science, Harvard University; and Finis R. Welch, economics, University of California, Los Angeles.

Panelists and guests returned consistently to a number of interrelated themes. Several speakers disDECEMBER 1979

cussed the need to define what constitutes change and how varying degrees of change can most usefully be compared. Mr. Klineberg raised the question of how one distinguishes between basic structural change which transforms the very nature of a social system and change of a less profound sort which occurs within a society that remains more or less unaltered. Mr. Cohn explored this question through concise synopses of five paradigms of social and cultural change, briefly describing how each views the world and how each describes the causes, processes, and nature of change.

Of the five paradigms presented, Mr. Cohn singled out the evolutionary-developmental model as "the longest-running social science theory of change." Presentations by other participants conveyed the current disenchantment among American social scientists with this model and their rejection of its essentially linear and positivistic conception of change. Mr. Putnam and Mr . Verba both reviewed the shortcomings of this model in political science research during the last several decades. To cite one example, modernization theory assumes as one of its basic premises that all societies tend to follow similar paths of historical development, and that what holds true for one society at a given point in its history will hold true for another at a comparable stage which may occur simultaneously with, earlier, or later than the initial case considered. The problems underlying these assumptions are now readily apparent in the erroneous predictions made during the 1950s and 1960s concerning the course which future political and economic development would follow around the world, and the

61

policies adopted by the United States in response to those predictions.

With reference to individual change, Mr. Kagan reported on a growing debate in infant socialization research. Developmental theorists have traditionally argued that a direct relationship exists between the parental attention and training that a person receives during his or her first three years of life and that individual's personality and behavior over the life span. Recent research has cast doubt on this relationship, suggesting that there is no demonstrable correlation between the nature of these early experiences and an individual's behavior as a young adult.

Of central concern to each of the participants was the need to develop the conceptual and methodological strategies to relate the study of individual change to broader processes of social and cultural change. Mr. Featherman contrasted research in the United States and Europe on mobility and stratification by noting the tendency of United States researchers to define research on mobility in terms of individual career patterns while European researchers are more likely to study stratification in terms of groups and social classes. New techniques are required to link these two approaches. Mr. Welch noted advances among "human capital" economists toward including labor market variables in the structural study of individual career patterns, as well as an increasing use of cross-sectional, time series, and cohort analysis. The result has been a growing sensitivity-on the part of researchers in this area-to historical and generational effects on individual life histories.

Tamara Hareven argued that history, particularly social history, provides a framework for the understanding of the relationship between individual and societal change. In addition to identifying mac-

rochanges, history also provides a comparative perspective-similar to the anthropological study of another culture. It not only provides a way of seeing changes over time, but also an understanding of patterns of behavior within the social and cultural context of a specific time period.

Much recent research in social history has been concerned with the revision of models of social change. Using examples from recent research in the history of the family and industrialization, she stressed the conscious selectivity by which individuals and groups transfer traditional work and family patterns into new settings. For example, factories do not necessarily "modernize" individuals in all aspects of their lives. People can become "modern" in factories and remain "traditional" at home.

In her own study of the shutdown of a large textile mill in Manchester, New Hampshire, during the 1930s depression, for example, dramatic economic change led to the revision of the "life plan" of the immigrant industrial workers, and set back their entry into the middle class by a generation.

The symposium concluded with a general recognition that the effort to divide presentations into those dealing with individual change and those dealing with broader social change had in fact underscored the necessity of integrating research on those two categories of change. Possible avenues for such intergration are presently being explored by a number of Council committees, including those on LifeCourse Perspectives on Middle and Old Age, the Methodology of Longitudinal Research, and Social and Affective Development During Childhood, as well as in research planning initiatives on comparative stratification, gender and society, and the family in a life-course perspective. 0

Pendleton Herring Receives the Merriam Award Pendleton Herring, who served as president of

the Council for two decades-from 1948 until his retirement in 1968, was presented the Charles E. Merriam Award by the American Political Science Associatio~ (APSA) at its annual meeting in Washington, D.C. in August 1979. The award is given each year to a person whose published work and career represents a significant contribution to the art of government through the application of social science research.

Samuel H. Beer, Harvard University, the chairman of the award committee, made the following statement in presenting the award:

62

On behalf of the Committee for the Charles E. Merriam Award, I take great pleasure in presenting the award for 1979 to Dr. Edward Pendleton Herring. Short of Charles Merriam himself I can think of no more worthy recipient.

His contributions to the art of government have been specific and numerous. But enumeration alone would miss the pervasiveness of his influence. Even in this association many stand on his shoulders today who might not fully appreciate the ground of their elevation. One may hope that this present citation will help repair any such lapse of organizational memory.

As a scholar, although he took his degree at Hopkins not Chicago, Pen Herring was one of the earliest and most eminent practitioners and advocates of social science in the Merriam spirit. His books, while primarily on public administration, also dealt with Congress, the Presidency, interest groups and


parties-all of them, incidentally, still in print today. In these fields his contributions helped move political science into a period of major innovation, marked by new conceptualization, enhanced sophistication of analysis, dramatically increased data gathering and widened interpenetration with other social science disciplines. He hoped for substantial payoffs in quantification, although this was not central to his own research. That was based on historical study, and, above all, on face to face contact with people engaged in politics and government. His dear-eyed and many-sided appreciation of their behavior was only heightened by his deep respect for the democratic polity and the complexity Of interrelationships which are at the core of its quality.

deriving from it for the study of comparative politics, governmental and legal processes and public policy and policy impacts. His presidency coincided with and helped bring about a transformation in the understanding and acceptance of social science by official Washington. But his very exceptional personal contribution was in being able to arouse the interest of, and suggest direction t~as well as provide material sustenance for-a whole generation of rising scholarship in all the social science disciplines.

Deliberately leaving academic life in order to promote this outlook generally in the worlds of scholarship and government, he became president of the Social Science Research Council, appropriately in the same year that Charles E. Merriam, perhaps the principal agent in its foundation, retired from the board. in this office he contributed to the changing shape of political science especially by his part in the creation and activity of the Committee on Political Behavior and the committees

Charles E. Merriam (1874-1953) was both a politician-statesman and a political scientist; he taught at the University of Chicago from the end of World War I until his retirement in 1940. Since a committee on research of the APSA that he chaired took the initiative that led to the founding of the Council in 1923, it. is particularly appropriate that Pendleton Herring should be the recipient of the Merriam Award. 0

Current Activities at the Council The representation of cultural knowledge

A workshop on the representation of cultural knowledge, sponsored by the Committee on Cognitive Research, was held at the University of California, San Diego, August 10-12, 1979. In line with the committee's concern with "cognition in naturalistic settings," this workshop provided an opportunity for anthropologists, with interests in cognition and knowledge structures, to explore parallel issues with artificial intelligence researchers and other cognitive scientists. The anthropologists learned about current theoretical concerns in cognitive science, and, as a result, will be able to recast their thinking and language within a framework shared with nonanthropological cognitive scientists. At the same time, the cognitive scientists were exposed to the rich possibilities which anthropological techniques offer for discovery of people's organization of everyday knowledge. The tone of the workshop was informal and exploratory. Follow-up activities to encourage growing interaction between cognItive anthropologists and other cognitive scientists are being planned.

Attending the workshop were Robert Abelson, Yale University; Jaime Carbonell, Jr., Carnegie-Mellon University; Dorothy Clement, University of North Carolina; B. Nicholas Colby, University of

DECEMBER 1979

California, Irvine; Roy G. D'Andrade, University of California, San Diego; Virginia Dominguez, Harvard University; Hugh Gladwin, University of California, Irvine; Edwin Hutchins, University of California, San Diego; Jean Lave, University of California, Irvine; James Meehan, University of California, Irvine; Katherine Nelson, City University of New York; Donald Norman, University of California, San Diego; Naomi Quinn, Duke University (member, Committee on Cognitive Research, and workshop organizer); G. Elizabeth Rice, Arizona State University; John Roberts, University of Pittsburgh; Eleanor Rosch, University of California, Berkeley (member, Committee on Cognitive Research); Sylvia Scribner, Center for Applied Linguistics, Georgetown University; and Lonnie Sherrod, staff. Irene Costa and Kathleen Barlow, graduate students at the University of California, San Diego, served as rapporteurs.

In addition to those attending the conference, the members of the Committee on Cognitive Research are Herbert L. Pick, Jr., University of Minnesota, chairman; John Bransford, Vanderbilt University; Aaron V. Cicourel, University of California, San Diego; Michael Cole, University of California, San Diego; Charles J. Fillmore, University of California, Berkeley; Francis H. Palmer, MerrillPalmer Institute; and Amos Tversky, Stanford University.

Institute on life-span development

An institute on "Life-Span Human Development: Interdisciplinary Perspectives:; for humanists and behavioral, social, and biological scientists, will be held in Stanford, California in the summer of 1980.

The institute will be sponsored by the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences and the Council's Committee on Life-Course Perspectives on Middle and Old Age. Paul B. Baltes, professor of human development, Pennsylvania State University, chairman of the committee, will direct the institute in collaboration with David L. Featherman, professor of sociology, University of Wisconsin. Funded by an Andrew W. Mellon Foundation grant to the Center, the institute will be held from July 8 through August 15, 1980.

The purpose of this summer institute is to increase the participants' knowledge of a topic which is related to a wide variety of teaching and scholarly activities and thus to enhance the quality of both teaching and research. Participants will take part in seminars, in individual discussions with the directors, and in informal interaction with other institute participants; they will also be given opportunities for private study and writing. Evaluation of research and plans for future studies will be a significant part of the program.

63

The institute will explore both continuities and changes in behavior, from conception to death, in order to broaden scientific perspectives on human development. The basic propositions of these seminars are that human development continues over the full course of life; that it is molded by biological, psychological, sociocultural, demographic, and historical influences; and that it is an individual attribute that conditions social organization.

The major emphases at the institute will be on research methodology in the study of human development; on theories of life-span development; and on the indepth treatment of a selected set of substantive research topics, such as intelligence, personality, moral behavior, intergenerational relations, careers, the family life cycle, and death and dying. A primary focus of the institute will be on the implications of a life-span perspective for the study of human behavior by psychologists and sociologists. Implications for other disciplines, such as biology, economics, education, history, ·and psychiatry, will also be examined. A number of distinguished scholars will join the institute from time to time for discussions dealing with their particular areas of expertise.

All applicants must have a doctorate. Those eligible to apply include minority scholars; young scholars (under age 35, up to 7 years postdoctorate, or both); and scholars in a wide age range who are affiliated with four-year colleges, with colleges and universities attended predominantly by minority students, or with regional universities. Scholars of any age who are redirecting their careers toward the topic of the institute will also be considered. The fields to be included range from biological science through all of the social and behavioral sciences to the humanities. Applicants will be asked to explain the relevance of the institute to their current or potential scholarly interests.

Stipends of $2,750 will be offered to selected participants. The deadline for submission of applications is January 15, 1980. A simple application form can be obtained by writing to:

64

Summer Institute Center for Advanced Study in

the Behavioral Sciences 202 Junipero Serra Boulevard Stanford, California 94305

Law and social structure in the contemporary Near and Middle East

As part of its long-term program to study hierarchy, authority, and justice, the Joint Committee on the Near and Middle East has embarked on a separate project whose objective is to encourage research on the relationship between law and social structure in the contemporary Islamic Near and Middle East. The project is concerned with promoting a better understanding of the processes of social differentiation and change, of how law relates to modernization and economic and social development, and of how formal and informal legal systems function.

Through workshops and conferences, the project will encourage research on a number of topics: laws of personal status (a category that stems from the Shari'a, traditional Islamic law); property laws; laws concerning legal entities; courts and other dispute settlement mechanisms; laws concerning minority rights; taxation laws; social legislation; and concepts of justice. Scholars and others who have done or are doing research on these subjects will be brought together in one- or two-day workshops to share information and determine what additional research is needed, and in three- to five-day conferences to discuss formal papers that have been circulated in advance.

In addition, the committee plans to hold at least two summer institutes in countries of the area, both to impart substantive knowledge and to provide training in research for lawyers and social scientists from both the U.S. and countries in the area. Each institute will last six weeks.

On June 1, the Agency for International Development of the United States Department of State provided a grant for portions of the project for the first two years. To assist in the administration of the project, Charles E. Butterworth, University of Maryland, College Park, has been retained as a consultant. His primary responsibilities are to identify social scientists and lawyers in countries of the area to participate in the workshops, conferences, and summer institutes; locate archival and other research materials; and establish liaison with personnel in colleges and universities in the area as well as in Europe.

The members of the Joint Committee on the Near and Middle East are Francis

E. Peters, New York University, chairman; Ali Banuazizi, Boston College; Richard W. Bulliet, Columbia University; Elbaki Hermassi, University of California, Berkeley; Samir Khalaf, American University of Beirut; Robert J. Lapham, National Research Council; Ann Elizabeth Mayer, University of Pennsylvania; Amal Rassam, Queens College, City University of New York; and Rowland L. Mitchell, Jr., staff. Members of the Subcommittee on Law and Social Structure responsible for this project are Jeswald Salacuse, Southern Methodist University, chairman; Hossam Issa, Ain Shams University; Ann Elizabeth Mayer; Francis E. Peters; and Amal Rassam.

Parenting behavior A workshop on parenting behavior and

offspring dvelopment was convened on Sep.tember 13-15, 1979, in New York. The workshop, sponsored by the Committee on Biosocial Science, was organized around four topics of relevance to the development of parenting behavior. Workshop discussions were aimed at broadening and clarifying existing research, on specifically focused topics, by the application of an evolutionaryhistorical perspective and the use of cross-species and cross-cultural data. The topics include: (1) dimensions of parenting such as fathering-mothering roles and the possible diffusion of nurturance; (2) the child's contribution to parenting; (3) childhood observation, rehearsal, and instruction in parenting; and (4) successes and failures (including child abuse) in parenting. Discussions ranged across a variety of diverse disciplinary perspectives including anthropology, child development, ethology, pediatrics, primatology, psychiatry, and sociology.

Attending the workshop were: Phyllis W. Berman, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Jeanne H. Block, University of California, Berkeley; Matthew 1. Dobrow, Joseph Wilson Health Center (Rochester); Anke A. Ehrhardt, New York State Psychiatric Institute (New York); Richard J. Gelles, Children's Hospital Medical Center (Boston); Beatrix A. Hamburg, National Institute of Mental Health; Robert A. LeVine, Harvard University; George S. Masnick, Harvard University; Diane McGuinness, Stanford University; Gary Mitchell, University of California, Davis;


Carol B. Stack, Duke University; and Thomas S. Weisner, University of California, Los Angeles. Melvin J. Konner, Harvard University; Jane B. Lancaster, University of Oklahoma; and Alice S. Rossi, University of Massachusetts, members of the Committee on Biosocial Science, along with Lonnie R. Sherrod, staff, organized the workshop.

The third and final workshop in this series, which is funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, will bring together several participants from the first two workshops in an attempt to evaluate these meetings and outline the most promising directions for continued research planning in the area. That workshop is scheduled for late January 1980.

Comparative stratification research

In May of 1978, a small group of sociologists was convened at the Council offices in New York to discuss the desirability of encouraging new comparative research on social stratification and occupational mobility. In these discussions, it was noted that numerous countries now possess high quality national data with extensive information concerning income and employment. In addition, social scientists iri many of these countries share similar theoretical knowledge and methodological skills which have led to careful analyses of these data. Knowledge concerning the processes that determine occupational careers and social mobility cannot be based upon information from anyone country, however.

Each of the existing national mobility studies has certain limitations. Many are cross-sectional and not longitudinal, and many omit important subgroups of the population. The inclusion of data on personality variables and social experience is often minimal. Perhaps the most important restriction of anyone study is its location in one 'historical period and at one particular stage of economic development. Participants in this exploratory meeting concluded that, through a sharing of techniques and findings from numerous studies, it might be possible to build a more complete understanding of social and occupational attainment processes. New, more comprehensive comparative research should be encouraged.

A proposal was prepared based on these discussions, which led to a grant to the Council from the Volkswagen Foundation for an international planning

DECEMBER 1979

-

meeting. On November 3-5,1979 a small group of sociologists representing eight different countries convened at the offices of ZUMA in Mannheim, West Germany. The purpose of this meeting was to develop a major proposal for a series of research planning activities focused on comparative stratification research. A proposed program of work was developed which would include a series of meetings, research, and data-archiving activities. In terna tionally-com prised groups of scholars will study topics such as the impact of urbanization, industrialization, and labor market structure upon social mobility and individual career patterns; social psychological antecedents and consequences of mobility; and life history approaches to the study of employment and social stratification.

A comprehensive proposal for this work is currently being completed and will be submitted by the Council to appropriate funders. The chairman of the planning meeting in Mannheim was David L. Featherman, University of Wisconsin. Other sociologists who attended the meeting were John Goldthorpe, Nuffield College, Oxford; Judah Matras, The Hebrew University; Karl-Ulrich Mayer, University of Mannheim; Jose Pastore, University of Sao Paulo; Natalie Rogoff Ramsj1$y, Institute of Applied Social Research (Oslo); Peter B. Read, Social Science Research Council; Ken'ichi Tominaga, University of Tokyo; and W1odzimierz Wesolowski, Polish Academy of Sciences. Guests included HelgaJunkers, Stiftung Volkswagenwerk, and Walter Muller, University of Mannheim.

Early socialization in Japan and the United States

With funds from the Japan-United States Friendship Commission and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, the Council sponsored an exploratory meeting on early child development in the u.s. and Japan. Researchers from both countries met from November 19-21, 1979 in San Francisco to discuss common interests related to early social, emotional, and cognitive development. These researchers noted that there are important differences between the two countries in early socialization practices---practices that result in a variety of personality differences in adolescence and adulthood. While there has been recent research on differences in cognitive performance by children in the two countries, and some preliminary

work on differences in infant socialization, participants in this meeting concluded that there is a need for new comparative data.

There is a need to know, in greater detail, differences in the behavior of parents towards their infants and how these interactions change as the infant matures. This type of research requires careful collaboration between researchers in both countries and a research design that incorporates similar measures of social, emotional, and cognitive factors. Participants in this meeting are currently preparing a proposal that would support a new comparative and collaborative research project. Cochairmen of the meeting were Kazuo Miyake, Hokkaido University, and Jerome Kagan, Harvard University. Other researchers who participated in the meeting were Hiroshi Azuma, University of Tokyo; Jeanne Block, Institute of Human Development, University of California, Berkeley; Wanda C. Bronson, Institute of Human Development, University of California, Berkeley; Kazutaka Furuhata, University of Tokyo; Robert D. Hess, Stanford University; Martin L. Hoffman, City University of New York; Keiko Kashiwagi, Tokyo Women's Christian University; Carroll E. Izard, University of Delaware; Hideo Kojima, Nagoya University; Catherine C. Lewis, Duke University; Eleanor E. Maccoby, Stanford University; Peter B. Read, Social Science Research Council; David W. Shwalb, University of Michigan, and Keiko Takahashi, Kunitachi College of Music.

Staff appointment Ronald J. Peleck joined the Council in

October as controller. As chief financial officer, he will be primarily responsible for the fiscal administration of the Council. Mr. Peleck comes to the Council with a broad financial and administrative background in both education and business. He was a staff member with Haskins and Sells, an international certified public accounting firm. In 1967, he joined Bank Street College, a graduate institution specializing in education in human development, as assistant controller. In 1974, he was appointed director of business and administrative affairs at the College, where he also taught educational administrative courses. Mr. Peleck received a B.S. in business administration from Seton Hall University in 1962 and an M.A. in higher education administration from Columbia University in 1973.

65

~ Recent Council Publications

Capitalism and the State in U.S.-Latin American Relations, edited by Richard R. Fagen . Papers presented at a conference sponsored by the joint Committee on Latin American Studies held at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, D.C., March 27-31, 1978. Stanford University Press, 1979. 446 pages. Hardbound, $22.50; paper $6.95.

This volume continues the longstanding interest of the joint Committee on Latin American Studies in research on U.S.-Latin American foreign relations. An earlier committee-sponsored volume, Latin America and the United States: The Changing Political Realities (Stanford University Press, 1974), edited by julio Cotler and Richard R. Fagen, highlighted the debate between scholars operating within a dependency paradigm and those working from a "liberal" perspective. The former paradigm tends to emphasize the structural aspects of asymmetries within the international political and economic system, while the latter is more likely to focus on the various actors and resources that are brought to bear in specific instances of bargaining and conflict in the international arena.

Capitalism and the State may be viewed as a synthesis of these two approaches. An introduction by Mr. Fagan, Stanford University, sketches the historical and theoretical background of the conference at which these papers were presented. An announced goal of the meetings was the generation of a structural model of the foreign policy-making process in the United States that would complement and increase the explanatory power of already well-developed theoretical models of U.S.-Latin American relations. The volume is thus divided into two sections: an initial set of papers on "Understanding the United States and Foreign Policy," which examine the roles of public and private actors in setting this country's foreign policy agenda, and a second section on "Cases in Transnational Relations Between Center and Periphery," which includes studies of specific events and moments in U.S.-Latin American relations.

The volume seeks to move beyond dependency theory's description of the state as the lifeless creation of dominant economic and class interests. While the essays survey a broad range of groups and in-

66

stitutions, all of which seek to use the state as a means of advancing their interests, they also demonstrate the tendency of the state to defend its autonomy. The volume also views the state as diffuse and lacking in internal cohesion ; this makes'it difficult for individual or even institutional actors to exercise a determining influence on policy. The frequent result of these complexities is the formulation and implementation of foreign policy that serves neither the United States government nor the commercial and financial interests that it is often presumed to represent.

Besides Mr. Fagen, contributors to the volume include Cynthia Arnson, Institute for Policy Studies (Washington, D.C.); Angela M. Delli Sante, National Autonomous University of Mexico; Peter Evans, Brown University; Roberto Frenkel, Center for the Study of State and Society (Buenos Aires) ; Ira Katznelson, University of Chicago; Michael T . Klare, Institute for Policy Studies (Washington, D.C.); Anthony P. Maingot, Florida International University; Henry R. Nau, George Washington University; Guillermo O'Donnell, Center for the Study of State and Society (Buenos Aires); Oscar Pino-Santos, Institute for the Study of the Americas (Havana); Kenneth Prewitt, Social Science Research Council; Earl C. Ravenal, Georgetown University; jerry Sanders, University of California, Berkeley; Barbara Stallings, University of Wisconsin; Steven S. Volk, North American Congress on Latin America (New York); and Alan Wolfe, University of California, Berkeley.

/ Economic Growth and Structural Change in Taiwan, edited by Walter Galenson. Sponsored by the joint Committee on Sino-American Cooperation in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1979. 519 pages. Hardbound, $29.50.

Since World War 11, Taiwan has enjoyed the highest rate of economic growth of any country in the world, with the possible exception of japan. Contributors to this volume deal in depth with all major sectors of the Taiwanese economyagriculture, industry, labor, foreign trade, fiscal policy, and structural change. Each author has selected, within the broad topics under study, those elements of the growth process that impressed'him

as being the most important and significant. A recurring theme is the question of whether Taiwan could serve as an appropriate model for other developing countries.

In addition to the editor, the contributors to the volume are Simon Kuznets, Harvard University; Ian M.D. Little, World Bank; Erik' Lundbert, Royal

. Swedish Academy of Science; Gustav Ranis, Yale University; Maurice Scott, Nuffield College, Oxford; and Erik Thorbeck, Cornell University.

I Mass Political Behavior Research in Japan: A Report on the State of the Field and Bibliography, by Scott C. Flanagan and Bradley M. Richardson. Prepared for the joint Committee on japanese Studies. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1979. iv + 40 pages. No charge.

This report represents one product of a survey of the field of mass political behavior research in japan conducted in 1974 and 1975. The first part introduces the American reader to the state of development of this field and to the principal institutional actors and resources. Included in this section are discussions of the development of political science in japan, the multidisciplinary nature of political behavior research, the role of nonacademic organizations in sponsoring political behavior research, and current intellectual concerns and methodologies. The second part of the report is an extended bibliography designed to familiarize American scholars with leading japanese scholars who are active in mass political behavior research and the thematic foci of their work.

A limited number of copies is available at the Council upon request; address inquiries to Ronald Aqua.

V The New Authoritarianism in Latin America, edited by David Collier. Papers prepared as part of a project on the State and Public Policy sponsored by the joint Committee on Latin American Studies and presented at a conference held February 6-8, 1977. Princeton University Press, 1979. 456 pages. Hardbound, $25.00; paper, $5.95.

Theories of modernization developed by American social scientists during the 1950s and 1960s posited a direct and basically benign relationship between


economic and political development. It was assumed that as societies became industrialized they would follow paths of historical development similar to those taken by Europe and the United States. Economic modernization would break down pre-existing social and political structures and replace them with the e1ements--e.g., a growing middle class, improved infrastructure and internal communication, broadly based political movements, and expanded political participation-out of which would soon evolve a pluralistic democratic system.

Events of the last 15 years exposed the inadequacies of this theory, which failed to acknowledge that development in Third World nations in the second half of the 20th century takes place in a radically different historical context from that in which the industrialization of Western Europe and the United States occurred-with corresponding implications for the political consequences of such development. There has been, for example, a general failure of economic modernization to produce anything resembling a Western democracy in almost any developing country in the world. This failure is particularly evident in Latin America, where a series of coups since 1964 has unseated popularly-elected governments in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay, replacing them with military regimes dedicated to reducing popular participation and imposing c1assicallyliberal models of economic development.

This repeated breakdown of democratic regimes, as well as the markedly technocratic nature of the military governments that succeeded them, led to the formulation by Latin American scholars of a theory of "bureaucraticauthoritarianism" (hereafter BA), a new form of regime which arises in response to economic modernization. The theory proposed a causal relationship between industrialization and this technocratic authoritarianism, arguing that the dependent position of Latin American states and societies within the international capitalist system leads to their inability to withstand the pressures generated by modernization without recourse to authoritarian solutions.

This volume is an effort to test the ex-planatory power of BA theory by seeing how accurately it reflects recent historical experience-not just of the countries mentioned above, but of other Latin American cases' as well. It also seeks to suggest ways in which the theory can use-

DECEMBER 1979

fully be applied to the study of other countries undergoing rapid modernization. The volume consists of nine essays divided into three sections. The first section provides a general overview of the theoretical debate on the nature of the Latin American state and argues the importance of distinguishing between "state" (the informal pact by which competing class interests co-exist) and "regime" (the legal and constitutional mechanisms by which that pact is implemented). The second section focuses on specific aspects of BA theory and tests them against selected historical cases. Of central concern is the degree to which given strategies of economic development tend to produce given political consequences and outcomes, a set of arguments which lies at the core of the theory. A third section projects BA theory into the future. One essay explores the implications of the theory for the possible redemocratization of the region (a subject on which complementary projects are currently being carried out by" the Joint Committee on Western Europe and the Latin American Program of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars); another proposes ways in which its explanatory power might be extended by including cases from other historical periods and parts of the world. A concluding essay suggests directions for future research on the relationship between economic development and political change.

David Collier, University of California, Berkeley, edited the volume and authored two of the essays. Other contributors include Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Brazilian Center for Analysis and Planning (Sao Paulo); Julio Cotler, Institute of Peruvian Studies (Lima); Albert O. Hirschman, Institute for Advanced Study (Princeton, New Jersey); Robert R. Kaufman, Rutgers University; James R. Kurth, Swarthmore College; Guillermo O'Donnell, Center for the Study of State and Society (Buenos Aires); and Jose Serra, Brazilian Center for Analysis and Planning (Sao Paulo).

J Population and Migration Trends in Eastern Europe, edited by Huey Louis Kostanick. Product of a conference on demography and urbanization in Eastern Europe, held in Los Angeles. February 5-9. 1976 under the sponsorship of the

Center lor Russian and East European Studies of the University of California. Los Angeles. and supported in part by the joint Committee on Eastern Europe. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. 1977. xxiii + 247 pages. Cloth, $17.50.

The book has both an area and a topical lOCus. Eastern Europe is defined as the area west of the Soviet Union between the Baltic and Mediterranean seas. which includes Poland. East Germany. Czechoslovakia. Hungary. Romania. Yugoslavia. Albania. Bulgaria. Greece. and Turkey.

The 12 chapters are devoted to population composition. urban and regional planning. househo)d composition. rural-urban migration. and external migration. An introductory and a summary chapter by the authors relate the topical chapters to each other.

The contributors are Ivi Baucii:. University of Zagreb; Martha Dell Desch Brumbaugh. University of California. Los Angeles; John R. Clark. University of California. Los Angeles; George j. Demko. Ohio State University; Kazimierz Dziewonski. Polish Academy of Sciences; Roland j. Fuchs. University of Hawaii; Ronald L. Hatchett, University of Texas; George W. HolTman. University of Texas; Leszek A. Kosinski. University of Alberta; Huey Louis Kostanick. University of California. Los Angeles; Thomas M. Poulsen. Portland State University; Irwin T. Sanders. Boston University; and Robert N. Taaffe. Indiana University.

The Prehistory of Korea, translated and edited by Richard J. Pearson and Kazue Pearson (originally published as Kankoku no Kokugaku by Jeong-hak Kim). Product of the Joint Committee on Korean Studies. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii, 1978. xxxv + 237 pages.

This volume describes Korea's past from the Paleolithic Period to the Bronze Age. presenting detailed information from numerous Korean excavations. In addition to describing sites and artifacts the author uses stylistic and typological groupings to establish a chronology. The book reveals that clear similarities exist between Korean artifact assemblages and those from Siberia and Japan. Of particular interest are the abundant photographs and drawings of Korean bronze artifacts of indigenous manufacture.

67

68

Sengoku jidai (The Warring States Period), edited by john Whitney HaIl, Keiji Nagahara, and Kozo Yamamura. Papers from a binational conference sponsored by the joint Committee on japanese Studies and the japan Society for the Promotion of Science, held in Hawaii, August 28-September 2, 1977. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan, 1978.331 pages.

john Whitney Hall, Yale University; Keiji Nagahara, Hitotsubashi University; and Kozo Yamamura, University of Washington, have edited the papers of a binational conference on the so-called Warring States period in japanese history. The conference focused on japan's institutional transformation from roughly 1550 to 1650. During that period, japan underwent a visible and rapid change in its political, legal, social, and economic structures. The last remnants of the old imperial order were eliminated, and the daimyo domains under Shogunate control became the established system of gov-

ernment. At the same time, the samurai class withdrew from the land to become the established ruling class, and the peasantry became fully differentiated from the samurai to become a new class of farmers.

The new institutions resulting from these changes, which laid the basis for japanese life during the entire early modern period, have been thoroughly studied and described by japanese scholars. Their meaning is still vigorously disputed, however. The purpose of the conference was to subject the study of these changes to intensive descriptive and comparative analysis by a group of 20 scholars drawn from japan and the United States. japanese scholars provided most of the basic studies, but the entire conference group was invited to construct comparative and analytical interpretations based on these studies. The American scholars were also asked to translate and interpret the japanese manuscripts to an English-


speaking audience, and an English- ' language version of this book is now in preparation.

J Thirty Years of Yugoslav Literature (1945-1975), by Thomas Eekman. A publication of the joint Committee on Eastern Europe. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, 1978. 328 pages. Cloth, $7.50.

This is the fifth in the series of publications sponsored by the joint Committe on Eastern Europe; it was commissioned in order to supplement the first book in the series, Antun Barac's A History of Yugoslav Literature. Focusing upon literature in Serbo-Croatian, Slovene, and Macedonian, the book is organized into three broad time periods: the postwar writing of the prewar generation; the first postwar generations; and the contemporary generation.

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

lncorporatrd in thr Statr of Illinois, Decembrr 27, 1924, for the purposr of advancing rrJrarch in the social .. eimcr.1

Directors, 1979-80: IRMA ADELMAN, ROSEDITH SITGREAVES BOWKER, Cun'ORD GEERTZ, PETER R . GOULD, GERALD H. KRAMER, PHILIP W. JACKSON,

JANE B . LANCASTER, Orro N. LARSEN, ROBERT A . LEVINE, EI.EANOR E . MACCOBY, CORA BAGLEY MARRETT, DWIGHT H. PERKINS, KENNETH PREWITT,

MURRAY L. SCHWARTZ, STEPHAN A . THERNSTROM, FINIS R . WELCH, WILLIAM J. WILSON

Officers and Staff: KENNETH PREWITT, President; DAVID L. SILLS, Executive Associate; GEORGE REID ANDREWS, RONALD AQUA, ROBERT A . GATES,

MARTHA A. GEPHART, DONALD j. HERNANDEZ, ROBERTA BALSTAD MILLER, ROWLAND L. MITCHELL, jR., ROBERT PARKE, PETER B. READ, RICHARD C.

ROCKWELL, LONNIE R. SHERROD, DAVID L. SZANTON, ANNE F. THURSTON; RONAl.D j. PELECK, Controller; NANCY McMANUS, Librarian

Items Vol. 33 No. 3-4 (1979)

Documents