SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

VOLUME 24 . NUMBER 1 . MARCH 1970 230 PARK AVENUE· NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017

THE COMMITTEE ON THE ECONOMY OF CHINA:

THE NEED for a committee to advance research on the economy of Communist China was first considered at a conference held in New York on September 9-10, 1960, under the auspices of the Joint Committee on Con­temporary China, which had been appointed in the preceding year by the American Council of Learned Societies and the SSRC. Fifteen scholars attended the conference. In a report on the current state of research and training in the field, Alexander Eckstein indicated that between 25 and 30 economists were then conduct­ing research on some aspect of the Chinese economy. Eleven of these were faculty members at 10 colleges and universities; the rest were graduate students. Three major efforts to measure the gross national product of Communist China had been made or were in process: a study by William W. Hollister, one by Ta-Chung Liu and K. C. Yeh, and one by Mr. Eckstein. Few major monographs on the Chinese Communist economic ex­perience had been produced, and there was no other large research project under way. Only a small number of universities were offering formal courses on the economy of China, while a few more included it in graduate training programs.

What the participants in the 1960 conference knew of the Communist Chinese economy was essentially the period of reconstruction and the First Five-Year Plan.

• The author is Professor of Economics, Cornell University. He served as a member of the Committee on the Economy of China and as its Director of Research throughout its existence. The other members of the committee have been Simon Kumets (chairman), 1961-70; A. Doak Barnett. 1961-63; Abram Bergson. 1961-70; Alexander Eckstein, 1963-70; Joseph Kershaw, 1961-65; Ta-Chung Liu, 1963-70; S. C. Tsiang, 1966-70; staff, Paul Webbink, 1961-70. The present report is a condensed version of the final report on the committee's activities, prepared for the Council and the Ford Foundation.

A REVIEW OF ITS WORK, 1961-70 by Walter Galenson '"

The Great Leap Forward was in its final throes, and while most of the participants believed that the claims made by the Chinese government were inflated, no one could have known of the great damage inflicted on the economy. There was also evidence of a schism between China and Russia, but the depth of the ideological break was not appreciated. Most important in terms of the objectives of the conference, the flow of material from China had recently ceased, but no one thought this could be more than a brief and temporary phenomenon. The participants were impressed with the great progress of the Chinese economy during the 1950's, and even if one did not make straight-line projections for the following decade, no one doubted that China would become a major world economic power within a few years.

There was unanimity on the need for a major research effort on the Chinese economy. Only the barest begin­nings had been made, and it seemed that without a con­certed effort progress would be very slow. After con­siderable discussion of alternative ways in which a research effort might be organized, the participants in the conference recommended that a committee be estab­lished to stimulate and coordinate research on the Chinese economy, not to be a passive dispenser of grants, but rather to seek out potential research personnel and to encourage the undertaking of specific projects in line with a coordinated research plan. This recommendation was the major influence on the nature of the research program undertaken by the Committee on the Economy of China.

Further discussions sponsored by the Joint Committee on Contemporary China and within the SSRC led to appointment of the committee in September 1961. In December the Ford Foundation made a grant to the

1

Council for support of a five-year research program on the Chinese economy, and the new committee held its first formal meeting in February 1962.

As a first step, the committee developed a comprehen­sive list of studies that it proposed to initiate during the five-year period envisioned for its tenure:

1. Industrial Production A. General index B. Industry studies: (1) steel, (2) textiles, (3) fuel and power,

(4) handicrafts C. Industrial statistics

2. Agriculture A. Index of output B. Agriculture and economic development C. Agricultural organization

3. Labor and Management Institutions A. Population B. Employment C. Wages and labor incentives D. Management structure E. Operation of the firm

4. Prices, Money, and Banking A. The State budget B. Monetary policy C. Banking and credit D. Tax structure E. The price structure F. Living standards

5. Trade and Transportation A. Domestic trade B. Foreign trade C. Transportation

6. Planning and Investment A. The central planning system B. Capital accumulation and allocation C. Chinese economic doctrine D. The political framework for economic decision making

7. National Product and Income A. The national income accounts B. Income distribution

Some of the proposed studies obviously would be broad in scope, such as the construction of indexes of agri­cultural and industrial output; others would be of a sectoral character; and still others would deal with institutional aspects of the Chinese economy. While the committee's immediate concern was to advance quanti­tative studies, it also aimed to encourage nonquantitative studies if competent investigators could be found for such subjects as Chinese industrial management, the social organization of the communes, and the politics of economic planning.

It was early agreed that Alexander Eckstein should have primary responsibility for organizing research in the area of industrial production, and that discussions should be held with some 29 scholars whose participa­tion in specific projects might be supported.

The topics that were given high priority by the com­mittee were assigned as rapidly as possible to qualified

2

research workers. They were invited to begin work on studies on which reports of either article or monograph length might be published. Many of those invited were located at small colleges or universities with inadequate research facilities, and in these cases sufficient financial assistance was provided to permit leaves from regular positions. The committee considered it desirable that the participants in its studies work near others engaged in similar research, and encouraged the formation of research groups where library facilities were especially good.

The financial assistance provided by the committee varied in amount and purpose in accordance with the nature of research problems and the local library re­sources available to participants. Payments in lieu of salary were made for periods ranging from three months to a year, and in many cases allowances for travel, books, microfilm and other material, and typing costs were also made. This was the pattern followed by the committee throughout its period of operation.

In order to bring together all participants in the committee's program for an assessment of progress, the committee held its first conference in Berkeley, Cali­fornia, January 31- February 2, 1963. Although the purpose was not primarily to discuss substantive aspects of the studies, since most of them were in early stages, the quality of the formal papers was high, and the several discussions were interesting and helpful.

In November 1963 the committee made available the first collection of materials prepared especially for it, The Economy of Mainland China, 1949-1963: A Bibli­ography of Materials in English, by Nai-Ruenn Chen. More than 1,000 copies of this 297-page volume were distributed without charge to major libraries and to interested students, on request.

One of the policies of the committee was to limit its support to mature scholars and not to assist graduate students who were working for the Ph.D. degree. This was established after considerable discussion, and some members of the committee continued to think that, in view of the paucity of human resources, it might have been wise to assist in the development of new personnel through grants for training. However, there were other sources of support, particularly the Foreign Area Fellow­ship Program (initiated by the Ford Foundation and transferred to joint sponsorship by the ACLS and SSRC in 1962), and the committee was reluctant to deviate from its original decision to limit research support to scholars who had already demonstrated their com­petence. In retrospect, it is doubtful whether committee assistance at the graduate level would have done much, if anything, to further the training of specialists on the Chinese economy.

VOLUME 24, NUMBER 1

The committee's second major conference was held at Carmel, California, on October 21-23, 1965; it was at­tended by 41 scholars. Some of the 15 papers prepared for the conference were published in September 1968, in a volume entitled Economic Trends in Communist China.

The grant from the Ford Foundation for support of the committee's program was to have expired at the end of 1966, but in recognition of the critical importance of the field, the necessarily slow pace of research, and the growing interest in Chinese studies among economists, the term of the grant was extended for three more years. Among the later activities made possible by this continuing support was the committee's participa­tion in arranging and financing a conference, in coopera­tion with the Joint Committee on Contemporary China, in Taipei on June 18-28, 1967, under the auspices of the Joint Committee on Sino-American Cooperation in the Humanities and Social Sciences. The conference examined recent trends in the economic development of the Republic of China and discussed the feasibility of establishing a program of advanced training and re­search in economics in that country. Papers on various aspects of the economy of Taiwan were presented by the Chinese participants, while participants from the United States acted as principal discussants of the papers. As a result of this conference a doctoral program in economics was established by the National Taiwan University in the fall of 1968, in an attempt to stem the drain of economists from Taiwan to the United States.

PUBLICATIONS

As of February 1970 seven monographs have been issued by the Aldine Publishing Company in the com­mittee's series.1 Four additional manuscripts have been substantially completed and are under prepublication review: "The Foreign Trade of Communist China," by Feng-hwa Mah; "The Machinery Industry of Com­munist China," by Chu-yuan Cheng; "China's Fertilizer Economy," by J. C. Liu; and "Economic Growth in China and India," by Subramanian Swamy. Reports of several committee projects are still in preparation and may result in publications in the future: "Manchurian

1 Financing the Chinese Government Budget: Mainland China, 1950-1959, by George N. Ecklund (1966); Chinese Economic Statistics: A Handbook for Mainland China, edited by Nai-Ruenn Chen (1967); The Construction Industry in Communist China, by Kang Chao (1968); Eco­nomic Trends in Communist China, edited by Alexander Eckstein, Walter Galenson, and Ta-Chung Liu (1968); Industrial Development in Pre-Communist China, by John K. Chang (1969); Agricullllra/ De­velopment in China, 1368-1968, by Dwight H. Perkins (1969); The Chinese Economy under Communism, by Nai-Ruenn Chen and Walter Galenson (1969).

MAlleH 1970

Economic Development," by Alexander Eckstein: "Chi. nese National Product since 1957," by Ta-Chung Liu and K. C. Yeh; and "Technological Development of the Chinese Iron and Steel Industry," by M. Gardner Clark.

The committee also has made available informally a second volume, Provincial Agricultural Statistics for Communist China. This volume represented an attempt to assemble all available provincial agricultural statistics emanating from Communist Chinese sources. The data were collected originally by a group working under the direction of Cho-Ming Li; they were collated and sup­plemented by research workers under Kang Chao, and made available in the hope that they might be of help to scholars in the field.

In addition to the foregoing the committee has issued 20 reprints of articles prepared with its assistance:

The Budgetary System of the People'S Republic of China, by Ching-wen Kwang

Work Incentives in Communist China, by Charles Hoffmann The Terms of Sino-Soviet Trade, by Feng-hwa Mah A Study of the Rouble-Yuan Exchange Rate, by Kang Chao and

Feng-hwa Mah Capital Formation in Communist China, by William W. Hol­

lister Fertilizer Supply and Grain Production in Communist China,

by Jung-chao Liu Fertilizer Application in Communist China, by Jung-chao Liu Industrialization and Urban Housing in Communist China, by

Kang Chao Prices in Communist China, by S. H. Chou The Economic Accounting System of State Enterprises in Main­

land China, by Ching-wen Kwang The Theory of Price Formation in Communist China, by Nai­

Ruenn Chen Industrial Development of Mainland China, 1912-1919, by

John K. Chang The Current State of Chinese Economic Studies, by Walter

Galenson The Tempo of Economic Drvelopment of the Chinese Main­

land, 1949-65, by Ta-Chung Liu Trcnds in Capital Formation in Communist China, by William

W. Hollister Money and Banking in Communist China, by S. C. Tsiang Scientific and Engineering Manpower in Communist China, by

Chu-yuan Cheng The Validity of Mainland China's Cot/on Textile Statistics, by

Rockwood Q.P. Chin Agr'culture in the Industrialization of Communist China and

the Soviet Union, by Anthony M. Tang Sources of Agricultural Growth in Communist China, by Chi­

ming Hou

A comparison of this list of publications with the original research plan outlined above indicates many gaps. These are attributable largely to the embargo on Chinese economic statistics which has been effective for almost a decade. Preparat ion of a delailed index of in­dus tr:al product' on or of agricultural output since 1957 or 1958 is almost impossible on the basis of currently available information. The committee did attempt to

arrange for a research project on the textile industry, which is probably feasible, but its efforts were unsuccess­ful. Some research was done under the committee's auspices on agricultural development, and this is re­ported in Economic Trends in Communist China. The collection of provincial agricultural statistics was a first step in the development of a comprehensive quantita­tive study of Chinese agriculture under Communism, but the larger job remains to be done.

The committee was somewhat more fortunate with respect to research on labor. Economic Trends in Com­munist China contains two chapters on population and employment; and the committee's assistance enabled Charles Hoffmann to publish Work Incentive Practices and Policies in the People'S Republic of China, 1953-1965. The committee commissioned a research project on management structure and operation of the firm, but it was not completed.

On prices, money, and banking, much remains to be done. Apart from the report on the budgetary system, it was not possible to encourage work in this area.

In the area of trade and transportation, as already noted, a monograph dealing with foreign trade is ex­pected to be published under the committee's auspices. Support for a project on domestic trade did not yield a publishable report. The committee financially aided re­search on transportation, directed by Yuan-Li Wu of the Hoover Institution, which resulted in publication of The Spatial Economy of Communist China.

With regard to planning and investment, there is a chapter in Economic Trends in Communist China on capital accumulation and allocation, but it was not pos­sible to arrange for monographs on the central planning system, on Chinese economic doctrine, or on the political framework for economic decision making.

Ta-Chung Liu and K. C. Yeh are attempting to bring up to date their earlier estimates of Chinese national income. This is a major effort, and we can therefore predict that the topic of national product and income will be examined as adequately as the data permit.

Several of the projects that actually materialized were not included in the original research plan. Among these were the studies of the chemical fertilizer industry, pre­Communist industrial development, the construction industry, the machinery industry, economic develop­ment of Manchuria, and the broad review of Chinese agricultural development that resulted in the mono­graph by Dwight H. Perkins. Some of the latter studies were undertaken by the individual scholars upon their own initiative.

During the committee's eight years, support of some kind was made available to 39 individuals for mono­graphic studies, studies of lesser scope appropriately re-

4

ported in journal articles. and contributions to con­ferences. Still other work supported by the committee did not result in a published product for a variety of reasons. In several cases assistance was provided for portions of larger projects which scholars were carrying on under other auspices. For example, assistance was given to Jerome A. Cohen of Harvard University for his work on Chinese law, and to Albert Feuerwerker of the University of Michigan. who has been working on the economic history of China from 1842 to 1928.

PROBLEMS

The committee encountered a number of problems in attempting to carry out its program of research. Among the most important were the following:

1. Data. Lack of data was the principal obstacle to completion of the program originally envisaged by the committee. When the program was conceived. it was confidently believed that within a relatively brief period the Chinese government would again begin issuing sta­tistical material. The unprecedented statistical drought that has lasted for a decade has been the major barrier to quantitative research on the recent period. If this had been foreseen. it is unlikely that a program of such broad scope would have been undertaken.

This theme needs no amplification for those who have worked recently on the Chinese economy. For others, it may be said simply that for the past ten years virtually no macro statistics have been published by the Chinese government, while micro data are scattered and few. consisting mainly of travelers' reports and a few figures of doubtful reliability contained in propaganda pro­nouncements. The only exception has been in the field of foreign trade, where data could be obtained from China's trading partners. Such key magnitudes as popu­lation. employment, national product. production of major agricultural and industrial goods, and similar items are now estimated by the crudest of methods.

There is no indication that the policy of secrecy will change in the near future. Unless it does. the possibilities for detailed quantitative research on the Chinese econo­my for the past decade must remain quite limited. This is not to say, however. that research on this period should be abandoned. As will be indicated below, a great deal of work remains to be done before we can achieve ade­quate understanding of what has taken place in China, and what may be expected in the future.

2. Personnel. In the Council's request to the Ford Foundation for support of a program in the committee's field, it was stated that there had been correspondence with more than 50 economists interested in research on contemporary China. About two thirds of these were

VOLUME 24. NUMBER 1

professionally qualified economists whose native lan­guage was Chinese, and several of the remainder pos­sessed research competence in the language. About half of the economists originally listed eventually became involved in the committee's program, and others who were not included also received support.

However, the program failed to meet the committee's original expectations on several counts. Some of the economists who were expected to be involved in a major way moved to positions that made them unavailable for studies of China. Others, including several leading Chinese-American economists, were reluctant for per­sonal reasons to participate in research on Communist China. Perhaps the greatest disappointment was the fact that so few young scholars came into the field during the eight-year period.

It should be emphasized that the committee received a great many requests for financial assistance which it was unable to act on affirmatively. Some of these were deemed to be outside the scope of its program; some were not realistic in terms of the time involved; in other cases the qualifications of applicants did not meet the committee's criteria.

3. Organization. The committee originally envisioned that a substantial proportion of its work would be car­ried on at a few institutions, and under the immediate direction of a senior research scholar. For a number of reasons, including the changed plans of individuals, this conception was borne out only at the University of Michigan, where throughout the period various persons worked under the general direction of Alexander Eck­stein. The other projects were carried out at institutions throughout the country where library facilities were adequate. This put a greater burden on the committee and the Director of Research than had been contem­plated in the initial proposal.

However, the basic concept of a committee responsible for sustained planning, guidance, encouragement, and support of research rather than one responsible for administration of a program of grants appears to have been sound. Most of the projects supported were sug­gested by the committee rather than by the scholar. Individuals were sought out and persuaded to under­take specific research. Given the state of Chinese eco­nomic information, it appears unlikely that the field would have been developed to its present extent with­out an active promotional policy.

4. Quality. It would have been easy to produce a much larger output if the committee had been willing to compromise on quality. It assumed from the start, however, that because of the highly charged political atmosphere affecting its area, it must insist on accurate and painstaking scientific work. All manuscripts pub-

MARCH 1970

lished under the committee's auspices, therefore, were read by at least two members of the committee and also by outside specialists who were compensated for doing careful reviews. Every manuscript went through several revisions, and some were rewritten substantially after the receipt of comments by readers. This was one of the undoubted advantages of the project approach over the grants approach. Normally, a grants committee has no control over the final products of those it has aided; authors simply acknowledge its assistance.

QUESTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

1. Areas for future research. Despite limitations of data, there are many promising areas for future research. Among them are the following:

a. Studies of Chinese economic development in the twentieth century as a whole: There is an abundance of material-some of it recently made available in Taiwan for the first time~ealing with the pre-Communist period, and the peacetime years of the Republic in par­ticular. Studies in depth of such industries as textiles, food processing, railroad transportation, and handicrafts might be very rewarding. The subject of rural develop­ment is far from exhausted. Such studies are essential in providing historical and quantitative perspective for the understanding and evaluation of economic development in Communist China.

b. A good deal of additional research on the 1950's may be possible: Careful examination of the large num­ber of provincial newspapers available for the period might shed more light on local budgets and investment allocation; provincial growth and economic structure; economic relations between rural and urban sectors in different provinces; levels and changes in living stand­ards; and agricultural production and organization.

c. Even for the most recent years there are possibilities for research of a nonquantitative character: Although scholars are not in full agreement on the value of data obtained in interviews with refugees, it may be that use­ful information can be obtained in this way on such topics as living standards, the organization and operation of the industrial enterprise, and the various agricultural organizations. Published data appear to be ample for studies of general economic policy.

The committee cannot say for certain that research on any particular topic is feasible; that becomes evident only when it is actually tackled. But given the immense importance of the Chinese economy, the intellectual challenge, and the necessity of knowing far more about China for policy purposes, it is clear that a slackening of interest or effort in the field would be most unfortunate.

2. Personnel. The short supply of trained economists

5

continues to be a severely limiting factor. Some special­ists in the China field have become discouraged by the difficulties of research and are drifting to other fields. Young scholars are diverted from taking up Chinese economic studies because of a combination of in­adequacies of available data and the necessity of master­ing the Chinese language. The opportunity costs for graduate students who contemplate entering the field are very high. It follows that the existing special train­ing programs for graduate students should be continued. Only the most highly motivated students are willing to defer completion of requirements for the Ph.D. degree for several years to study Chinese, and lack of financial support should not be permitted to frustrate them.

This does not mean that nonspecialists cannot con­tribute to study of the economy of China. It will never be possible to find enough Chinese specialists for all the branches of economics. Useful work can be done by the functional specialist, perhaps in cooperation with a Chi­nese reader, perhaps with the aid of the extensive trans­lation services of the United States government and other agencies. China is one of the major cases of modern economic development, and scholars who are interested in that subject should be encouraged to acquaint them­selves with the data and to use China for purposes of comparative analysis.

3. Data. The committee's initial program called for the preparation of an annual digest of economic infor­mation on China. This proved not to be feasible because of the lack of publishable information. The Joint Com-

mittee on Contemporary China has devoted much attention to the problems of data gathering, which transcend the field of economics. As a result of its efforts to make information on China obtained by government agencies more available to the academic community, more libraries are receiving whatever current informa­tion comes out of China, and research is now possible at more centers than was true a decade ago. However, the maintenance of adequate library facilities for serious work on China is expensive. Given the enormous com­petition for available library funds, there is danger that the specialized collections so laboriously assembled dur­ing the postwar period will not be maintained. There is a case for special treatment of Chinese materials through subsidy, either from government or from foundations.

4. Organization. The committee did not consider a recommendation as to a successor to be part of its responsibility. It stressed the fact, however, that the area with which it has been concerned is at least as im­portant now as when it started its work. It is also essential that some mechanism for strengthening intellectual contacts be established so that the relatively small band of specialists, who constitute an important national re­source, can continue to plan their work coherently and efficiently, and to maintain high standards in teaching and objectivity in research. The committee takes some pride in what it has achieved during the eight years of its tenure, and its members would find it regrettable if lack of organization were to result in a reduced tempo of work in the coming years.

INTELLECTUAL HISTORY AND COMPARATIVE STUDIES: AN EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE

HISTORY AND ANTHROPOLOGY have drifted for some time on the "softer" fringe of the social sciences. Neither discipline works with experimental data; neither is highly quantitative. But in both there is some interest in comparative studies, and hope that more rigorous analysis can come through the development of compara­tive methodology. As an experiment with possible ap­proaches comparing the data produced by anthropolo­gists and historians, the Joint Committee on African Studies sponsored a conference on October 9-11, 1969,

• The author, Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin, is a member of the board of directors of the Social Science Research Council and of the Joint Committee on African Studies, which is co­sponsored by the SSRC and the American Council of Learned Societies.

6

ON AFRICAN STUDIES by Philip D. Curtin-

at the Belmont Conference Center of the Smithsonian Institution in Maryland.1

1 The participants in the conference included the members and staff of the Joint Committee on African Studies-Elizabeth Colson, University of California, Berkeley (chairman); L. Gray Cowan, Columbia Univer­sity; Philip D. Curtin; Walter Deshler, University of Maryland; William O. Jones, Stanford University; Roy Sieber, Indiana University; Robert F. Thompson, Yale University; staff, Rowland L. Mitchell, Jr.-and the following guests: Jacob F. A. Ajayi, University of Ibadan; Paula Brown, State University of New York at Stony Brook; Leonard W. Doob, and William J. Foltz, Yale University; James W. Fernandez, and Leo Spitzer, Dartmouth College; Jean Herskovits, City College, City University of New York; G. Wesley Johnson, Stanford University; Robert W. July, Hunter College, City University of New York; Wyatt MacGaffey, Haver­ford College; Maurice Meisner, and Harold Scheub, University of Wisconsin; and Aristide R. Zolberg, University of Chicago.

VOLUME 24, NUMBER J

The purpose of the conference was not to make a direct attack on the problems of methodology, but to take an indirect approach, asking historians and anthro­pologists to focus on particular questions. The theme chosen was "African Intellectual Reactions to Western Culture." Recently published research suggested that enough data were available for a series of case studies that could be subjected to comparative analysis, and the problem in its African context could be related to hypotheses emerging from the historical examination of other non-Western areas and their reactions to the West.

The problem also has the aspect of interesting anthro­pologists and historians in slightly different ways. Al­though the old stereotype is no longer quite as apt as it once was, historians still feel most comfortable with documents, while anthropologists like to ask questions. This means that historians have dealt mainly with the intellectual reactions of the Western-educated elite that began to emerge in the nineteenth century in West Africa and South Africa, and anthropologists have. dealt mainly with nonliterate societies. Historians tend to deal with the thought of individuals, paying less atten­tion to the patterns of thought found in society as a whole-or even among the educated members of a society-while anthropologists begin by looking for generalized patterns of behavior, all too often paying little attention to the magnitude of deviations from the norm. One of the most important challenges, therefore, was to see whether anthropologists and historians could come together in study of cases susceptible to analysis within the same comparative framework.

This might have been done more easily if the con­ference had focused on recent and present-day Africa, but the historian's trade is to deal with change through time. In addition, comparable reactions of other non­Western societies to Western culture fall into a pattern of attitudes that has shifted in si~ificant ways over the past century and a half. It was therefore important to carry the topic well back into the colonial period.

One of the principal weaknesses of comparative studies in the social sciences is the fact that investigators often begin with individually formulated research de­signs. After the research is finished, it is published alongside comparable work by other scholars. This formula may provide interesting insights into the com­mon topic, but it rarely leads to rigorous comparative analysis. All too often, those who work on the individual segments of the comparative problem ask slightly differ­ent questions and put their answers in different terms.

As an experiment to discover possible ways of avoid­ing this problem, the committee invited a number of potential participants to a one-day meeting in New York some eighteen months before the actual confer-

MARCH 1970

ence. They were all scholars whose research bore on the conference topic, even though they had approached it in different ways. The object of the meeting was to de­fine a set of common questions that could be answered from the data each had accumulated. These questions were then to serve as the framework for each contribu­tion as a way of assuring comparability. They were also worked out by the participants so as to cover aspects of African thought that were common to the investigations of both anthropologists and historians.

The first question was taxonomic: How did a particu­lar group of Africans classify Europeans and others they saw to be associated with Europeans in culture or occupation? These perceptions changed through time, of course, so that the result would be a series of shifting stages. The second question had to do with evaluation: What judgments did the Africans make of each category of Westerners? The third question, historical assessment: How did this particular group of Africans explain their confrontation with the West? How had the perceived cultural differences come about? Although these three questions fall short of "covering" the range of African thought about the West, they have the virtue of involv­ing basic reactions, indicative of other attitudes, and discoverable in a variety of different contexts.

These three questions, then, provided the minimal framework for comparative analysis, but they stop short of the crucial question. Africans' perceptions of Western culture-and of the way they and the Europeans came to be as they were-actually are only background knowl­edge for answering the fundamental problem confront­ing the Africans: What to do about it? A fourth question was therefore added: What course did the Africans recommend for their own society as the best way of meet­ing the Western challenge?

This question raised more serious problems for com­parative analysis than the other three had done. If each participant gave only a descriptive answer, the result would be nothing more than a number of parallel de­scriptions-interesting enough in themselves, but a weak basis for generalization. This was especially so be­cause African responses were set in different contexts. Western-educated intellectuals in Saint Louis du Sene­gal tended to write against the background of active elec­toral politics. Their ideas were therefore expressed in terms of political alternatives, rarely as a fully reasoned answer to the question posed. Nonliterate people in an­other setting, without a political outlet, responded to the Western challenge in other ways-often religious. The goals they held for their society therefore have to be inferred. In cases where the context is as different as it is in these two, direct comparison is difficult.

One can make meaningful comparisons, however, if

7

the most significant aspects are abstracted from the whole. Some historians still shy at the appearance of analytical models, but in fact the profession long since gave up hope of recovering the whole fabric of the past. All historical research involves a process of selecting some things and rejecting others, following a model that is always implicit, although it may not be conscious. For comparative analysis it is only necessary for the partici­pants to agree in advance on a model or conceptual framework which they will use in common. The process of deciding on a common conceptual framework was more congenial to the anthropologists than to the his­torians present at the preconference meeting, but a measure of agreement was reached.

When Africans considered what they might do about the West, the most significant aspect of their thought appeared to be whether they tended to accept or reject Western norms and Western values. Their acceptance or rejection in a particular instance could be conceived as falling somewhere along a continuum from traditional to modern. For purposes of discussion, "modern" was defined as a kind of society capable of achieving the levels of productivity characteristic of the most de­veloped Western societies of the period, not necessarily an exact copy of the West. "Traditional" was taken to be the kind of African society that was thought to have existed before the appearance of the Europeans--not necessarily the historical reality, but the ideal. The long­run social goals envisaged in the thought of any indi­vidual or group could then be roughly assigned to points along the continuum.

A second variable to be abstracted from the total pat­tern of African thought was the means chosen to reach these social goals. It was conceived that the methods ad­vocated to reach the goal in each instance could fall somewhere along a continuum between pragmatic at one extreme and utopian at the other.

For convenience in representation, these two variables could be charted with the familiar device of vertical and horizontal coordinates. In that way the main tendencies in the thought of an individual or group could be repre­sented graphically at any point in time, and shifts through time could also be charted. Such, at least, was the conclusion of the preconference meeting.

At the conference in October 1969, five papers were presented for discussion by a group that included repre­sentatives of the social sciences other than history and anthropology: "The Failure of the Xhosa Oral Tradi­tion," by Harold Scheub; "The Senegalese Urban Elite, 1900-1945," by G. Wesley Johnson; "Fang Representa­tions under Acculturation," by James W. Fernandez;

8

"The Sierra Leone Creoles, 1870-1900," by Leo Spitzer; and "The Elite Response to the Influence of Western Culture: Western Africa, 1800-1940," by Robert W. July. Comparable reactions to the West in China and Melanesia were outlined in oral reports by Maurice Meisner and Paula Brown, respectively. The confer­ence proceedings are being prepared for publication.

The key problem, discussed at length but not resolved, was that of abstraction and measurement in a field as imprecise and susceptible to differing individual judg­ments as intellectual history. One part of the problem turns on the difficulty of finding common agreement in assigning an individual's ideas to a point on any scale. A single investigator, familiar with the thought of several different individuals, might well place them in reference to one another. He could say, for example, that Leopold Senghor at the beginning of his political career was more of a modernizer and less pragmatic than Mensah Sarbah at the same stage of life. But, when some of the data for a comparison of this kind come from one scholar's research, and some from another's, even mea­surement in terms as loose as "more" and "less" becomes impossible. This may suggest that a comparative study is necessarily a one-man job; but it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for one scholar to collect data on enough different cases to serve as the basis for a viable hypothesis, especially if many of the data have to be gathered through ethnographic field work. On the other hand, it was found that comparable abstractions by different scholars were possible when only direction and not intensity was concerned. Thus, Senghor and Sarbah could be placed together in the sector of pragmatic mod­ernizers, while a phase of a particular religious move­ment could be identified as generally traditionalist and utopian.

While the problem of measurement was not solved, the experiment with advance agreement on a conceptual framework appears to have been successful. Ideally, this agreement should have come even before the data were gathered, and it was evident that a systematic and com­parative attack on a broad problem of this kind requires more than a single conference. A series of meetings would have allowed for further adjustments in the con­ceptual framework, based on a comparative examination of the individual contributions. Hypotheses developed in the course of one meeting could then be taken home, refined, and re-examined in the light of additional evi­dence. In any event, the committee's initial hypothesis that intellectual history is susceptible to more rigorous comparative analysis than it usually receives appeared to be confirmed.

VOWME 24, NUMBER 1

PERSONNEL DIRECTORS OF THE COUNCIL

The following social scientists have been designated by the seven national organizations associated with the Council to serve as directors of the Council for the three-year term 1970-72:

Andrew P. Vayda, Columbia University, by the American Anthropological Association

Albert Rees, Princeton University, by the American Eco­nomic Association

Philip D. Curtin, University of Wisconsin, by the Ameri­can Historical Association

Austin Ranney, University of Wisconsin, by the American Political Science Association

M. Brewster Smith, University of Chicago, by the Ameri­can Psychological Association

Charles V. Willie, Syracuse University, by the American Sociological Association

Karl E. Taeuber, RAND Corporation, by the American Statistical Association.

COUNCIL STAFF

Donald S. Shoup, Director Research Services and Plan­ning, National Bureau of Economic Research since March 1969, has been named a Staff Associate of the Council. The appointment became effective on January 19, 1970. Mr. Shoup in his new position is particularly concerned with the Council's interests in economic research and interdisci­plinary areas related to economics, and with administration and financing of Council programs.

Mr. Shoup received an A.B. degree from Stanford Uni­versity in 1957 and an M.A. degree from Columbia Univer­sity in 1959. After three years of secondary school teaching he returned to graduate study and received a Ph.D. in po­litical economy and government from Harvard University in 1966, specializing in transportation economics. He served as Consultant to the United Nations - Harvard Mission to Liberia, Harvard Development Advisory Service, in 1965-66; taught economics at Harvard during 1966-68, when he served also as Adviser to the Colombian Government, Har­vard Transport Research Program; and joined the staff of the National Bureau of Economic Research as Assistant to the President in 1967, continuing as a Special Lecturer in Economics at Harvard during that year.

GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON GOVERNMENTAL AND LEGAL PROCESSES

The Committee on Governmental and Legal Processes­Austin Ranney (chairman), Richard F. Fenno, Jr., Anthony King, Warren E. Miller, Walter F. Murphy, Kenneth Prew­itt, and James W. Prothro--at its meeting on January 29-30 made awards to the following 12 social scientists:

MARCH 1970

N. V. Bartley, Senior Research Fellow, Institute of South­ern History, Johns Hopkins University, for research on the Southern political response to the "second recon­struction," 1948-68 (joint with Hugh D. Graham)

Jonathan D. Casper, Assistant Professor of Political Sci­ence, Yale University, for research on social offenders' perceptions of the law and the legal process

Peter K. Eisinger, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Wisconsin, for research on the dimensions of political protest behavior in cities

Robert M. Fogelson, Associate Professor of History and Urban Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for research on institutional change in urban America, 1890-1970

Hugh D. Graham, Associate Professor of History, Johns Hopkins University, for research on the Southern po­litical response to the "second reconstruction," 1948-68 (joint with N. V. Bartley)

John G. Grumm, Professor of Political Science, University of Kansas, for comparative analysis of the consequences of actual public policies for state political systems

John W. Kingdon, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Michigan, for research on decision making on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives (re­newal of grant made in 1967-68)

James T. Murphy, Assistant Professor of Government, Wesleyan University, for research on the legislative poli­tics of the "pork barrel"

Nelson W. Polsby, Professor of Political Science, Univer­sity of California, Berkeley. for further research on the politics of the U.S. House of Representatives (supple­mentary to grants awarded in 1962-63 and 1965-66)

Robert A. Schoenberger, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Michigan. for research on Ameri­can conservatism: the linkage of thought. organization, and political behavior

Raymond E. Wolfinger. Associate Professor of Political Science, Stanford University. for research on the devel­opment and passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

James E. Wright, Assistant Professor of History, Dart­mouth College, for research on the processes of radicali­zation and alienation in Colorado politics

GRANTS FOR AFRICAN STUDIES

The Joint Committee on African Studies. sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies-Elizabeth Col­son (chairman), L. Gray Cowan. Philip D. Curtin, Walter Deshler, William O. Jones, Roy Sieber, and Robert F. Thompson-at its meeting on February 6-7 awarded 9 grants for research relating to Africa south of the Sahara:

Robert H. Bates, Associate Professor of Political Science, California Institute of Technology, for an ecological analysis in the United States of the relations between modernization, political participation. and opposition voting in Zambia

George E. Brooks, Jr., Associate Professor of History, Indiana University, for research in the United States and Portugal on the economic and social history of

9

Portuguese Guinea and the Cape Verde Islands. c. 1750-1880

James Duffy. Professor of History and Literature, Bran­deis University. for completion of research in Great Britain and Zambia on labor in Portuguese Africa in the twentieth century and a critical analysis of the in­fluence of David Livingstone on Africa

John D. Esseks, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Northern Illinois University, for research in Accra and Legon on the efforts of the Ghanaian government to reduce foreign control of its resources, 1957-69

Barbara C. Lewis, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Livingston College, Rutgers University, for research in Paris and Ivory Coast on the Transporters' Association of the Ivory Coast and on voluntary association among women engaged in petty trade

Wyatt MacGaffey, Assistant Professor of Sociology and Anthropology, Haverford College, for research in the Democratic Republic of Congo on the use of medical services in Matadi, folk categorization of illness, and the relation of schizoid behavior to conflicting definitions of social roles

Horace M. Miner, Professor of Anthropology and Soci­ology, University of Michigan, for research in London and Nigeria on the ecology of change among the Hausa of the Anchau Corridor in Zaria Emirate

Anthony Oberschall, Associate Professor of Sociology, Yale University, for research in Zambia on the relationship between social structure and innovation in entrepre­neurial behavior

Boniface I. Obichere, Associate Professor of History, Uni­versity of California, Los Angeles, for research in Lon­don, Paris, Ghana, and Dahomey on slavery in the pre­colonial kingdoms of Ashanti and Dahomey

GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON CONTEMPORARY AND REPUBLICAN CHINA

The Joint Committee on Contemporary China, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies-John M. H. Lindbeck (chairman), George M. Beckmann, Albert Feuerwerker, Alexander Eckstein acting for Walter Galen­son, Chalmers Johnson, Frederick W. Mote, Ezra F. Vogel, and Arthur P. Wolf-at its meeting on January 23-24 awarded 12 grants for research:

10

Kenneth E. Folsom, Associate Professor of History, Uni­versity of Maryland, for research on Chinese Commu­nist education and political indoctrination, 1928-34

Merle Goldman, Research Fellow in East Asian Studies, Harvard University, for research on opposition to Maoist policies within the Communist Party and by Red Guard students

Roy M. Hofheinz, Jr., Assistant Professor of Government, Harvard University, for a quantitative ecological analy­sis of political development in twentieth-century China

Gene Hsiao, Visiting Professor of Government, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville, for research on the legal aspects of Communist China's foreign trade

Pong S. Lee, Associate Professor of Economics, State U ni­versity of New York at Albany, for research in Korea. Japan, and the United States on the economic develop­ment of North Korea

Han-sheng Lin, Assistant Professor of History, Sonoma State College, for research on the peace movement in China, 1931-41

Allen B. Linden, Assistant Professor of History, U niver­sity of New Hampshire, for research in Taipei and Hong Kong on the quest for a modern school system in China, 1927-37

Jessie G. Lutz, Associate Professor of History, Douglass College, Rutgers University, for research in the United States and Taiwan on two student movements as ex­pressions of Chinese nationalism in the 1920's: the anti­Christian movement and the educational rights movement

William Schultz, Professor of Oriental Studies, University of Arizona, for research in the United States, Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan on modern Chinese literature

John Bryan Starr, Acting Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley, for research in Hong Kong on the theory of "continuous revolution" in contemporary Chinese practice

Roxane Witke, Assistant Professor of History, Mills Col­lege, for research on the transformation of attitudes toward women during the May Fourth Era, and on youth and suicide in modern China

Ernest P. Young, Associate Professor of History, Univer­sity of Michigan, for research in the United States and Japan on the conseguences for Chinese politics of the Japanese role in Chma, 1895-1931

GRANTS FOR LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES

The Joint Committee on Latin American Studies, spon­sored with the American Council of Learned Societies­Joseph Grunwald (chairman), John P. Augelli, John T. Dor­sey, Jr., Munro S. Edmonson, Richard R. Fagen, Mario Ojeda G6mez, Enrique Oteiza, Stanley R. Ross, and Joseph Sommers-at its meeting on January 16-17 awarded 18 grants for research, and 3 collaborative research grants:

Research grants

David Barkin, Assistant Professor of Economics, New York University, for research in Mexico on a structural­economic approach to Mexican development

John S. Brushwood, Professor of Latin American Litera­ture, University of Kansas, for research in six Latin American countries on the Spanish American novel during the twentieth century

Martin Carnoy, Assistant Professor of Education and Eco­nomics, Stanford University, for research in Puerto Rico and the United States on education and unbalanced economic growth

Nathaniel H. Leff, Assistant Professor of Business, Colum­bia University, for research in Colombia and the United States on analysis of policies for monetary stabilization with minimal retardation of economic growth

Marvin Leiner, Assistant Professor of Education, Queens College, City University of New York, for research in the United States on Cuban education with special em­phasis on elementary education and teacher training

Solomon Lipp, Professor of Romance Languages, Boston University, for research in Chile on contributions of four Chilean philosophers to Latin American thought

VOLUME 24, NUMBER 1

Fredric M. Litto, Assistant Professor of Speech and Drama, U niversi ty of Kansas, for research in Brazil on recent trends in the Brazilian theatre

Anthony P. Maingot, Assistant Professor of History and Sociology, Yale University, for research in the United States or Cuba on historical consciousness and revo­lutionary change in Cuba (renewal)

Harry M. Makler, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Uni­versity of Toronto, for research in Brazil on the roles of old and new industrial elites in the development of Recife

Sidney W. Mintz, Professor of Anthropology, Yale Uni­versity, for research in Brazil on the economic character of Afro-Brazilian cult groups

J ames Petras, Associate Professor of Political Science, Pennsylvania State University, for research in Chile and Peru on comparative aspects of agrarian reform and public administration

Sandra S. Powell, Assistant Professor of Political Science, San Francisco State College, for research in Chile on electoral change, political party response, and policy processes

Adam Przeworski, Associate Professor of Political Science and Sociology, Washington University, for comparative research in Chile, Mexico, and Brazil on processes of political mobilization

Keith S. Rosenn, Associate Professor of Law, Ohio State University, for research in Brazil, Argentina, and Chile on the adaptation of law to inflation

Peter H. Smith, Assistant Professor of History, University of Wisconsin, for research in Mexico on leadership, legitimacy, and the Mexican Revolution (renewal)

James W. Wilkie, Associate Professor of History, Univer­sity of California, Los Angeles, for research in Mexico on a statistical interpretation of latifundia and land re­form since 1856

Peter J. Wilson, Faculty, Anthropology, Bennington Col­lege, for research on a synthesis and reinterpretation of Caribbean ethnography

John Womack, Jr., Assistant Professor of History, Harvard University, for research in Europe and Mexico on a social history of Mexican factory workers, 1880-1940

Collabomtive resem'ch grants Oscar Braun, Professor of Economics, University of Ro­

sario, and Morris F. D. Teubal, Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Minnesota, for research in Argentina on trade and development strategies for less­developed countries

Mario Escobar Moscoso, Principal Teacher of Geography of Peru, Biogeography, and Sociology, National Univer­sity of San Antonio del Cuzco, and Daniel W. Gade, As-

sistant Professor of Geography, University of Vermont, for research in Peru on depopulation of southern high­land areas

Ronald J. Fernandez, Professor of Political Science, Uni­versity of Costa Rica, and Samuel Z. Stone, Professor of Political Sociology, University of Costa Rica, for re­search in Costa Rica on municipal politics

GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON THE NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST

The Joint Committee on the Near and Middle East, spon­sored with the American Council of Learned Societies­William M. Brinner (chairman), L. Carl Brown, Paul Ward English, Oleg Grabar, I. William Zartman, and Marvin Zonis-at its meeting on January 8-9 awarded 8 grants for research:

Morroe Berger, Professor of Sociology, Princeton Univer­sity, for research in the United States, London, and Cairo on recent social change in Egypt

Lawrence V. Berman, Associate Professor of Religion, Stanford University, for research in Turkey for an English translation of Alfarabi's On Religion with com­mentary and introduction

Alan D. Corre, Professor of Hebrew Studies, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, for a comparative study in Israel of current J udeo-Arabic dialects

Gene R. Garthwaite, Assistant Professor of History, Dart­mouth College, for research in England and Iran on the Bakhtiyari and the government of Iran: change in po­litical relationships

Gavin R. G. Hambly, Associate Professor of History, Yale University, for completion of research in Afghanistan on the city of Herat during the Timurid period: conti­nuityand diversity in the Iranian urban tradition

Malcolm H. Kerr, Professor of Political Science, Univer­sity of California, Los Angeles, for research in France and Algiers on the contemporary political role and out­look of Algerian intellectuals

John F. Kolars, Associate Professor of Geography, Uni­versity of Michigan, for a restudy in Turkey of agri­cultural, social, and economic development in villages originally studied in 1960, with emphasis on type, ex­tent, and processes of change

Abrallam L. Udovitch, Associate Professor of Islamic His­tory, Princeton University, for research in England and Cairo on Mediterranean trade from the late tenth to the early twelfth century based on the documents from the Cairo Geniza

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL 230 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK. N.Y. 10017

Incol'jJOrated in the State of Illinois, December 27, 1924. for the purpose of advancing research in the social sciences

Directors, 1970: \VILUAM O. AYDELOTIE. DORWIN CARTWRICHT, JAMES S. COLEMAN. EUZADETH COLSON. LEE J. CRONBACH, PHIUP D. CURTIN.

DANIEL X. FREEDMAN. WILUAM GORHAM. ZVI GRlUCHES. CHAUNCY D. HARRIS. SAMUEL P. HAYS. MATIHEW HOLDEN. JR .• DELL HYMES. GARDNER

LINDZEY. LEoN UPSON. GEOFFREY H. MOORE, JAMES N. MORGAN, FREDERICK MOSTELLER, AUSTIN RANNEY. ALBERT RED. HENRY W. R1ECKEN.

HERBERT A. SIMON. NEIL J. SMELSER. ALLAN H. SMITH. M. BREWSTER SMITH. KARL E. TAEUBER. DAVID B. TRUMAN. ANDREW P. VAYDA. ROBERT

E. WARD. CHARLES V. WILLIE

Officers and Staff: HENRY W. RIECKEN. President; PAUL WEBIiINK. Vice·President; ELBRIDGE SIBLEY. BRYCE WOOD. Executive Associates; ELEANOR

C. ISBELL. ROWLAND L. MITCHELL. JR •• NORMAN W. STORER. DONALD S. SHOUP. Staff Associates; STANLEY LEHMANN. MIRIAM ZELLNER. Consultants; CATHERINE V. RON NAN. Financial Secretary

MARCH 1970 11

PUBLICATIONS Agricultural Development in China, IJ68-1968, by Dwight

H. Perkins. Sponsored by the Committee on the Economy of China. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, August 1969.412 pages. $12.50.

The Behavioral and Social Sciences: Outlook and Needs. Report by the Behavioral and Social Sciences Survey Committee under the auspices of the Committee on Sci­ence and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, and the Committee on Problems and Policy, Social Sci­ence Research Counal. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice­Hall, Inc., December 1969. 335 pages. $7.95.

Geography, edited by Edward J. Taaffe. Report of the Geography Panel of the Behavioral and Social Sci­ences Survey Committee. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., May 1970.160 pages. Cloth, $5.95; paper, $2.45.

Political Science, edited by Heinz Eulau and James G. March. Report of the Political Science Panel of the Behavioral and Social Sciences Survey Committee. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., November 1969. 160 pages. Cloth, $5.95; paper, $1.95.

Psychology, edited by Kenneth E. Clark and George A. Miller. Report of the Psychology Panel of the Behav­ioral and Social Sciences Survey Committee. Engle­wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., March 1970. 157 pages. Cloth, $5.95; paper, $1.95.

Sociology, edited by Neil J. Smelser and James A. Davis. Report of the Sociology Panel of the Behavioral and Social Sciences Survey Committee. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., November 1969. 187 pages. Cloth, $5.95; paper, $1.95.

Is the Business Cycle Obsolete'!, edited by Martin Bronfen­brenner. Product of a conference sponsored by the Com­mittee on Economic Stability in cooperation with the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, April 3-7, 1967. New York: John Wiley & Sons, December 1969.580 pages. $12.50.

Changing Characteristics of the Negro Population, by Daniel O. Price. Sponsored by the former Committee on Population Census Monographs in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, February 1970. 267 pages. $2.75.

The Chinese Economy under Communism, by Nai-Ruenn Chen and Walter Galenson. Sponsored by the Committee on the Economy of China. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, September 1969.261 pages. $7.95.

Computer-Assisted Instruction, Testing, and Guidance, ed­ited by Wayne H. Holtzman. Product of a conference co­sponsored by the Committee on Learning and the Educa­tional Process and the College Entrance Examination Board Commission on Tests, October 21-22, 1968. New York: Harper and Row, April 1970. c. 352 pages. c. $8.50.

Experimental Social Psychology: Papers and Reports from the International Conference on Social Psychology, Prague, October 7-11, 1968, edited by Jaromir JanouSek. Cosponsored by the Committee on Transnational Social Psychology and the European Association for Experimen­tal Social Psychology. Prague: Institute of Psychology, Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, November 1969. 470 pages. $4.00. (Orders should be addressed to Dr. Jaromir JanouSek, Institute of Psychology, Purkynova 2, Praha 1.)

Family and Kinship in Chinese Society, edited by Maurice Freedman. Product of a conference sponsored by the Sub­committee on Research on Chinese Society, Joint Com­mittee on Contemporary China, September 15-18, 1966. Stanford: Stanford University Press, March 1970. 286 pages. $7.95.

Human Resources and Higher Education: Staff Report of the Commission on Human Resources and Advanced Education, by John K. Folger, Helen S. Astin, and Alan E. Bayer. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, March 1970.473 pages. $17.50.

Industrial Development in Pre-Communist China, by John K. Chang. Sponsored by the Committee on the Economy of China. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, August 1969. 163 pages. $6.00.

Middle Eastern Cities: A Symposium on Ancient, Islamic, and Contemporary Middle Eastern Urbanism, edited by Ira M. Lapidus. Product of a conference cosponsored by the Joint Committee on the Near and Middle East, and the University of California, Berkeley, Committee for Middle Eastern Studies, Department of City and Regional Planning, and Center for Planning and De­velopment Research, October 27-29, 1966. Berkeley: University of California Press, December 1969. 217 pages. $6.00.

ANNOUNCEMENT VISITING FOREIGN SCHOLARS

SPONSORED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE FULBRIGHT-HAYS ACT

The Committee on International Exchange of Persons has available the Directory of Visiting Scholars in the United States Awarded Grants under the Mutual Educa­tional and Cultural Exchange Act (The Fulbright-Hays Act), 1969-1970. The committee will issue in March 1970 a list of foreign scholars available under the Fulbright-Hays program for appointments in American colleges and uni­versities for the academic year 1970-71. This list includes

12

information about scholars nominated by the binational Educational Commissions and Foundations abroad to re­ceive Fulbright-Hays travel grants, covering costs of round­trip transportation from the home country to the United States, provided that arrangements can be completed for lecturing or research appointments with appropriate sti­pends at American institutions of higher learning. Requests for copies of the current Directory or of the forthcoming list of candidates should be addressed to Miss Grace E. L. Haskins, Program Officer, Committee on International Ex­change of Persons, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Wash­ington, D.C. 20418.