SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

VOLUME 33 • NUMBER 1 • MARCH 1979 605 THIRD AVENUE. NEW YORK, N.Y. 10016

Kenneth Prewitt Elected President of the Social Science Research Council

THE COUNCIL'S BOARD OF DIRECTORs--acting on the recommendation of the Executive Committee-has elected Kenneth Prewitt, professor of political science and director of the National Opinion Research Cen­ter at the University of Chicago, as president of the Council effective March 19, 1979. Mr. Prewitt suc­ceeds Eleanor Bernert Sheldon, whose decision to leave the presidency when a successor had been selected was announced on May 15, 1978.

The Council's new chief executive officer, who is 43 years old, has had a distinguished career in social science research, teaching, and administration. His interests have focused on a number of American and international problems. As a researcher, he has re:. ceived recognition for his expertise in the use of quantitative methods in the study of political behavior and for his broad concern with the theory and func­tioning of democratic society. As director of the Na­tional Opinion Research Center, he initiated research on various aspects of the governance of science, in­cluding the tension between the need for autonomy in scientific investigation and the demands for demo­cratic participation in science and technology policy issues. At present, he is co-principal investigator of a "public attitudes toward science" section of the Na­tional Science Board's project on science indicators.

At the Council's first board meeting after he as­sumed the presidency-held on March 23 and 24, 1979-Mr. Prewitt and members of the board dis­cussed their ideas about priorities for the Council. Of

Contents of this issue-.fee page 2

particular interest to Mr. Prewitt is the further inter­nationalization of the Council's research planning program that had made substantial progress during the presidency of Eleanor Sheldon. He noted that the near monopoly of ideas and methods enjoyed by American and European social scientists for several decades has been superseded by conditions under which the best social science research is often carried out by international teams of researchers. Mr. Prewitt also spoke strongly about the importance of Council leadership in sustaining scholarly understanding and appreciation of non-Western cultures.

Mr. Prewitt noted that Eleanor Sheld "n had ini­tiated the social indicators project of the Council and the establishment of its office in Washington, D.C.­initiatives he felt it important to preserve and expand. The social indicators project, he believes, is an exam­ple of the Council's helping an incipient intellectual movement become a coherent research tradition.

At this board meeting, Mr. Prewitt also reviewed with board members plans that he and the staff are developing for a one-day symposium to be held in conjunction with the annual meeting of the Council in June. The theme for the symposium will be research problems and prospects in the study of individual and social change.

In discussing his own hopes for the Council, Mr. Prewitt emphasized that the Council's future pro­gram must be set by the research community: the Council sh'Juld plan and facilitate, but ideas them­selves must emerge from the research process and from interaction among researchers. Mr. Prewitt added that the Council today finds itself in a vastly changed research environment than that of 1923, when Charles E. Merriam and his colleagues formu­lated the Council's mandate for the support of in­novative research in the social sciences. This mandate has not been changed but the means of realizing it have varied with the needs of the times. The Council should not only preserve its historic interdisciplinary focus; it should also encourage research on topics where the social sciences and the humanities con­verge. The Council's long-standing cooperation with the American Council of Learned Societies, and the welcomed new support of the National Endowment for the Humanities, illustrate shared interests be­tween social scientists and humanists. Mr. Prewitt added that he hopes to explore a number of means for closer cooperation between social scientists and natural scientists.

Mr. Prewitt expressed his concern to the board that private sector support for bask social research seems to be declining at a time when federally-supported research is increasingly target-oriented, and he an-

2

CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE

Kenneth Prewitt Elected President of the Council 3 Population Changes That Affect Federal Policy: Some

Suggestions for Research-Robert Parke 9 New publications

10 Cun-ent Activities at the Council -Committee on Mathematics in the Social Sciences -Summer Training Institute on Neurobiology and

Mental Illness -Life cycle aspects of employment and the labor

market - Economic and physiological components of aging -Kin selection and kinship theory - Biosocial bases of parenting and early offspring

development

ticipates close cooperation between the Council and social science and educational organizations that share these concerns. In commenting on the "basic versus applied" issue in research, Mr. Prewitt drew an analogy with the natural sciences. Just as basic re­search in the natural sciences often leads to socially­important technologies, basic research in the social sciences can clarify and inform socially-important policies. Although good social science research cannot guarantee wise policy choices, narrow research and simplistic analysis can only contribute to inadequate policy.

Mr. Prewitt's writing has reflected his widely ranging interests-American and East African poli­tics, political socialization, democratic theory, the methods of quantitative research, and the role of the social sciences in society. With Heinz Eulau he codirected a large comparative study of urban gover­nance, the major findings of which were published with Eulau in Labyrinths of Democracy (1973). Among his other books are Institutional Racism in American Society (1969), coauthored with Louis K. Knowles; Re­cruitment of Political Leaders: A Study of Citizen Politicians (1970); Education and Political Values: Essays on East Africa (1971); and Elites and American Democrary (1973), coauthored with Alan Stone.

After earning the B.A. degree from Southern Methodist University in 1958, M;. Prewitt did graduate work at Washington University in St. Louis and at Stanford University. He was awarded the Ph.D. in political science by Stanfo;d in 1963. His university teaching career began with appointments at Washington University in 1963-64 and Stanford University in 1964-65. Since 1965, he has been a member of the Department of Political Science of the University of Chicago, becoming a professor in 1974. He served as chairman of the department in 1975-76. Since 1976, in addition to his teaching duties, he has been director of the National Opinion Research Center, a national survey research organization lo­cated at the University of Chicago. He has also taught at Makerere University in Uganda and the University of Nairobi in Kenya, and has lectured in both India and Thailand.

Mr. Prewitt and his wife Ann-who has been for some years a staff member of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago-have two children, Jennifer and Geoffrey.

During the first months of his presidency, Mr. Pre­witt is serving part-time at the Council while continu­ing his duties at the University of Chicago, pending the appointment later this year of his successor as director at the National Opinion Research Center. 0

VOLUME 33, NUMBER 1

Population Changes That Affect Federal Policy: Some Suggestions for Research by Robert Parke *

POPULATION CHANGES can alter social outcomes in ways that affect the success of federal domestic policies. This article illustrates the effects that recent changes in the population age structure of the United States have had on the employment prospects of the young and on the financing of higher education. It goes on to suggest a number of ways in which social science expertise and research might improve the government's ability to measure and respond to the consequences of population change.

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS AND POLICY ANALYSIS

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

The age structure, unemployment, and inflation

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

MARCH 1979

tion. This explanation would help to account for the concurrence of high unemployment with continuing inflation that has puzzled economists for several years.

Now it is not news to economists that a major rea­son for recent high levels of unemployment is the huge influx of inexperienced workers into the labor market as a result of the coming of age of the baby boom. Richard B. Freeman has spelled out the conse­quences of this development for the relative income of young workers, especially of young college graduates.2

There are, however, features of the Easterlin­Wachter analysis that, so far as I know, are new. One is their use of the experience of young men to account for the otherwise peculiar labor force behavior of young women. In their view, after World War II young women entered the labor market at a much slower rate than the increase in job opportunities would have permitted. The slack was taken up by older women, who entered the labor market at a far more rapid rate than did young women. In recent years, by contrast, young women have entered the labor market at a very high rate, despite the fact that their job prospects were less favorable than after the war. This has happened, according to Easterlin and Wachter, in response to the relative disadvantage now experienced by young men, whose prospects, di­minished in consequence of their numbers, have made marriage and childbearing less attractive alter­natives for women than they were in the earlier pe-

* The author, a sociologist-demographer, is director of the Council's Center for Coordination of Research on Social Indi­cators in Washington, D.C. This article is adapted from a state­ment that he made to the Select Committee on Population of the U.S. House of Representatives on June 8, 1978, during the com­mittee's hearings on "Domestic Consequences of United States Population Change."

I Richard A. Easterlin, "What Will 1984 Be Like? Socioeco­nomic Implications of Recent Twists in Age Structure," Demogra­phy, 15 (4), November 1978, pages 397-432. First presented as a presidential address to the Population Association of America, Atlanta, Georgia, April 1978. See also Richard A. Easterlin, Michael L. Wachter, and Susan M. Wachter, "Demographic In­fluences on Economic Stability: The United States Experience," Population and Development Review, 4 (I), 1978, pages 1-22.

2 Richard B. Freeman, "The Effect of the Youth Population on the Wages of Young Workers." Testimony before the Select­Committee on Population, U.S. House of Representatives, June 2, 1978.

3

riod. Once again, older women have adjusted, this time by slower rates of labor force entry.

Note that there is an implied forecast in the analysis. Indeed, Easterlin has made this forecast explicit.3 In the 1980s, with young people again scarce, the employment prospects of young men will improve and the trends of marriage, childbearing, and the employment of both younger and older women will accordingly reverse.

If this analysis withstands scrutiny-and Easterlin and Wachter w')uld be the first to insist that it be scrutinized-then it seems to me to alter appreciably our understanding of the role of population change in the economy. It offers an explanation of what we have been through, and a forecast of a tempo­rary reversal of the current situation.

Childspacing and college costs

My second illustration is drawn from the current debate over whether and how to provide tuition relief to families with children of college age. My purpose is not to argue the merits of such proposals, which rest in part on political and value judgments that have no place in this discussion, but rather to show how popu­lation changes alter social outcomes and how our analysis of a problem is changed when the demogra­phy of the problem is taken into account.

In May 1978 the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report on federal assistance for postsecondary education, which included statistics on college costs over the period 1967 to 1976. The report said:

... although the costs of college have risen faster than the cost of living, family incomes have continued to rise even faster. Student costs actually have declined slightly as a proportion of family income.4

I have no reason to challenge the CBO's statistics or, if the question is cost per student, the conclusion it drew from the data.

But we may reasonably ask not only about cost per student, but also about cost per family. If the number of college-age children per family has changed, then cost per family may have increased even though cost per student has declined. Demographic analysis shows that this, in fact, is what has happened.

3 Easterlin, op. cit. See also David Goldberg, "The Future of American Fertility: Some Speculations". Paper presented at the meetings of the Population Association of America, Atlanta, Georgia, April 1978.

4 Congress of the United States, Congressional Budget Office, "Federal Assistance for Postsecondary Education: Options for Fiscal Year 1979." Washington, D.C., USGPO, May 1978, page XII.

4

Families with two or more children of college age are much commoner now than they were a few years ago. Analyzing data for Michigan, David Goldberg and Albert Anderson of the University of Michigan's Population Studies Center developed measures of what they call "the college age sib squeeze."5 They show that in 1967, 37 per cent of the children of an age to enter college had a brother or sister one or two years older. 6 By 1976 this figure had risen to 48 per cent. If we take a slightly longer view, the change is even more striking. In the period 1964 to 1966, only about one-fourth of the children of an age to enter college had a brother or sister one or two years older. Now, and for the next couple of years, half of such children will have a brother or sister one or two years older. This means there are a lot more families coping with two tuitions over extended periods. The average years of double tuition payment rose from 1.8 in 1965 to 2.2 in 1967 to 2.8 in 1976.7 This shift is sufficient to convert the declines in relative cost per student of college age to an increase in cost per family with children of college age. Goldberg argues that this shift, and the consequent problems for families in financing their children's college education, were largely responsible for the decline in enrollment rates observed in the early 1970s.

What we are looking at here are some under­appreciated features of the baby boom. That surge of births reflected, in part, an increase in lifetime childbearing, through reductions in childlessness and one-child families and increases in the proportion of families with two, three, or four children. But mostly the baby boom reflected a dramatic change in the timing of births over the parents' lifetime.s People married younger and had their babies a lot sooner than formerly. Intervals between children were re­duced, and the compression of childbearing into the early years of marriage produced families in which the children were closely bunched.

The result is the "college age sib squeeze," a phe­nomenon that is bound to be national, as the baby boom was a national phenomenon, even though the only detailed analysis we have of the "squeeze" is

5 David Goldberg and Albert Anderson, "Projections of Popu­lation and College Enrollment in Michigan, 1970-2000." A re­port on a sponsored research project of the Governor's Commis­sion on Higher Education, Lansing, Michigan, July 1974.

6 Ibid., Table II. Where estimates from different census sources differ, I have averaged them.

7 Ibid., Table l1C, data from last column, for older and younger siblings combined.

8 Norman B. Ryder, "The Family in Developed Countries," Scientific American, 231(3), September 1974, pages 123-132.

VOLUME 33, NUMBER 1

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

Recommendations

These examples suggest to me the importance of raising population questions in our policy analyses. I do not think it is too much to suggest that the Council of Economic Advisors, the Congressional Budget Office, and our other principal bodies responsible for policy analysis ensure that such questions are routinely raised by persons with strong training in demography. Such people might be on the staff, they might be regular consultants, or some other provision might be made; this country has several excellent university centers of demography whose resources could be tapped.

The efforts of the policy analyst would, it seems to me, be made more productive if our official statistical agencies would prepare projections that are less me­chanical, more clearly grounded in current theory of population change, and more reflective of demo­graphic realities. One thing we know: whatever direc­tion the birth rate takes, it is going to bounce around. Despite the record of the past 40 years, the Census Bureau does not publish projections based on a birth rate that bounces around; their birth rates always flatten out. ll

MEASURING POPULATION CHANGES AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES

Ultimately policy analysis rests on basic research and statistics. Therefore, if we are concerned with the adequacy of analysis in support of policy develop­ment, we must also be concerned with the underlying research and statistics. We need to formulate the changes we want to measure, and we need to take seriously the business of measuring them.

9 Following the preparation of this statement, I received a na­tional analysis of this problem, which supports the Michigan re­sults. See National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education, 1978 edition, pages 205 and 234-235.

10 Goldberg and Anderson, op. cit., Table llC, data from last column, for older and younger siblings combined.

11 Partial information was published from a projection in which the birth component was developed from the "Easterlin hypoth­esis." Little numerical detail was provided, however, and the data were not presented among the main projection series intended for public use but were given in Appendix Table E3, page 140, of Current Population Reports, Series P-25, no. 60!.

MARCH 1979

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

Taking measurement seriously

We want to find out, among other things, what sorts of beginning jobs young high school· graduates and Ph.D.s are able to get, and how the relationship between qualifications and entering job level has changed. To do this we need information on occupa­tions that is consistent over time. But the Census Bureau periodically changes the occupation categories; new technologies and new occupations are being created all the time, so the Bureau must update its data. To describe the society as it is, we need a current set of occupation categories. But to measure change we have to keep the measure consistent; otherwise, we won't know whether changes in our numbers are the result of changes in our measures. We need to apply the same measure we used before. In a word, whenever we change measures, we need to have our data on two bases: the new categories and the old; we need to calibrate the old measure on its replacement. This is done in part, and for some sub­jects, but it ought to be done consistently and in detail not now available.l2

12 The Census Bureau conducted a study showing how the total numbers of men and women in the 1970 Census detailed occupa­tion categories would have been counted using 1960 Census oc­cupation coding rules (U .S. Bureau of the Census, "1970 Occupa­tion and Industry Classification Systems in Terms of Their 1960 Occupation and Industry Elements," by John A. Priebe, Joan Heinkel, and Stanley Greene, Technical Paper No. 26, July 1972).

5

One of the chief vehicles for measuring the work experience of cohorts is the National Longitudinal Surveys of Labor Market Experience (NLS), a basic research effort initiated a dozen years ago under the auspices of the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration. It is a fine set of sur­veys and has produced many findings of value, which were the subject of an October 1977 conference spon­sored by the Council. 13 The Labor Department is to be commended for its decision to continue these sur­veys, but it is to be faulted for design decisions that have produced a curious gap in the surveys and thereby limited their usefulness for answering the questions raised above. The original cohorts will con­tinue to be observed, and surveys have been started on people 14 to 21 years old. However, the original male cohorts are now 26 years old or older, and that means that the surveys omit males 22 to 25 years old. Does it matter? These males were born from 1953 to 1956, the years when births in this country first ex­ceeded four million annually, and may be thought of as the leading edge of the baby boom. We ought to be finding out how that fact affects the course of their lives, and how their experience differs from the expe­rience of those who came earlier and later.

In neither our research nor our statistics have we taken seriously what it means to study change. We need consistent definitions and procedures, consis­tently applied. We need calibration of new measures on old. And, to relate changes detected in one source to changes observed in another, we need far more consistency between surveys than we have.

Data on transitions The previous discussion has been of the kinds of

methods that must be employed if we are to have the

(Continued from page 5) The results, while of great use in translating occupation data for all men and women, are of limited use where the focus is on particular age groups and educational levels. The Bureau's report contains no information on the interactions between occu­pational reclassification and age, education, or other character­istics except sex. Preferably, both the old and the .new occupation codes would appear in the unit records in one of the Census public use samples. Desirable in the past, such a procedure be­comes imperative for 1980, given the massive recasting of occupa­tional classifications that is contemplated for that Census.

13 Social Science Research Council, Center for Coordination of Research on Social Indicators, "A Research Agenda for the Na­tional Longitudinal Surveys of Labor Market Experience: Report on the Social Science Research Council's Conference on the Na­tional Longitudinal Surveys, October 1977." Washington, D.C., SSRC Center for Social Indicators, May, 1978. For a brief report on the conference, see James L. Peterson, "Research on the Socioeconomic Life Cycle," Items, 32 (2),june 1978, pages 27-31 .

6

measures of change that we need. I turn now to change as the substance of our inquiries-to the need for data on the changes individuals undergo.

Our statistical system relies on survey designs that produce the world's best statistics on the state of the population-its enrollment, level of education, labor force status, poverty status, and the like. The system is not, however, producing data on how many people undergo changes in these states and on the differen­tial impact of these changes. I recently attended a conference convened by the Ce.nsus Bureau on statis­tics about women. One of the chief themes running through the comments at that conference was the need for data on the transitions people undergo from enrolled to dropout, from employed to unemployed to not in the labor force, from nonpoor to poor, from married to divorced, and the like. Isabel Sawhill, for example, remarked at that conference that the rising rate of divorce, by breaking family relationships through which income is distributed, is one of the prime factors throwing women into poverty-another example of population changes confounding public policy. We do a very poor ,job measuring divorces, and next to nothing about measuring the transitions associated with divorce.

What we get from most of our surveys is a series of cross-sectional estimates of the numbers of people in various statuses. But when we turn to the subject of change, what we get-with a few exceptions such as the NLS--is net change, measured very roughly by com­paring cross-sectional estimates. We get very little on transitions.

We don't put up with this in our basic population figures. We insist on the components of change, that is, how many people were born, how many died, and how many migrated. Why? Because it makes an enor­mous difference how change occurs. The numbers of people involved in these processes have at least as much meaning for us as the size of the net change. This is no less true of employment, marital status, household membership, poverty, and other matters. We need data on transitions between these states, and if our current statistical designs won't produce them, new designs will be necessary. However, our present designs are up to the task; they just have not been used for this purpose. We know how to conduct fol­lowup surveys of divorce records. We can learn to get transition data from our major surveys if we use them in a truly longitudinal fashion. For example, the An­nual Housing Survey now returns annually .to the same housing units. That gives us longitudinal data on housing units but not on all of the people who live in them. Those who get married or divorced, or get a

VOLUME 33, NUMBER I

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

Recommendations

I have been discussing demographic changes and their consequences, and what steps should be taken to do a better job measuring both. I have tried to suggest with a few examples what is required to measure change. _

As to what should be done, I am reasonably clear concerning statistics. 14 What we need in statistics is a mechanism with the manpower, knowledge, and au­thority to coordinate the work of the 100 federal departments and agencies producing statistics. We have (in the Department of Commerce) the Office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards (OFSPS). However, the OFSPS continues to be severely limited in staff and is limited, by its departmental location, in its authority over most of the government's statistical activities. There is, fortunately, a unit of the Presi­dent's Reorganization Project concerned with the statistical system. The head of that unit is acutely aware that, as with population, most of the emerging policy problems requiring statistics cross policy areas. 15 He sees his problem as designing an institu­tion within the government that will provide "a place to stand" for those who see the need for connecting disparate statistical activities, so that the statistical re­sources of government may be brought to bear on policy questions that transcend the interests of indi­vidual departments.

I find it more difficult to come up with a prescrip­tion for research. Relevant research is conducted by thousands of scholars in hundreds of organizations in and out of government. It is highly varied, and that is as it should be. If "coordinating" this work were to mean adding a layer of official review, we would be far better off with no attempt at coordination what­ever. The forms clearance process that researchers already have to go through provides serious impedi­ments which ought to be reduced, not added to. 16

One of the best ways to bring about research coor­dination is to get the principals talking to one an­other. In this case, researchers working on the topics

14 See "The Professional Associations and Federal Statistics: Report of the Joint Ad Hoc Committee on Government Statis­tics." Washington, D.C., April 1978.

15 President's Reorganizati'on Prqject, "President's Reorganiza­tion Project for The Federal Statistical System: A Proposed Work Plan," May II, 1978.

16 Joint Ad Hoc Committee on Government Statistics, op. cit., page 33.

MARCH 1979

that are tied together by an interest in -population changes and their consequences might be convened in periodic conferences, much in the manner of the periodic conferences on income and wealth spon­sored by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the proceedings of which are closely read by the pro­fession. Some of the needed exchange already takes place at the annual meetings of demographers, economists, and others. With important and, I be­lieve, increasing exceptions, however, these dis­cussions take place between people in the same disci­pline. We need labor economists, demographers, stu­dents of education, students of social and geograph­ical mobility, and others talking to one another and finding reason, in the commonness of problems, to coordinate their work with one another. Such meet­ings ought to be planned on an assumption of repeti­tion. Moreover, the topics and participants would need to be carefully selected. Perhaps the Center for Population Research in NIH might take the initiative. If not, there are many organizations engaged in social science research that would be appropriate.

We are dealing with long-term demographic, social, and economic processes that need long-term mea­surement and analysis if they are to be understood. Some important part of that research will get done only if there is a long-term commitment of funds to it, by contrast with the short terms provided by current granting and contracting policy. Provisions for pe­riodic review provide am pIe protection of the gov­ernment's interest; commitments can be withdrawn for nonperformance. I believe the government's interest in understanding the consequences of popu­lation change, as well as its interest in prudent expen­diture of funds, would be well served by more em­phasis on long-term funding subject to review.

RESEARCHING POLICY OPTIONS The policy that is served by the research, statistics,

and analysis discussed thus far is mostly policy of an "adaptational" rather than an "interventionist" sort. 17

This is a very useful contribution. We 'need weather reports, not in order to change the weather, but in order to adapt our conduct to the weather that is expected. We can do nothing about the size of the baby boom cohorts, but we can examine the impacts of that size and examine ways to soften the impact. We can do research to validate theories of population change that imply forecasts in order to support or discredit the forecasts, and then tailor our conduct so as to forestall or modify the consequences of the ex­pected trends.

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

7

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

Childbearing incentives Charles F. Westoff, tracing the declines in U.s.

fertility and the factors contributing to the decline over the past 20 years, has asked, "How ... is society going to sustain the levels of reproduction necessary to replace one generation with the next?"19 He says, ". . . given current trends it is not difficult to visualize a society in which perhaps one-third of women never have any children, which would mean that the remaining two-thirds would have to repro­duce at an average rate of three births per woman to maintain replacement. Under such circumstances, there is little doubt that some types of financial incen­tives to encourage childbearing will have to be im­plemented ... "

What sorts of incentives? On what scale? Westoff says:

There is no clear evidence that the trivial baby bonuses, maternity care benefits and various employment benefits that have been legislated in European countries have had any appreciable impact on the birthrate. It is difficult to imagine well-paid women with little interest in childbearing being at­tracted by a few hundred dollars' worth of miscellaneous bene­fits. There may very well have to be a serious investment in child-care institutions and a willingness to subsidize reproduc­tion on a large scale.

Now, it is not clear to me, and it was not clear to the U.S. Population Commission, that a gradual decline in the size of the U.S. population would necessarily be a bad thing. However, Westoff is right in noting that the prospect of population decline makes nations very uncomfortable,20 and he may well be right in assum­ing "that governments will not look kindly on nega­tive population growth or, for that matter, even a sustained period of below-replacement fertility ... "21

18 See Henry W. Riecken et aI., Social Experimentation: A Method for Planning and Evaluating Social Intervention. New York: Aca­demic Press, 1974.

19 Charles F. Westoff, "Some Speculations on the Future of Marriage and Fertility," Family Planning Perspectives, 10(2), March/April 1978, page 82.

20 See U.S. Commission on Population Growth and the Ameri­can Future, Population and the American Future, Report of the Commission. Washington, D.C., USGPO, 1972, page 113, and Michael S. Teitelbaum, "International Experience with Fertility At or Near Replacement Level," in Charles F. Westoff and Robert Parke, editors. Demographic and Social Aspects of Population Growth, Vol. I of Commission Research Reports, Washington, D.C.: USGPO, 1972, pages 645-658.

21 Westoff, op. cit., page 82.

8

Recommendations We ought to decide whether, on balance, negative

population growth will be a good thing or a bad thing. In order for this to be done, we need a great deal of research into the social consequences of negative population growth. If the results suggest the need for it, we ought then to consider experimental research on the long-term effects of child-care arrangements, subsidies, and other arrangements designed to en­courage reproduction. What sorts of incentives might work? What might they cost? Are the projected costs on a scale the country might conceivably pay? If so, let's test a variety of incentives, as we have tested income maintenance programs, housing allowances, and educational vouchers; that is, by designing exper­iments. The government has increasingly shown an inclination to test the effects of programs before de­ciding to introduce them nationwide. We don't need incentives now, and we may never need them. But knowledge of their effects will take time to accumu­late, and if we think there is a serious possibility that we may want them, we ought to begin developing knowledge about them.

Immigration Westoff notes the availability of immigration as an

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

You have heard a good many facts about immigra­tion in the course of these hearings, but-as these questions suggest-I do not believe that you have received an analysis of the role of immigration in an emerging U.S. population policy. We ought to have such an analysis. 0

VOLUME 33, NUMBER 1

New Publications from Council activities and committee projects

The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes, edited by JuanJ. Linz and Alfred Stepan. Published in connection with a confer­ence partially sponsored by the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies, held in 1973 at Yale University. Balti­more: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978--79.

The editors, Juan J . Linz and Alfred Stepan, both of Yale University, have brought together political scientists, soci­ologists, and historians to examine a phe­nomenon that has occurred with depress­ing regularity during the course of the 20th century. Available in one hardcover volume or in four separate paperbacks, the work is divided into four major sec­tions. The first, Crisis, Breakdown, and Reequilibration, by Juan J . Linz, is an at­tempt to construct a conceptual frame­work within which to analyze individual cases of the breakdown of democratic re­gimes. A last chapter on "reequilibration" discusses the conditions under which democracy may be restored after a period of authoritarian rule.

Section 2, Europe, includes essays on the rise of Italian Fascism; the National Socialist takeover in Germany; the Aus­trian First Republic; the defeat of anti­democratic rightists in pre-World War II Finland; and the decline and fall of the Spanish Republic. Contributors are Risto Alapuro, University of Helsinki; Erik Al­lardt, Academy of Finland; Paolo Farneti, University of Turin; M. Rainer Lepsius, University of Mannheim ; Mr. Linz; and Walter M. Simon, University of Vienna.

Section 3, Latin America, includes essays on conditions in Argentina leading up to the coup of 1930; "oligarchic democracy" in Colombia; Venezuelan democracy since the overthrow of dictator Perez Jimenez in 1958; the decline and fall of Brazil's Tl;1ird Republic; the period be­tween the fall of Peron and the military coup of 1966 in Argentina; and analysis

M ARCH 1979

of the causes behind the 1968 coup in Peru. Contributors to this section are Julio Cotler, Institute of Peruvian Studies (Lima); Daniel Levine, University of Michigan; Guillermo O'Donnell, Center for the Study of State and Society (Buenos Aires); Peter H. Smith, Univer­sity of Wisconsin; Mr. Stepan; and Alex­ander Wilde, Woodrow Wilson Interna­tional Center for Scholars (Washington, D.C.).

The fourth and final section focuses on the most recent case of the collapse of a functioning democracy, Chile. Arturo Valenzuela, Duke University, analyzes structural and short-term factors in order to explain how and why Chilean democ­racy broke down in the way that it did . He concludes by agreeing with the argument presented by Mr. Linz in Crisis, Break­down, and Reequilibration that it is not forces on the extreme Right or Left that bring down democracies; rather, it is the failure of those committed to popular rule to respond effectively to threats posed by antidemocratic forces that leads ultimately to the breakdown of demo­cratic regimes.

Cognition and Categorization, edited by Eleanor Rosch and Barbara B. Lloyd . . Papers based upon conferences held in 1974 and 1976, sponsored by the Com­mittee on Cognitive Research. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ­ates, 1978. Distributed by the Halsted Press Division of John Wiley and Sons. 328 pages + viii .

A conceptual revolution has been tak­ing place in the study of language and cognition. In the past, most researchers treated the categorization of the external world as though it were entirely arbitrary. Contributors to this volume of essays out­line a new direction of thought, challeng­ing the assumption that classification re­flects an arbitrary segmentation of the

-world. None of the authors suggests that categories exist a priori in the real world, waiting to be discovered. Rather, a more complex argument is presented: categories are seen to arise out of an in­teraction between stimuli and process. The essays examine the structures, pro­cesses, and representations of human categorization by drawing upon new ap­proaches that have emerged in psychol­ogy, linguistics, and anthropology. There is an extensive examination of semantics, which employs paradigms and techniques from both anthropology and cognitive psychology.

The papers in this volume offer new perspectives on the representation of knowledge, including imagery, internal structure, and the role of practical knowl­edge . They analyze the structural properties of stimuli and evaluate their influence on various cognitive processes. They discuss some of the implications of these differing structures for learning in children and adults. The volume thus de­scribes a new paradigm of reference that will be of interest to social scientists con­cerned with categorization and cognitive processing.

The book has been edited by Eleanor Rosch, University of California, Berkeley, and Barbara B. Lloyd, University of Sus­sex . The contributors in addition to Eleanor Rosch are: Ursula Bellugi, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies (San Diego, California) ; Brent Berlin , Univer­sity of California, Berkeley; Lee Brooks, McMaster University; W. R. Garner, Yale University; ltamar Gati, The Hebrew Uni­versity (jerusalem); Stephen Michael Kosslyn, Harvard University; George A. Mi11er, The Rockefeller University; Elissa L. Newport, University of California, San Diego; Stephen E. Palmer, University of California, Berkeley; Bryan E. Shepp, Brown University; and Amos Tversky, The Hebrew University (Jerusalem).

9

Current Activities at the Council

Committee on Mathematics in the Social Sciences

The Council has recently reconstituted the Mathematical Social Science Board as a research planning committee. The Board, established in 1964 as an inde­pendent body, was an outgrowth of the Committee on Mathematics in Social Sci­ence Research (1958-1964), which was in turn a successor to the Committee on Mathematical Training of Social Scientists (1952-58). In absorbing the Board into its committee structure, the Council is thus reaffirming its sense of the impor­tance of mathematics for the social sci­ences.

The committee is currently developing a five-year program of activity. The goal is to improve the effectiveness of math­ematical, statistical, and computational work in the social sciences by organizing workshops, seminars, conferences, publi­cations, and other means of scholarly communication. In a change of emphasis from the previous activities of the Math­ematical Social Science Board, the pro­posed program will (I) stress collabora­tion between social scientists in fields that make relatively extensive use of math­ematics and those in fields that rarely use mathematics; (2) tailor its programs for each field, as appropriate to the current quality and quantity of mathematically­based work in the field; and (3) seek to increase the involvement of mathemat­icians, statisticians, and computer spe­cialists in social science research and teaching.

The initial members of the committee are Charles Tilly, University of Michigan (chairman); Richard A. Easterlin, Univer­sity of Pennsylvania; Edward A. Feigen­baum, Stanford University; Samuel Goldberg, Oberlin College; Eugene A. Hammel, University of California, Berke­ley; Gerald H. Kramer, Yale University; Kenneth C. Land, University of Illinois; Marc Nerlove, Northwestern University; Barbara Hall Partee, University of Massa­chusetts; Thomas W. Pullum, University of Washington; Frank Restle, Indiana University; Herbert A. Simon, Carnegie-Mellon University; and Waldo R. Tobler, University of Michigan.

10

Summer Training Institute on Neurobiology and Mental Illness

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

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

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

Life cycle aspects of employ­ment and the labor market

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

VOLUME 33, NUMBER 1

Seymour Spilerman, a sociologist at the Russell Sage Foundation, discussed var­ious life cycle approaches to the study of employment in sociological research, em­phasizing the need to study the influence of institutional rules and mechanisms upon career decisions and occupational mobility. James J. Heckman, an economist at the University of Chicago, presented an extensive methodological review of longitudinal studies in labor economics. Burton H. Singer, a math­ematical statistician at Columbia Univer­sity, described and evaluated several ap­proaches to the measurement of life cycle aspects of employment. Gary Chamber­lain, an economist at Harvard University, outlined some advantages of panel data for the study of labor economics and as­sessed the adequacy of some recent ana­lytical techniques for use with such data. In addition to the presentation of these thematic papers, the conference included reports on three research projects that currently employ longitudinal data for the study of careers. These presentations were made by Boyan Jovanovich (De­partment of Economics, Columbia Uni­versity), Thomas MaCurdy (Department of Economics, Stanford University), Aage Sf5renson (Institute of Sociology, Univer­sity of Oslo), and Nancy B. Tuma (De­partment of Sociology, Stanford Univer­sity).

The conference provided a forum for the discussion of emerging analytical techniques for use with panel data. Two primary concerns were evident in the dis­cussions: (I) the need to identify research questions concerning employment careers and associated labor market phe­nomena for which panel data are supe­rior to cross sectional data; and (2) the need to develop analytical techniques that capture the unique dynamic information on careers contained in panel data.

In addition to those listed above, the participants in the conference were the following. Mathematical statisticians: David Bartholemew, London School of Eco­nomics and Political Science; Stephen Fienberg, University of Minnesota; Paul Holland, Educational Testing Service (Princeton, New Jersey); Niels Keiding, University of Copenhagen; and Charles Mode, Drexel University. Economist.{: Paul Andrisani, Temple University; Zvi Griliches, Harvard University; Jack Habib, The Hebrew University Oerusalem);John Hause, State University of New York, Stony Brook; Finis Welch, University of California, Los Angeles; and David Wise, Harvard University.

MARCH 1979

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

Economic and physiological components of aging

The Committee on Life-Course Per­spectives on Middle and Old Age con­vened a conference on the economic and physiological components of the aging process at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, California, on October 27-28, 1978. The conference brought together committee members and representatives from two well-known longitudinal studies, the Duke Longitudinal Study and the Michi­gan Income Dynamics Panel. The Duke Study, represented at the conference by John B. Nowlin and Ilene C. Siegler, is a two-phase panel study of men and women enrollees in a North Carolina health insurance plan. The data, obtained by personal interview and medical exam­ination, cover demographic, social, and behavioral topics as well as medical and economic histories; the aging process is the focus of the study. The Michigan In­come Dynamics Panel, represented at the conference by Greg J. Duncan and James N. Morgan, consists of about 6,000 families interviewed on a yearly basis. With the II th wave now in progress, the study has obtained data on a variety of variables of household composition and economic well-being.

Other participants at the conference were Ronald P. Abeles, American Insti­tutes for Research in the Behavioral Sci­ences (Palo Alto, California); Caleb E. Finch, Andrus Gerontology Center, Uni­versity of Southern California; and John Modell, Department of History, Univer­sity of Minnesota. Also present were the following 1978-79 Center fellows and members of the Center's Life Cycle and Aging Group: Margaret Baltes, James E. Birren, Margaret Clark, David L. Feath­erman, Victor Fuchs, Seymour S. Kety, John W. Riley. Jr., Eugene Roberts, Mar­tin E. P. Seligman, and George Vaillant.

The committee and its guests examined the relationships over the life course be­tween (I) people's work lives and eco­nomic well-being and (2) their health and physical functioning-as reflected in the

Duke and Michigan studies and in other relevant research.

The committee's second thematic meet­ing will also be held at the Center, on May 4-5, 1979. and will focus on linkages be­tween issues of physiology and psychol­ogy across the life course.

The members of the Committee on Life-Course Perspectives on Middle and Old Age are Matilda W. Riley. Bowdoin College (chairman); Paul B. Baltes. Penn­sylvania State University; Orville G. Brim. Jr .• Foundation for Child Development (New York); Glen H. Elder,Jr., The Boys Town Center for the Study of Youth De­velopment (Boys Town, Nebraska); M. Brewster Smith. University of California, Santa Cruz; staff. Lonnie R. Sherrod. Mrs. Riley and Mr. Baltes are also 1978-1979 fellows at the Center.

Kin selection and kinship theory

Under the auspices of the Committee on Biosocial Science. an international conference on kin selection and kinship theory was held at the Maison des Sci­ences de I'Homme, Paris. on October 27-29, 1978. The conference was or­ganized by Irven DeVore. Harvard Uni­versity. and Robin Fox. Rutgers Univer­sity. with the assistance of Anne Rocha­Perazzo, Maison des Sciences. and David L. Szanton. Social Science Research Council. It was jointly sponsored with the Maison des Sciences and the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation of New York. The meeting brought together American and European sociobiologists attempting to apply kin selection (inclusive fitness) theory to human behavior and social in­stitutions, with social and behavioral sci­entists working on these same topics from a variety of other theoretical perspectives.

Introductory and concluding com­ments were provided by Irven DeVore and Robin Fox. In addition. papers or formal presentations were prepared by Richard D. Alexander. University of Michigan, "Organic and Cultural Evolu­tion: Correspondences and Contrasts"; Napoleon A. Chagnon. Pennsylvania State University, "Kin Selection Theory and Yanomamo Reproductive and Social Behavior"; Richard Dawkins, Oxford University, "Some Misunderstandings about Kin Selection"; Mildred Dickeman, Sonoma State College. "The Ecology of Mating Systems in Hypergynous Societies"; William Irons. Pennsylvania State University, "Is Yomut Social Be­havior Adaptive?"; Jeffrey A. Kurland,

11

12

Pennsylvania State University, "Structure and Function in Matrilineal Societies"; John Maynard Smith, University of Sus­sex, "The Biology of Incest Avoidence"; Robert Trivers, University of California, Santa Cruz, "A Biological Approach to the Family"; and Richard W. Wrangham, Cambridge University, "Primate Kin Groups as Coalitions."

The other conference participants were Anthony Ambrose, Institute for Ad­vanced Study in Development Sciences, Ox­ford; Fredrik Barth, University of Oslo; Bernardo Bernardi, University of Bologna; Mireille Bertrand, Research Unit, INSERM, Paris; Norbert Bischof, University of Zurich; Mario von Cranach, University of Bern; John H. Crook, Uni­versity of Bristol; Meyer Fortes, Cam­bridge University; Jack Goody, Cam­bridge University; Fran~oise He·ritier, Laboratory for Social Anthropology, Col­lege de France; AlbertJacquard, National Institute for Demographic Studies, Paris; Roger D. Masters, Dartmouth College; Andrew Strathern, University of London; Lionel Tiger, Rutgers University.

The membership of the Committee of Biosocial Science is listed at the end of the article that follows.

Prepared by Robin Fox

Biosocial bases of parenting and early offspring development ·

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

VOLUME 33, NUMBER 1

Jones, University of London; I. Charles Kaufman, University of Colorado; An­neliese F. Korner, Stanford University; Robert B. McCall, The Boys Town Center for the Study of Youth Development (Boys Town, Nebraska); Niles Newton, Northwestern University Medical School; Leonard A. Rosenblum, Downstate Medi~ cal Center (Brooklyn); Daniel N. Stern, Cornell University Medical Center; Charles M. Super, Harvard University; Edward Tronick, University of Massa­chusetts; and S. L. Washburn, University of California, Berkeley.

The second workshop, to be held at the Council later this year, will examine child development beyond the infancy period. A comparative, biosocial perspective will again be employed as a major theme of the workshop.

The members of the Committee on Biosocial Science are Eleanor Bernert Sheldon (chairman), Social Science Re­search Council; Irven DeVore, Harvard University; Robin Fox, Rutgers Univer­sity; David A. Hamburg, Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences; Melvin J. Konner, Harvard University; Jane B. Lancaster, University of Okla­homa; Allan C. Mazur, Syracuse Univer­sity; Alice S. Rossi, University of Massa­chusetts; and Lonnie R. Sherrod and David L. Szanton, staff.

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

Incorporated in the State of JIlinois, December 27, 1924, for the purpose of advancing research in the social sciences

Dirpclors. 1978-79: IRMA ADELMAN, ROSEDITH SITGREAVES BOWKER, ROBERT EISNER,jACOBj. FELDMAN, CLIFFORD GEERTZ, PETER R . GOUl.D, PHILIP W.

JACKSON, FRANKLIN W. KNIGHT, GERALD H. KRAMER, JANE B. LANCASTER, OTTO N . LARSEN, ROBERT A . LEVINE, CORA BAGLEY MARRETT, PAUL H.

MUSSEN, SAMUEL C. PATTERSON, KENNETH PREWITT, MURRAY L. SCHWARTZ, STEPHAN A. THERNSTROM

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

MARTHA A. GEPHART, ROBERTA BALSTAD MILLER, ROWLAND L. MITCHELL, jR., ROBERT PARKE, JAMES L. PETERSON, PETER B. READ, LONNIE R.

SHERROD, DAVID L. SZANTON, ANNE F. THURSTON; MARTHA W . FORMAN, Assistant Treasurer; NANCY CARMICHAEL McMANUS, Librarian