SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

VOLUME 30 NUMBER 2 JUNE 1976 605THIRDAVENUE . NEW YORK, N.Y. 10016

South and Southeast Asia: New Concerns of the Council

SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST AsiA have recently become household terms at the Council. During the past 15 months, the Joint Committee on South Asia has been reorganized and a new Joint Committee on Southeast Asia has been established.

South Asia-Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pak­istan, Sikkim, and Sri Lanka-presently contains some 720 million people. Today it is facing severe economic, demographic, and political problems, but the record of human creativity, intellectual development, and social forms in South Asia is extraordinarily rich and complex. Indeed, for the past 2,500 years it has been home to some of the world's greatest civilizations with profound influ­ences on the languages, philosophies, religions, arts, and politics of the surrounding world.

Western scholarly interest in South Asia goes back to the Greeks and Romans, with modern scholarship be­ginning in the late 18th century. The basic attraction of South Asia to Western scholars has long been its radically different ways of structuring and understand­ing social existence. As a result, South Asian thought and forms have contributed much to Western studies of religion, literature, and philosophy--even if the bor­rowed ideas are not always translated or transmitted as accurately as might be. For Max Weber, Indian society and culture provided important materials for the de­velopment of theoretical approaches still fundamental to the social sciences today. More recently, the field of sociolinguistics, as well as studies of stratification, class, and caste, has leaned very heavily on South Asian materials.

• The author, an anthropologist, serves as staff for both the Joint Committee on South Asia and the Joint Committee on Southeast Asia. Both committees are sponsored by the Council and the American Coun­cil of Learned Societies.

by David L. Szanton •

Southeast Asia includes ten countries-Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Phil­ippines, Thailand, Singapore, and Vietnam-with a 1975 population of approximately 310 million. Indo­nesia, with about 130 million, is one of the world's largest nations, while Laos and Singapore, otherwise totally unalike, are among the smallest.

Archeological research increasingly suggests that both agriculture and metallurgy first originated in Sout!h­east Asia. Even the earliest historical records show a bewildering variety of ethno-linguistic groups, variously influenced by China and India. Islam, Buddhism, Con­fucianism, Christianity, and animism are all well repre­sented. And since the 15th century, parts of the region have been held by the Poptuguese, Spanish, Dutch, English, French, and Americans--each leaving behind a unique legacy.

On the contemporary scene, nearly all of the countries appear to have substantial economic resources, but their ability to exploit them has again been variable. Singa­pore and Malaysia have done relatively well, Burma very badly, with the other countries falling in between. Politically there has been a general shift to increasingly authoritarian forms, but there is still a democratic mon-

CONTENTS OF THIS ISSUE 13 South and Southeast Asia: New Concerns

of the Council-David L. S%Ilnton 18 Comparative Research on Social Security Sys­

tems in Latin America-Carmelo Mesa-Lago 22 Current Activities at the Council

-Biosocial science --Summer training institute on genetics

23 New Publications 24 Fellowships and Grants

13

archy, civilian authoritarianism, civilian martial law, right- and left-wing military rule, and three distinct communist systems.

Variation is also great within the countries. All but Singapore are marked by striking physical and ecological differences and by an ethnic diversity that often leads to interethnic conflict. The Philippines, with 125 lin­guistic groups, is sharply divided on language issues and is currently enmeshed in a debilitating ethno-religious war in Mindanao. Indonesia, Burma, and Malaysia have all experienced bitter civil strife along ethnic lines. Thailand has constant problems with mobile tribal groups along its northern border and is fearful of the divisive power of the majority Lao population in the northeastern third of the country.

Despite these numerous sources of diversity, there are underlying unities in Southeast Asian political cul­tures, village organization, agricultural practices, and kinship systems, which, if they do not include the entire region, certainly cross many of the current political boundaries. However, heterogeneity, complexity, and variation, '~ith all their potentials for multiple rates and processes of change, growth, and conflict, are the most obvious characteristics of the region.

The development of academic interest in South and Southeast Asia

In the United States, academic interest in South and Southeast Asia has grown very dramatically over the past twenty-five years. In 1951, a Joint Committee on South­ern Asia (1949-53) was hard pressed to locate 150 Americans in academia, government, business, and jour­nalism with professional competence concerning the vast area stretching from Pakistan in the west to the Philip­pines and Indonesia in the east. Despite the region's large population and its historical and contemporary importance, academic programs concerned with the area were few and weak, courses and interested students were rare, and library collections and language training facili­ties were extremely limited. Yet the growth was rapid, and by 1969, Richard D. Lambert, in his Council­spomored Language and Area Studies Review) identified 1,718 specialists on South and Southeast Asia.1

This 1 I-fold increase was largely the result of a grow­ing recognition that in the postcolonial era, America would need a far better understanding of Asian societies than currently prevailed. In response, a number of uni­versities furnished the intellectual homes and skills, as well as most of the funds, for a variety of international

1 Richard D. Lambert, Language and Area Studies Review. American Academy of Political and Social Science, Monograph 17. Philadelphia: October 1973.

]4

programs and centers. In addition, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Carnegie Corpora­tion all made substantial contributions to the develop­ment of university-based South and Southeast Asia pro­grams. United States government participation followed with the Fulbright-Hays and the National Defense Edu­cation Act programs. Finally, several professional orga­nizations were established to meet specific needs; e.g., the Association for Asian Studies with its component South Asia Regional Council (SARC) and Southeast Asia Regional Council (SEARC); the American Institute of Indian Studies (AIlS); and the Southeast Asia Devel­opment Advisory Group (SEADAG).

A fairly late entrant in this array of institutions, a Committee on South Asian Studies, was established in 1970 by the American Council of Learned Societies, with modest funding from the Ford Foundation. The com­mittee offered grants (1) to encourage research on the relatively less-studied, non-Indian, countries of South Asia, (2) for research on India conducted elsewhere in the world (e.g., in the United Kingdom), and (3) for writing up previously collected field data. (Research in India was specifically excluded because the AIlS ap­peared to have adequate PL 480 "blocked rupees" for that purpose). In 1972, the Social Science Research Council joined the ACLS in jointly sponsoring the com­mittee, and in 1975, the administration of the com­mittee was transferred to the Council.

In comparison with 1951, by the early 1970s there was a substantial number of scholars, organizations, and in­stitutions concerned with research and teaching on South and Southeast Asia. However, the very rapidity of the growth, and the inherent differences both in the two regions and in the interests and time horizons of the scholars studying them led to considerable differ­ences in the development of the two fields.

Scholarship on South Asia with its great and ancient civilizations was deeply rooted in linguistic and philo­logical studies. However, since the region was almost entirely under British colonial rule, the English language also gave access to a good many research topics. As a result, the South Asian field has a large community of scholars, almost equally divided between humanists and social scientists. According to Lambert's figures, 6 times as many have conducted research in India as in Pakistan and Bangladesh combined.

In contrast, American scholarly interest in Southeast Asia is relatively recent and was initially focused pri­marily on contemporary politics and socioeconomic processes. In consequence, Lambert found a smaller number of Southeast Asian specialists, and that social scientists outnumbered humanists, by about four to one. In addition, the complexities of past colonial ties, chang-

VOLUME 30, NUMBER 2

ing American political and intellectual interests, and problems of access resulted in great variations in the nature and quantity of research in each country of Southeast Asia. Research on the ex-French colonies was limited by multiple language problems, and then given a special context by the Vietnam war. Thanks to a con­tinuing "special relationship," the Philippines received fairly broad attention. However, for a long time Thai­land was mostly studied by anthropologists and Indo­nesia by political scientists. Nearly all research on Burma stopped short in the early 1960s, when the country was effectively closed to foreigners.

Such uneven coverage is probably inevitable in a pe­riod of rapid growth, and given further time, the gaps might have been filled by the natural dialectic of aca­demic interests. However, university, foundation, and government priorities and budgets are now giving less and less consideration to international studies-South and Southeast Asia among them-and support for even the maintenance of existing research capabilities is now in question. In such periods of retrenchment, it is par­ticularly important to assess intellectual products, needs, and directions and to identify and encourage new and innovative research. Only such measures can help assure the creative utilization of the increasingly limited re­sources.

In the expectation that a reconstituted Joint Com­mittee on South Asia and a new Joint Committee on Southeast Asia could provide useful forums for such activities, and with a small planning grant from the Ford Foundation, discussions were initiated with a wide array of scholars across the country in the spring and summer of 1975. The aim was to identify issues, approaches, and opportunities such committees might usefully address. These discussions were synthesized in a preliminary document distributed to elicit further comment, and then utilized, along with numerous reactions, to provide a basic agenda for planning meetings held in October and November 1975. Given similar concerns and the differences in the two fields, it should not be surprising that the two planning groups arrived at parallel but distinct intellectual programs for the new committees.

SOUTHEAST ASIA

After much discussion, the Southeast Asia planning group 2 agreed on three major orientations to guide the initial activities of the new committee.

2 The participants in the Southeast Asia planning meeting (October 5-6, 1975) were Fred Eggan, University of Chicago (chairman); Benedict R. Anderson, Cornell University; Alton Becker. University of Michigan; John C. Bock, Stanford University; Clifford Geertz, Institute for Ad· vanced Study (Princeton, New Jersey); Daniel S. Lev, University of Washington; Stuart A. Schlegel, University of California, Santa Cruz; Laurence Stifel, Rockefeller Foundation; Donald Swearer, Swarthmore

JUNE 1976

Synthetic or integrative studies

Despite the frequent gaps in data, there was broad agreement that the field is now ripe for, indeed in need of, "reflective syntheses," major integrative or interpre­tive essays drawing together existing monographic re­search on various middle-range topics. Such studies should attempt to provide a theoretical framework within which particular sets of phenomena, processes, or institutions may be understood, either within the context of a single country, or if possible, across political boundaries. These syntheses would draw upon research by scholars of many disciplines and nationalities, but they would not be "stock-taking" efforts or "surveys of the field." Instead, the goai would be broad though detailed syntheses at a level of generality somewhere between now largely outdated general texts on the region and the growing number of specialized research monographs. Perhaps most important, such middle-range efforts, along with providing an interpretation of the currently-known or hypothesized, would serve as heuris­tic frameworks within which, or against which, future field or library studies might be directed.

Southeast Asian conceptual systems-as both ends and means

While there was considerable discussion regarding definitions and methods, there was strong accord that the new committee particularly encourage scholarly projects aimed at the careful delineation of indigenous systems of thought. There were two distinct but related argu­ments. First, detailed descriptions of historical and con­temporary conceptual systems constitute an essential component of any serious attempt to understand South­east Asian societies and cultures. Second, while these systems of thought, the conscious and unconscious con­structs that give meaning and direction to the lives of Southeast Asians, are not precast or ready-made analytic tools, they almost certainly contain important elements for the construction of new society-specific analytical frames, and can thus contribute to the deparochialization of the (Western) social sciences and humanities.

There are many different types and levels of concep­tual systems, ranging from formal written religious and philosophical creeds to unconscious linguistic structures. Between these extremes, important conceptual systems are also manifested in ancient and modern aesthetic traditions; generalized folk belief and value systems;

College; Paul Wheatley, University of Chicago; Alexander Woodside, University of British Columbia; David K. Wyatt, Cornell University; staff: Eleanor Bernert Sheldon, David L. Szanton. The initial members of the new Joint Committee are Messrs. Schlegel (chairman), Anderson, Becker, Geertz, Woodside, and Wyatt, plus James C. Scott, University of Wisconsin, and Donald R. Snodgrass, Harvard University.

15

variously internalized Western concepts; self-conscious nation- and language-building efforts evident in political rhetoric and terminological debate, etc. These systems are complex and are often in conflict with each other. To delineate each level or type will require close col­laboration with scholars in the region, a variety of hu­manistic and social scientific approaches, and considera­ble language skills. At this point it is unclear which levels or approaches will prove most fruitful. Instead, it seems preferable simply to encourage research aimed at a wide variety of conceptual systems.

Library and archival research-towards a "new philology"

Although much still remains scattered, even unrecog­nized, a great deal of primary source material (texts, censuses, local records and literature, newspapers, manu­scripts) on the region has been gathered and variously catalogued in Southeast Asia, Europe, and the United States. Further efforts to identify and increase access to such materials via bibliographies, accession lists, and reproduction should certainly be encouraged. Likewise, further documentation of the oral and performing arts and of oral history should be supported. However, there is a special need for analysis of the materials already gathered but understudied, thanks, among other things, to the strong field-work tradition among scholars of the region. More specifically. the committee hopes to sup­port efforts towards a "new philology" aimed at articu­lating the meanings of literary and religious texts of the region in the light of growing hermeneutic concerns, and better understanding of their cultural contexts.

In program terms, the committee expects to support individual research projects and also develop several means of integrating existing materials. Research grants will be available to social scientists and humanists through what will be in effect the only open grants competition in the United States specifically designated for research on Southeast Asia. As such, general intel­lectual merit must be the major selection criterion. Aware that its particular interests may not be shared by the entire community of scholars, the committee has taken the position that it would be inappropriate to use them as selection criteria. Instead, the committee hopes to develop its particular interests in the context of a series of integrative workshops, seminars, and confer­ences on such topics as Southeast Asian aesthetics, con­ceptions of social order and disorder in 19th century Southeast Asia, and Indic ideas and structures in South­east Asian state formation. It also plans to support efforts to define more meaningful sociocultural areas than those

16

"given" by current political boundaries, and is consid­ering the commissioning of major synthetic studies where the materials seem particularly ripe. It may also seek means to rekindle interest in t>he study of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia-especially given the current pres­ence in the United States of a number of important scholars from those countries.

SOUTH ASIA

Whereas the Southeast Asia committee developed three major points, the South Asia group,3 working in the context of a larger, more established field, focused on a general intellectual approach for the new Joint Committee on South Asia. While fully supporting a continuation of the open grant competition of the past committee, in order to assure support for a wide range of projects and perspectives, the group proposed ·that a modest fraction of its resources be devoted to exploring aspects of South Asian conceptual systems, i.e., the tools or frames of thought, or the structures of ideas, which define, order, and create meaning in individual and social perceptions in South Asia.

The planning group recommended special attention to this difficult area in the conviction it could lead to major breakthroughs in (a) interpreting the meaning of a great deal of social and cultural phenomena in South Asia and (b) developing new analytical frame­works applicable beyond the region. These are broad and ambitious goals. Historically, the formal construc­tion and use of analytical frames for organizing and understanding social and cultural data has been a largely Western intellectual tradition. However, Western analy­tical frames are inevitably constructed from Western materials and ideas. Not surprisingly, they have been most successful at home, although even here they have limits. Elsewhere in the world they are proving still more problematic. Needed now are alternative frames to complement, supplement, and ultimately provide components for larger "compound" interpretive systems. South Asian conceptual systems obviously are not ready­made for this purpose, but they almost certainly do

S The participants in the South Asia planning meetings (November 7-8, 1975 and February 21-22, 1976) were Ainslie T. Embree-, Colum­bia University (chairman); Richard Fox. Duke University; Marc Galanter-, State University of New York, College at Buffalo; Stanley J. Heginbotham-, Columbia University; Eugene Irschick. University of California, Berkeley; Tom G. Kessenger. University of Pennsylvania; McKim Marriott-, University of Chicago; Michelle B. McAlpin, Tufts University; Barbara Miller. Columbia University; Karl H. Potter-. University of Washington; A. K. Ramanujan, University of Chicago; Rosane Rocher-, University of Pennsylvania; John W. Thomas-. Har­vard University; staff: James N. Settle, American Council of Learned Societies; Eleanor Bernert Sheldon, David L. Szanton. Starred names are also members of the current Joint Committee on South Asia.

VOLUME 30, NUMBER 2

contain important elements, ideas, or structures that can be utilized to that end.

Several steps are involved: (a) the identification and articulation of a variety of conceptual systems as found, for example, in classic and modern texts, expressive lit­erature, ethnographic and linguistic studies; (b) their careful reformulation as analytic-interpretive schemes; (c) testing and refinement against South Asian and other data; (d) comparison of their explanatory power with relevant Western schemes, and ultimately, (e) the crea­tion of overarching compound analytical frameworks incorporating the strongest features of each. This is in no sense to suggest the abandonment of the Western social sciences or humanities, since the strongest possible roots in our own tradition are essential to the compara­tive enterprise being proposed. Instead, this approach attempts to recognize the potential value of alternative interpretive systems based in other traditions-in par­ticular, the conceptual systems underlying South Asian civilization-and the intellectual excitement of their interface with Western modes of analysis. Even if ini­tially disorienting because of the lack of easy equiva­lences, the clash and accommodation of ideas rooted in the two traditions can only prove fruitful to both. Thus, the motivation behind the proposed steps is not some abstract virtue presumed to exist in a more inter­nationalized and comparative approach, but rather its intellectual stimulation and potential analytical power. As an example, the application of South Asian concepts relating to person, personality, psychological develop­ment, and psychopathology may well lead to new in­sights concerning the family, socialization, and deviant behavior in the West.

There are of course many difficulties to overcome. Perhaps most important are the methodological prob­lems of specifying and articulating conceptual systems first in their own terms and then in meaning-maintain­ing translations. Furthermore, while some conceptual systems may seem fairly well-defined in formal written texts, or readily discernable in semantic structures, many others are in flux, and must be elicited or abstracted from a wide range of sources or data. The multiplicity of conceptual systems inevitably raises the question of which of the many are most appropriate to apply to a particular domain or phenomena under investigation. Unfortunately, the careful but narrow paradigms of the ethnoscience tradition seem too limited to serve these broader culture-interpretive purposes.

To initiate its efforts in this area, the committee ex-

JUNE 1976

pects to complement its continuing open grants program with a series of workshops and seminars aimed at ex­ploring and testing the value and limits of various South Asian conceptual systems. The committee is still in the process of selecting and defining particular topics and approaches but it is giving serious consideration to (a) concepts of authority and pluralism as manifested both in a variety of institutions ranging from families to kingdoms, and in various geographical spaces-from households to regions; (b) concepts of the person, the self, and the life cycle; (c) the concept of karma} and particularly, the areas of life, and the mechanisms by which, one's actions influence one's future; (d) economic and social concepts dealing with such matters as security and risk, labor, consumption, property rights, and the definition of the family; and t{e) the value of folklore as a source of conceptual ptaterial. Each of these topics calls for a somewhat different approach, but in all cases will draw upon the research and experience of many scholars. As the work progresses, some of the topics will no doubt be modified, some may be dropped, and others added. Together, however, they are intended to provide a multifaceted approach to the difficult but intellec­tually challenging problem of relating and cross-fertiliz­ing the conceptual systems of two great civilizations.

The parallel interests of the two new committees should be evident, but there are important differences in goals and approach, rooted in the inherent character­istics of the two fields. The interest in conceptual systems common to both reflects a widespread recognition of the limitations of Western concepts-too often presumed to be universal-in the study of non-Western societies, and an attempt to develop alternative means of analysis. Both committees are aware that such efforts will be con­troversial and will generate active criticism from sectors of the scholarly community. Partially in response and partially because all are agreed that a variety of ap­proaches is essential to the health of any field, the committees are planning open grant competitions to assure that scholars with other interests are not denied the possibility of research support. Nonetheless, there is strong accord among the committee members that despite the obvious difficulties, their proposed efforts are of great intellectual potential, not only for the fur­ther development of South and Southeast Asian studies, but for the expansion of analytic capabilities in the social sciences and humanities more generally. 0

17

Comparative Research on Social Security Systems in Latin America

AN INTER-AMERICAN RESEARCH TRAINING SEMINAR, "Social Security in Latin America: Pressure Groups, Stratification, and Inequality," sponsored by the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies of the Social Sci­ence Research Council and the American Council of Learned Societies, was held in Mexico City, June 30-August 15, 1975.1 It was the first international seminar to attempt to apply social science methodologies and ap­proaches to the study of social security systems in Latin America. Prior studies, seminars, and conferences con­centrated mainly on historical and juridical aspects of social security or on technical aspects of its administra­tion, such as actuarial and financial, medical and reha­bilitative, bureaucratic, and the processing of vital data.

The seminar took place at the Inter-American Center for the Study of Social Security (CIESS), located in a southwestern suburb of Mexico City; the Center is sup­ported by the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS).

Content of the seminar

Social security (known as "social insurance" in most of Latin America) was broadly defined for the seminar's purposes as the set of measures (usually established by law but also emanating from collective bargaining) that provides pensions (old age, seniority, disability, survi-

• The author is professor of economics and director of the Center for Latin American Studies at the University of Pittsburgh. He was codirector of the seminar with James M. Malloy, associate professor of political science, University of Pittsburgh.

1 A brief report on this seminar appeared in Items, March 1976, page 9. Student participants are listed in the December 1975 issue of Items, page 75. Shirley A. Kregar, executive assistant of the Center for Latin American Studies, University of Pittsburgh. served as secretary of the seminar. Visiting faculty included Luis Aparicio Valdez, professor of labor law, University of the Pacific, Lima; CeIso Barroso Leite, Sec­retary of Social Welfare, Ministry of Welfare and Public Assistance, Rio de Janeiro; Julio Cotler, professor of sociology, National Autono· mous University of Mexico; Rodrigo Fournier Guevara, director of the Inter-American Center for the Study of Social Security, Mexico City; Beryl Frank, deputy director, Department of Social Development, Or­ganization of American States, Washington, D.C.; Hernando G6mez­Buendia, researcher in sociology, Fedesarrollo, Bogota: Lucila Leal de Araujo, chief, Department of International Affairs. Mexican Institute of Social Security, Mexico City; Charles Parrish, professor of political science, Wayne State University; Jose Luis Reyna, professor of soci­ology, EI Colegio de Mexico, Mexico City; and Milton I. Roemer, professor of public health, University of California, Los Angeles. The author would like to express his personal appreciation to Lucy Gertner, Louis Wolf Goodman, Michael Potashnik. and David L. Sills of the Council staff who assisted at various stages of the seminar.

18

by Carmelo Mesa-Lago"

vors), health and maternity care, workmen's compensa­tion, family allowances, and unemployment benefits to segments of the labor force and their dependents. For practical purposes, housing, savings and loan programs, and public assistance programs were excluded.

The overall goal of the seminar was to study, in a comparative manner, the linkages among four factors in Latin America: (1) social security policy; (2) the state (and its bureaucracy) and pressure groups; (3) so­cial stratification; and (4) economic inequality. A basic question examined in the seminar is the extent to which social security in Latin America is not a function of socioeconomic objectives (i.e., protection of the neediest, income redistribution), but is a result either of the power of pressure groups to extract concessions from the government and employers, or of a state attempt to co-opt and thus politically neutralize or control such groups. A second question is the extent to which most of Latin America has a "stratified social security system," i.e., a system in which social security is fragmented into layers or subsystems-with those above being substan­tially better than those below. A third question is whether these stratified social security systems engender inequalities that either reflect or aggravate overall socie­tal inequalities.

The seminar had two concrete objectives. One was to identify the major "actors" in the inception of social security systems and the allocation (or distribution) of their benefits; that is, to study social security "pressure groups," their linkages with overall societal stratifica­tion and sources of power, and the role of the state and the bureaucracy as providers of social security. A second objective of the seminar was to analyze stratified social security systems, measure the inequality among beneficiaries, and detect the potential impact of social security on overall societal inequality (e.g., on the dis­tribution of income). Country case studies included Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay.

The identification of pressure groups

Setting aside the "marginal actors" who have had oc­casional influence on the inception and development of social security programs (e.g., international organiza­tions, key individuals), four "predominant actors" were identified in the seminar: occupational pressure groups,

VOLUME 30, NUMBER 2

political parties, the state, and the bureaucracy. Pressure groups seem to have played a crucial role in pluralistic, liberal, representative democracies in which interest groups have power, articulate their demands, and exert pressure on the state to obtain social security concessions (typical of this is Chile in the years 1924-1973). In such countries, political parties may be instrumental in spon­soring social security measures in order to maintain or expand a political clientele (e.g., Uruguay until the disruption of democracy). In a paternal or corporate regime, the state may anticipate the action of embryonic pressure groups, or co-opt and neutralize groups in ex­istence, by taking the initiative in social security matters (e.g., Argentina under the first Peron regime). In some countries, the social security bureaucracy may act inde­pendently in its own behalf when taking certain actions, such as the expansion of social security coverage and the distribution of benefits (this seems to be the case of Costa Rica; see below). Various actors may operate in the same country during different historical periods (e.g., first pressure groups, then the state) or may inter­twine at the same time (e.g., groups may exert pressure on the bureaucracy or on political parties and these in turn upon the state).

Without denying the importance that the state, po­litical parties, and the bureaucracy have had in signifi­cant cases, research carried out in five countries (Argen­tina, Chile, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay) shows that pressure groups are the most significant actor, the one that can systematically and best explain the creation and development of social security systems.2 The other three actors often operate in response to or in anticipa­tion of the demands of pressure groups. Finally, as pluralistic-democratic regimes are replaced in some Latin American countries by authoritarian, corporate regimes, the role of pressure groups in social security systems declines and that of the state (and in some cases its technocratic bureaucracy) increases.

Research conducted in Costa Rica, a representative democracy, by Mark D. Rosenberg, one of the seminar participants, indicates that with the exception of a few early social security schemes (for the military, for se­lected civil servants) the bulk of the system was not created as a result of pressure from (or attempts to co­opt) organized groups but at the initiative of the presi­dent. Furthermore, once the system was created in Costa Rica, it appears that the social security bureaucracy became the predominant actor. This particular situation may be explained by the fact that, at the time of the introduction of social security, Costa Rica was a rela­tively homogeneous agrarian society, lacking industriali-

2 See Carmelo Mesa-Lago, Social Security in Latin America, forth­coming.

JUNE 1976

zation, and with a remarkably low degree of social fer­ment, political mobilization, and group organization. Social security was introduced by the president with the hope of avoiding disruption of the social, political, and economic system-as had happened in other countries.

Research conducted in Brazil by James M. Malloy, codirector of the seminar, shows that in a corporate regime the state has been able to subdue most pressure groups and take steps towards the partial unification of the social security system. The current military regime in Peru (and the military in Argentina under Ongania and Lanusse) has also been able to unify the social security system partially, excluding the military. Finally, Cuba, with an authoritarian socialist regime, having virtually no pressure groups, has been able to unify the social security system, including even the military.

In order to achieve a better understanding of the role of pressure groups as social security actors, a typology of actors was developed at the seminar. The typology indicates the segment of the labor force that belongs to each group, its main source of power, and the special features of its social security system: (1) the military group (armed forces, police), whose power is based on weapons, on the maintenance of order (or on its direct control of the political system); (2) the politico-admin­istrative group (civil servants), whose power rests on its control of the political and bureaucratic apparatus; (3) the economic or market group (professionals, white col­lar), which derives its power from the scarcity of its skills in the market; and (4) the trade union group (blue collar), which generates its power from unionization and strikes. Within the latter, two subgroups may be distin­guished: the "labor aristocracy" (skilled, well-organized blue collar) and the bulk of the labor force (balance of blue collar, rural workers, self-employed, domestic ser­vants). The noninsured population is composed of the unskilled, dispersed, unorganized segment, either unem­ployed, or working in nonstrategic sectors of the econ­omy-in sum, those lacking power.

Testing hypotheses

Linked to the discussion of pressure groups was the testing of a series of hypotheses developed in previous research. Each of the pressure groups (and often sub­groups) is usually covered by a separate autonomous fund with its own legislation and ad hoc contingencies, sources of financing, and conditions for granting bene­fits. The more powerful a pressure group, the earlier in time it gets social security coverage, the higher its degree of coverage by the system, the less it costs to finance that system (because of contributions from the state and from employers), and the more generous its

19

benefits (more benefits available, more flexible require­ments to acquire such benefits, and higher amounts granted). The converse is true when a pressure group is less powerful.

There also seems to be a positive relationship between a pressure group's geographical location and income and the excellence of its social security system. The most powerful groups are found in the middle and high­income brackets, are normally urban, and enjoy the best social security systems. The least powerful groups are in the low-income bracket, are concentrated in rural areas, and either are not covered by social security or have very poor systems. An analysis of the financing aspect of the social security system suggests that it plays either a neutral or a regressive role in income distribu­tion, i.e., it either reproduces overall income inequalities or it aggravates them.

In those countries that have the oldest social security programs, there has been a gradual extension of in­surance coverage and a broadening to other groups of benefits that were previously available only to groups at the top. These tendencies seem to be connected with the increasing levels of organization and articulation of demands on the part of the lower socioeconomic groups. These phenomena, in turn, have induced a sharp increase in social security costs with negative con­sequences for economic development prospects. Social security stratification tends to be self-perpetuating, since the privileged pressure groups are powerful enough to block such rational reforms as the universalization of coverage, administrative unification, standardization of rights, and equality of treatment.

In order to test the above hypotheses and measure the degree of inequality in a stratified social security system, the seminar used a set of 19 indicators.3 These indicators were clustered into four dimensions: (1) The historical appearance of social security legislation (the appearance of pension and health legislation); (2) Social security coverage (percentage of the total population and the economically active population covered; the degree of coverage by class of worker, by sector of activity, by geographical region, and by state or province); (3) Fi­nancing (percentage of legal contribution by the em­ployee and by the employer; percentage of revenue from the employee, the employer, and the state; revenue per insured worker); and (4) Benefits (number of benefits; size of pensions; beds and health expenditures by occu­pational groups; and hospital beds and physicians by regions).

By using some of the above indicators, the four major groups (and subgroups) of the typology were ranked in terms of the excellence of their social security system,

8 See Mesa·Lago. op. cit.

20

as follows: (1) the military; (2) civil servants; 4 (3) white collar and the "labor aristocracy;" (4) other urban blue collar workers; (5) rural workers; and (6) the self­employed and domestic servants.

Statistical techniques were used to measure the degree of inequality of each indicator. All 19 indicators were integrated into an "index of inequality." The index permitted measurement of the degree of social security inequality within a country and its comparison with the other four. The final rank order of the five countries according to their degree of inequality is as follows: Peru, Mexico, Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay.

The seminar attempted to develop similar indicators for the other three countries (Brazil, Colombia, and Costa Rica). Although the data available from these countries were not sufficient for an accurate and thor­ough comparison, it was possible to test individual hypotheses and make selected comparisons. Further re­search being carried out by Malloy on Brazil, by Rosen­berg on Costa Rica, and by Hernando G6mez-Buendia on Colombia may permit more sophisticated compari­sons and applications of the index of inequality.

Seminar results and research prospectives

The seminar opened new ground in an important and little-worked research field in Latin America, trained a multidisciplinary group of social scientists from North and South America in this field, and pro­vided intellectual stimulus for further research and publication.

The work which seminar participants plan to under­take may be clustered into three major fields.

General theory: (1) the relationship between stages of nation building and social security development, and the symbolic functions of social security (Richard R. Wilson, Yale University); (2) the theory and methodol­ogy of social stratification as related to social security (Rafael Bayce, Center of Research and Social Studies of Uruguay); (3) structural and causal determinants of the inception of social security, with special reference to Argentina (Ernesto A. Isuani, National University of Cuyo); (4) organizational theory, bureaucratic politics, and the role of bureaucracy in social security develop­ment (Michael A. Pagano, University of Texas at Aus­tin); (5) factors that oppose the expansion of social security, with special reference to Costa Rica (Mark B. Rosenberg, University of Pittsburgh); (6) social security as a mechanism for income redistribution and as a potential hindrance to economic development (Eduardo Vifiuela, Catholic University of Chile); and (7) the role

• In Mexico, federal civil servants were ranked first and the military second.

VOLUME 30, NUMBER 2

of taxation-including social security taxes-in income distribution (Paul R. Casperson, University of Brazil).

Empirical studies of social security actors: (1) the de­velopment of interest groups in the 1920s and 1930s and their role in the inception of social security (Michael L. Conniff, Stanford University); (2) the role of political parties in the development of social security in Uruguay (Ariel Gianola, Office of Personnel and Administration, Uruguay); and (3) the role of the state, bureaucracy, and pressure groups in the formation and implementation of social security in Mexico (Rose J. Spalding, University of North Carolina).

Empirical studies of social security inequality: (1) the evolution and current distribution of health care in Mexico (Elizabeth K. Beardsley, Williams College); (2) the role of social security in income distribution in Costa Rica (Dianne Green, University of Pittsburgh); (3) social security as a mechanism for income distribu­tion in Northeastern Brazil (Rena to Duarte, Federal University of Pernambuco); and (4) differences in the quality of health care in Northeastern and Southern Brazil (Helen I. Lom, Center of Urban Research, Rio de Janeiro).

Some 13 participants have concrete plans for research on social security in the immediate future, including six Ph.D. dissertations. Three of the Latin American participants are now planning to do doctoral work in the United States specializing in this new field. Three papers on this topic have been requested from seminar participants by journals published in Costa Rica, Mexico, and Uruguay. Mesa-Lago is completing a book­length manuscript and has finished three articles on the subject. Malloy is working on two articles and a book. In addition, there are good possibilities for collaborative research projects among seminar participants.

Some of the obstacles for future research are of a technical and institutional nature. Perhaps the most im­portant difficulty lies in the poor quality and the lack of comparability of statistical data on social security available from most Latin American countries. In a recent study conducted by the Economic Commission for Latin America, in which 43 socioeconomic indicators were qualified to measure and classify the level of devel­opment of the countries in the region, none was based on any aspect of social security.5 Hopefully, the publi­cation of research linked with this seminar will bring the lack of social security statistics and the existence of

G Economic Commission for Latin America, "A Study of the Economic and Social Classification of the Latin American Countries," Economic Bulletin for Latin America, 27(2): 26-97, 1972. About the same time, the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development pointed out that social security was one of the areas in which it was not possible to find suitable indicators for international usage. See United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Contents and

JUNE 1976

techniques for comparative data analysis to the attention of Latin American planners, policy makers, and social scientists. For this reason, it is vital that research con­ducted by North American scholars be translated and published in Latin America. A major source of future statistics could be the population census that will be taken throughout Latin America in 1980, if appropriate questions are included. Another promising source of data could be generated by efforts to unify social security institutions within countries. Finally, surveys among union leaders, government officials, and social security bureaucrats and specialists could be a source of atti­tudinal data.

The collaboration of social security administrators in facilitating access to the data will be crucial for future research. In this context the experience of the seminar is illuminating. CIESS was selected as the locale for the seminar not only because of its excellent facilities but also to promote cross-fertilization between social security scholars and administrators. There was the risk that the latter could be alienated either by the unorthodox sub­stantive content or by the social science techniques used in the seminar. To reduce that risk somewhat we invited several top administrators of CIESS and IMSS to par­ticipate in the seminar as visiting faculty. For the same purpose, inter-American experts who have served for many years as consultants to social security institutions in Latin America were also invited. The results seem to be rewarding: not only did most of the administrators and experts become involved in the seminar and inter­ested in the new ideas and methodology, but after the seminar they assisted participants to do field work and have invited some of us to collaborate with them.6

The study of social security systems offers a perspec­tive for the social scientific study of society in Latin America and other Third World areas which bears on many important issues. This seminar has made some first steps toward systematically identifying the impact of social security systems on stratification and inequality and the role of pressure groups in the evolution of these systems. It is hoped that this seminar will facilitate the collaboration of self-conscious scholars and open-minded administrators both to tackle practical problems and to advance social scientific research on these topics. 0

Measurement 0/ Socio·Economic Development (New York: Praeger, 1972), page 10.

o Visiting faculty at the seminar from the Organization of American States and CIESS manifested their intention to use some of the seminar ideas and techniques in training seminars that they regularly offer to employees of Latin American social security institutions. Invitations were extended to the author and to two seminar participants, respec­tively, to speak and to act as discussants in a seminar on social security organized by the Ministry of Welfare and Social Assistance and the University of Brasilia, held in November 1975.

21

Current Activities at the Council Biosocial science

At its March, 1976 meeting, the Com­mittee on Problems and Policy authorized a new Council research committee, the Committee on Biosocial Science. The new committee is charged initially with clarify­ing the theoretical and methodological issues raised for the social sciences by the current movement in "sociobiology"; sys­tematically surveying what is now known about the social organization of non­human primates; considering the biologi­cal roots of specific human social behav­iors; and, generally, stimulating new ways of looking at and analyzing human social behavior by the study of the behavior of other species.

It is hoped that the committee can help coordinate explorations that are taking place on an informal and generally inter­disciplinary basis around the country, in workshops and seminars in universities and elsewhere, studying the implications of work in sociobiology, human ethology, primatology, field biology, evolutionary genetics, behavior genetics, physical an­thropolo5}', human ecology, archeology, and paleohistory. The growth of these fields, largely oriented toward biological, natural science, or physical science data and formulations, has been extremely rapid during the last two decades. The

committee hopes to bring developments in these fields to the closer attention of the general social science community and thus to the critical inspection of social scientists. It believes that these develop­ments can provide fresh analytical ap­proaches to fundamental aspects of human social organization, structure, and behav­ior, and to the assessment of their deter­minants-genetic, ecological, cultural, etc. It also believes that, reciprocally, social anthropologists, sociologists, social psychol­ogists, and other social scientists have theoretical and technical insights to bring to the improvement of work in the various subdisciplines of behavioral biology. Thus, a reason for creating the new committee at this time is to provide a visible model for sustained cross-disciplinary work aimed at increasing the degree of rapprochement between biological and social scientists.

Since 1961 there have always been Coun­cil committees concerned with biobehav­ioral research. The Committee on Genet­ics and Behavior (1961-66) was a research planning committee charged with stimu­lating and developing a field of research, behavior genetics. The Committee on Bio­logical Bases of Social Behavior (1966- ), still in existence, has taken a broader perspective, and has conducted a number of intensive summer training institutes for social scientists in genetics, neurobi-

Summer training institute on genetics

Twenty-two participants have been se­lected by the committee and the teaching faculty of the forthcoming Summer Train­ing Institute on the Genetics of Develop­mental Processes. The institute will be held at the Institute for Behavioral Ge­netics, University of Colorado, Boulder, June 21-July 30, 1976. The institute, supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health, is the second to be held on this topic in two years. The institutes are a project of the Committee on Biological Bases of Social Behavior.

The participants for 1976 include 11 predoctoral and 11 postdoctoral students. Ten students are men and 12 are women. Twelve participants are from various fields of psychology, four are sociologists, three anthropologists, two educational psycholo­gists, and one is a medical student. The trainees reside in I4 states and the District

22

of Columbia. Over 100 completed appli­cations were reviewed in the selection of participants in the institute. Those se­lected are:

Postdoctoral: Sandra S. Arey, Ph.D., University of Florida, 1976; Gerald J. August, assistant professor of psychology, Pennsylvania State University; Ronald T. Haskins, research associate, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, and visiting assistant professor of education, University of North Carolina; Dean C. Jones, assistant professor of sociology, In­diana University; Charles J. Morris, as­sistant professor of psychology, Denison University; F. David Mulcahy, assistant professor of sociology and anthropology, Cedar Crest College; Lisa A. Serbin, as­sistant professor of psychology, State Uni­versity of New York at Binghamton; Anita M. Sostek, instructor in pediatrics and

ology, and psychophysiology. The new committee will not replace the Committee on Biological Bases of Social Behavior but will take up a new range of topics and problems.

The initial members of the Committee on Biosocial Science are Sherwood L. Washburn, anthropology, University of California, Berkeley (chairman); Burton Benedict, anthropology, University of Cal­ifornia, Berkeley; B. Irven DeVore, an­thropology, Harvard University; J. Robin Fox, anthropology, Rutgers University; David A. Hamburg, psychiatry, Institute of Medicine (Washington, D.C.); Melvin J. Konner, anthropology, Harvard Uni­versity; Allan C. Mazur, sociology, Syra­cuse University; Jane B. Lancaster, an· thropology, Delta Regional Primate Cen· ter (Covington, Louisiana); and Alice S. Rossi, sociology, University of Massachu· setts. David Jenness is the staff member of the committee.

The committee is interested in receiving suggestions from social scientists and others about its program, and in hearing of the interests of those who may not at present be known to the committee. Suggestions or requests for information about the committee may be directed to the staff, the chairman, or to any com· mittee member.

obstetrics-gynecology, Georgetown Uni· versity School of Medicine; Sally P. Springer, assistant professor of psychology, State University of New York at Stony Brook; Carol Tomlinson.Keasey, associate professor of psychology, University of Nebraska; and Thomas H. Turney, Ph.D., University of Nevada, 1976.

Predoctoral: Robert S. Branchek, de· partment of psychology, Hunter College; Edward F. Church, department of soci· ology, University of California, Berkeley; Karen A. Garrett, department of sociol· ogy, University of Massachusetts; Zoe R. Graves, department of psychology, City University of New York; Linda G. JUT­dem, department of anthropology, Uni· versity of Colorado; Rebecca O. Manley, department of psychology, University of North Carolina; Elsie G. J. Moore, depart. ment of psychology, University of Chicago;

VOLUME 30, NUMBER 2

Virginia Rice. Graduate School of Edu­cation. Harvard University; Rose L. Wheeler. department of anthropology. Arizona State University; Allan E. Wil­liams. department of psychology. Univer­sity of Washington; and Phillip C. Wood. School of Medicine. University of North Carolina.

The faculty members of the summer institute are Gerald E. McClearn. profes· sor of psychology and director. Institute for Behavioral Genetics. University of Colorado (institute director); Robert Plo-

min. assistant professor of psychology. University of Colorado (institute coordi­nator); Joseph C. Daniel. professor of zoology. University of Tennessee; John C. DeFries. professor of behavioral genet­ics. University of Colorado; Lee Ehrman. professor of biology. State University of New York at Purchase; Leonard L. Heston. professor of psychiatry. Univer­sity of Minnesota; Joseph Horn. associate professor of psychology. University of Texas at Austin; and Steven G. Vanden­berg. professor of psychology. University

New Publications from Council activities anJ committee projects Experimental Testing of Public Policy: The Proceedings of the 1974 Social Sci· ence Research Council Conference on Social Experiments, edited by Robert F. Boruch and Henry W. Riecken. Product of a conference sponsored by the Com­mittee on Experimentation as a Method for Planning and Evaluating Social Inter­vention. held in Holderness. New Hamp­shire on August 19-21. 1974. Boulder. Colorado: Westview Press. 1975. 145 pages. Cloth. $13.25.

This is the report of a conference held to discuss the findings of a 1974 publica­tion of the committee. Social Experimen. tatlon, by Henry W. Riecken et al. (New York: Academic Press. 1974).

The purpose of the conference was to bring together policy makers-from both the administrative and the legislative branches of the federal government-and social scientists to consider how social ex­periments can be used to formulate national and agency policy.

Five members of the committee (all of whom are coauthors of Social Experimen­tation) participated-Robert F. Boruch. Donald T. Campbell. Nathan Caplan. Albert Rees. and Henry W. Riecken. Other participants whose papers are pub­lished in Experimental Testing of Public Policy are John W. Evans. Robinson Hol­lister. Charles G. Field. and Larry L. Orr. The topics discussed and summarized in the book range from the policy aspects of experimentation to the organization of experiments to technical discussion of such problems as randomization in real·life experiments.

JUNE 1976

V

Chinese Republican Studies Newsletter, Volume I. N·umber 3. April 1976.

The Working Group on Republican China of the Joint Committee on Con­temporary China has supported the pub­lication and distribution of this special issue of the Newsletter. Papers by Lloyd E. Eastman. University of Illinois. ("The Disintegration and Integration of Political Systems in Twentieth-Century China"); Robert A. Kapp. University of Washing­ton. ("Studying Republican China"); Thomas Rawski. University of Toronto. ("Notes on China's Republican Econ­omy"); and Charles W. Hayford. Oberlin College. ("Outward and Visible Signs of Inward and Spiritual Culture Change: Provocations to Social History") assess the state of the field in an effort to stimulate critical comment from other scholars.

Subscriptions to the Newsletter, at $3.00 per year. are available from: The Editor. Department of History. University of Connecticut. Storrs. Connecticut 06268.

Communal Families in the Balkans: The Zadruga; Essays by Philip E. Mosely and Essays in His Honor, edited by Robert F. Byrnes. Papers (primarily) from an inter­national conference. partly supported by the American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research Council's Joint Committee on Eastern Europe. held October 12-14. 1973. at Indiana Univer­sity. along with reprinted essays of Philip E. Mosely. University of Notre Dame Press. 1976. 285 pages + xxvii. Cloth. $14.95.

Philip E. Mosely was trained as a dip­lomatic historian. did his early work in

of Colorado. A number of guest lecturers will also participate in the program.

The curriculum of the training institute will include discussions of the principal concepts of major areas of genetics: molecular genetics. transmission genetics. population genetics. quantitative genetics. developmental genetics. and evolutionary genetics. Other topics will include embry­ology. chromosomal abnormalities. gene linkage. pharmacogenetics. genetic coun· seling. psychopathOlOgy. personality. men· tal retardation. and cognitive abilities.

Russian history. was a founder and direc­tor of the Russian Institute at Columbia University. and was Adlai E. Stevenson professor of international relations at Columbia at the time of his death in 1972. He was a recognized expert on Soviet politics and foreign policy. At a relatively early point in his career. how­ever. in 1935. with a fellowship from the Council. Mosely took up the study of peasant people of the Balkans. going first to the London School of Economics to study with Malinowski. then to Romania to train with the rural sociologist Dimitrie Gusti. and finally undertaking field work in sections of Jugoslavia. His path­breaking studies on the zadruga, a form of joint-family organization prevalent in Southeastern Europe before contemporary industrijllization. became famous. and served as a basis Cor many researches by later scholars in comparative family stud­ies. Slavic and Southeastern European studies. and Balkan ethnology.

This volume reprints four essays by Mosely. and includes a complete bibliog­raphy of his scholarly work. along with an intellectual appreciation of Mosely as a scholar. written by Leonard B. Schapiro. and an assessment of his work on the zadruga, by Stavro Skendi. A lengthy in­troduction to the volume. written by Marg.aret Mead. also discusses Mosely's contribution to comparative family studies and to the ethnology of Eastern and South­eastern Europe. The remainder of the book consists of 10 chapters of zadruga studies. historical and contemporary. written by American. English. and Jugo­slavian scholars.

23

Fellowships and Grants

CONTENTS

24 POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCH TRAINING FELLOWSHIPS

24 POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWSHIP IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE INDICATORS

24-27 INTERNATIONAL DOCTORAL RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, the Near and Middle East, Western Europe

27-28 GRANTS TO MINORITY SCHOLARS 28-32 GRANTS FOR INTERNATIONAL POSTDOC·

TORAL RESEARCH Africa, China, Japan, Korea, Latin America and the CaTribbean, the Near and Middle East, South Asia

THESE PAGES list the names, affiliations, and topics of the individuals who were awarded fellowships or grants by Council committees during the past few months. Most of the grant programs sponsored by the Council and the fel­lowship programs sponsored by the Council jointly with the American Council of Learned Societies are reported here; other lists will be published in the September issue of Items.

The Council's fellowship and grants program is supported by funds it receives from foundations and other funding agencies. The programs change somewhat every year, and scholars interested either in predoctoral fellowships for dissertation research abroad or in postdoctoral grants for individual or collaborative research should write to the Council for a copy of the new brochure that describes the 1976-77 ' fellowship and grants program. It will be ready for mailing in early August.

POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCH TRAINING FELLOWSHIPS

The Committee on Social Science Personnel-Paul Kay (chairman), Cynthia H. Enloe, Howard E. Gardner, Otto N. Larsen, Karen Spalding, Harold W. Watts, and Robert Zemsky-at its meeting on March 27-28, 1976 voted to offer the following appointments:

Paul D. Allison, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, University of Wisconsin, for .postdoctoral training in advanced statistics at the University of Chicago

George Dargo, assistant professor of history, City College, City University of New York, for training in law at Harvard Law School

Jean-Paul Dumont, assistant professor of anthropology, University of Washington, for training in linguistics and transformational grammar at the University of California, Berkeley

Susan L. Hoffman, assistant professor of psychology, Uni­versity of Florida, to study law at Yale University

24

Ann M. Kibbey, Ph.D. candidate in American civilization, University of Pennsylvania, for postdoctoral training in sociolinguistics at the University of Pennsylvania

Barry M. Lester, assistant professor of psychology, University of Florida, for training in newborn nursery procedures and in pediatrics at Harvard University Medical School

Peter B. Natchez, assistant professor of politics, Brandeis University, to study macroeconomic theory and its appli­cations to public policy at Harvard University

William M. Reddy, Ph.D. in history, University of Chicago, for training in developmental psychology at Harvard University

Mark R. Rosenzweig, assistant professor of economics, Yale University, for training in formal research methods in demography at Princeton University

Zick Rubin, associate professor of psychology, Harvard University, for training in developmental psychology at the University of California, Berkeley

John Zarwan, Ph.D. candidate in history, Yale University, for postdoctoral training in agricultural economics at the University of Wisconsin

POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWSHIP IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE INDICATORS

The Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Statistics of the Advisory and Planning Committee on Social Indicators­Albert J. Reiss, Jr. (chairman), Albert D. Biderman, Alfred Blumstein, Stephen E. Fienberg, and Leslie T . Wilkins-at its meeting on March 19, 1976 voted to award a post­doctoral fellowship in criminal justice indicators to:

Roland J. Chilton, associate professor of sociology, Univer­sity o( Massachusetts, for research on the nature of exist­ing national programs producing statistics on crime and criminals

INTERNATIONAL DOCTORAL RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS

Awards for dissertation research in five major world areas have been announced by the area committees of the Social Science Research Council and the American Council of Learned Societies. These committees administer the pro­gram of International Doctoral Research Fellowships (formerly the Foreign Area Fellowship Program).

AFRICA

The following dissertation fellowships were awarded by the Doctoral Research Fellowship Selection Committee for Africa-Inez S. Reid (chairman), David Dorsey, B. J. Dud­ley, Steven Feierman, John R. Harris-at its meeting on March 7, 1976. It had been assisted by the Screening Com­mittee-William Arens, Jean Decock, Dennis L. Dresang, and Adell Patton, Jr.

VOLUME 30, NUMBER 2

John W. Burton, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, State University of New York at Stony Brook, for research in the Sudan on ethnic and cosmological boundaries of Atuot society

Sonja M. Fagerberg, Ph.D. candidate in African literature, University of Wisconsin, for research in Gambia on the performance of Fulbe oral narratives

Anthony A. Lee, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of California, Los Angeles, for research in Western Europe and Tanzania on conceptual change and the movement of ideas in Rufiji district

Louise D. Lennihan, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Columbia University, for research in Nigeria on agricul­tural change in North East State

Jeanne M. Penvenne, Ph.D. candidate in history, Boston University, for research in Portugal, Switzerland, and Mozambique on a history of African labor, 1899-1962

Christopher D. Roy. Ph.D. candidate in African art. Indiana University. for research in Europe and Upper Volta on traditional Mossi sculpture

Said S. Samatar. Ph.D. candidate in history, Northwestern University, for research in the United Kingdom, Italy, and Somalia on poetry in Somali politics. as exemplified by Mohammad A. Hassan

Carolyn H . Sargent. Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Michigan State University, for research in Benin on alter­native systems of midwifery in a northern village

Douglas E. Saxon. Ph.D. candidate in history. University of California, Los Angeles. for research in France and Chad on linguistic approaches to the early history of the Shari River Valley

Leonard Lewis Wall. Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Queen's College. Oxford University. for research in Ni­geria on illness and traditional therapy in rural Hausa areas

Michael J. Watts. Ph.D. candidate in geography, University of Michigan, for research in Nigeria on responses to drought among Hausa cultivators

ASIA

The following dissertation fellowships were awarded by the Doctoral Research Fellowship Selection Committee for Asia-Myron Cohen (chairman). Carolyn M. Elliott, Merle Goldman. F. Tomasson Jannuzi. James William Morley, Kenneth B. Pyle. John R . W. Smail. and Stephen F. Tobias -at its meeting on February 28. 1976. It had been assisted by the Screening Committee-Paul A. Cohen. Jean Gross­holtz. Richard C. Kraus. Terry E. MacDougall. Penelope Mason. Barbara Metcalf. Judith Nagata. and John W. Thomas.

China and Inner Asia

Steven B. Butler. Ph.D. candidate in political science. Co­lumbia University. for research in Hong Kong and Japan on conHict and decision making in the people's communes of the People's Republic of China

Anna Chu. Ph.D. candidate in East Asian studies. Princeton University. for research in Japan and Taiwan on social relief institutions in Sung China

Robert P. Hymes. Ph.D. candidate in history. University of Pennsylvania. for research in Japan on office. wealth. and family in Sung China

JUNE 1976

Michael K. Ipson. Ph.D. candidate in history. Harvard Uni­versity. for research in Hong Kong and Taiwan on Sino­Vietnamese relations during the 18th century

Constance A. Johnson. Ph.D. candidate in history. University of Pennsylvania. for research in Japan on promotion and politics in China

William T. Rowe, Ph.D. candidate in modern Chinese his­tory. Columbia University. for research in Hong Kong. Taiwan. Japan, and the United Kingdom on moderniza­tion and Chinese urban society

Paul Steven Sangren. Ph.D. candidate in anthropology. Stanford University. for research in Taiwan on internal dynamics in the Chinese family and their relation to ex­ternal social and economic forces

Sidney Schuler. Ph.D. candidate in social anthropology. Harvard University, for research in Indi.a and the United Kingdom on marriage systems and domestic groups

Catherine C. Swatek. Ph.D. candidate in Chinese literature, Columbia University. for research in Japan and Taiwan on rebellion and ideology in Chinese fiction from the 16th to the 19th centuries

P. Ellis Tinios. Ph.D. candidate in history. University of Michigan. for research in Taiwan and Japan on the Hsiung-nu and the formulation of policy in the Former Han

Richard E. Vinograd. Ph.D. candidate in the history of art. University of California. Berkeley. for research in Japan and Taiwan on Wang Meng. a major 14th century Chinese landscape painter

Madeline H. Zelin. Ph.D. candidate in history, University of California. Berkeley. for research in Taiwan and Japan on radical reform in the Yung-cheng period (1723-1735)

Northeast Asia

Carl Bielefeldt, Ph.D. candidate in Buddhist studies, Uni­versity of California. Berkeley. for research in Japan on Dagen's doctrine of practice and enlightenment

Helen Hardacre. Ph.D. candidate in the history of religions, University of Chicago. for research in Japan on the role of the dead in Japanese cosmology

Ryohei Kada, Ph.D. candidate in agricultural economics. University of Wisconsin, for research in Tapan on employ­ment opportunities for Japanese farm family households

Laurel Kendall. Ph.D. candidate in anthropology. Columbia University. for research in Korea on Korean shamanism

James L. McClain, Ph.D. candidate in history. Yale Univer­sity, for research in Japan on early modern urbanization in 17th century Kanazawa

Edward P. Reed, Ph.D. candidate in international develop­ment. University of Wisconsin, for research in Korea on emerging institutions for group farming

Steven R. Reed. Ph.D. candidate in political science, Univer­sity of Michigan. for research in Japan on local autonomy in Japanese prefectures

Patricia G. Sippel, Ph.D. candidate in history, Harvard Uni­versity, for research in Japan on the local foundations of Tokugawa power in the government of the Bakufu Do­main Lands, 1600-1868

Dorothy Tessohn. Ph.D. candidate in East Asian languages and cultures, Columbia University. for research in Japan on Edo chonin culture and the artist, Santo KyOden, in the An'ei-Temmei period

25

South Asia

David L. Gitomer, Ph.D. candidate in Middle East languages and cultures, Columbia University, for research in India on the position of Bhatta Narayana's Venisamhiira in Indian literature

Richard K. Herrell, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, U~i­versity of Chicago, for research in India on marnage In

Gujarati culture Richard Kurin, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Univer­

sity of Chicago, for research in Pakistan on kinship in two Pakistani communities

Karen L. Merrey, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Uni­versity of Pennsylvania, for research in Pakistan on re­ligious experience and change in rural Punjab

Boyd Michailovsky, Ph.D. candidate in linguistics, Univer­sity of California, Berkeley, for research in Nepal on the grammar of a Kiranti-group language of Tibeto-Burman

Carol Prindle, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, University of Chicago, for research in Bangladesh on rank among Muslims

Southeast Asia

Suchitra P. Bhakdi, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Uni­versity of California, Berkeley, for research in Thailand on the Thai bureaucracy

Amy E. Burce, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Stanford University, for research in Papua-New Guinea on Chris­tianity and capitalist development among the Enga

Ann Stoler, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Columbia University, for research in Indonesia on household pro­duction strategies and ecological adaptation in a Javanese agricultural resettlement in southern Sumatra

Mary Zurbuchen, Ph.D. candidate in linguistics, University of Michigan, for research in Indonesia on a text grammar of Balinese

LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

The following dissertation fellowships were awarded by the Doctoral Research Fellowship Selection Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean-Alejandro Portes (chair­man), Albert R. Berry, Joyce Riegelhaupt, Riordan Roett, and James Wilkie-at its meeting on February 13, 1976. It had been assisted by the Screening Committee-Ralph Bolton, Jane Jaquette, Frank McCann, Marta Morello­Frosch, Susan Eckstein, and Ronald D. Sousa.

Marlys Bacon, Ph.D. camlidate in anthropology, University of Texas, for research in Mexico on linguistic and archeo­logical techniques for reconstructing culture history

Judith Bettelheim, Ph.D. candidate in the history of art, Yale University, for research in Jamaica, Trinidad, and Bermuda on Jonkanoo, an Afro-Jamaican Christmas festival

David George, Ph.D. candidate in Spanish and Portuguese, University of Minnesota, for research in Brazil on new movements in the theater of the 1960s

Heidi Goldberg, Ph.D. candidate in history, Yale University, for research in Argentina on the development of a labor elife

Jonathan Hart, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Yale University, for research in Colombia on the politics of the National Front and on interest groups

26

Gabriel Haslip, Ph.D. candidate in history, Columbia Uni­versity, for research in Mexico on cnme, society, and public order in colonial Mexico City

David Konkel, Ph.D. candidate in economics, University of California, Berkeley, for research in Chile on income shares inflation in a developing country

Florencia Mallon, Ph.D. candidate in history, Yale Univer­sity, for research in Peru on rural mobilization in the Central Sierra, 1880-1950

Kevin Middlebrook, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Harvard University, for research in the United States, Cuba, Venezuela, and Mexico on unions, worker partici­pation, and the political economy of Cuban labor, 1959-1975

John M. O'Brien, Ph.D. candidate in history, State Univer­sity of New York at Stony Brook, for research in Peru on the Pardo family and the nature of power in Peru, 1872-1919

Erica P. Raphael, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Univer­sity of Chicago, for research in Belize and Jamaica on con­cepts of national integration in Belize

Nancy L. Richards, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Uni­versity of California, Irvine, for research in Peru on chang­ing attitudes concerning the use of the drug, erythroxylon coca, in Peruvian national culture

Benjamin H. Saunders, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Stanford University, for research in Ecuador on agricul­tural credit and peasant economic development in Ecua­dor

Patricia Seed, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Wis­consin, for research in Mexico on occupation, race, social mobility, and mortality among the urban poor in 18th century Mexico City

Steve J. Stern, Ph.D. candidate in history, Yale University, for research in Peru on the colonial experience of the in­digenous peoples of Huamanga, Peru, 1532- c. 1630

Anthony W. Stocks, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Uni­versity of Florida, for research in Peru on the Cocamilla Indians

Van R. Whiting, Jr., Ph.D. candidate in political science, Harvard University, for research in the United States and Mexico on changing relationships among multinational corporations, agricultural producers, and the state of Mexico

Ann M. Wightman, Ph.D. candidate in history, Yale Uni­versity, for research in Peru on demographic changes and labor patterns in 17th century Cuzco

NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST

The following dissertation fellowships were awarded by the Doctoral Research Fellowship Selection Committee for the Near and Middle East-Nur O. Yalman (chairman), Jerome W. Clinton, Elbaki Hermassi, Serif Mardin, and Norman A. Stillman-at its meeting on February 22, 1976. It had been assisted by the Screening Committee-Daniel G. Bates, James Alban Bill, Afaf Lufti al Sayyid Marsot, and Marvin G. Weinbaum.

M. Elaine Combs-Schilling, Ph.D. candidate in anthro­pology, University of California, Berkeley, for research in Morocco on authority and social control in a regional trading communi ty

Diana F. deTreville, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Uni­versity of California, Berkeley, for research In Egypt on village and state and the change from a rural perspective

VOLUME 30, NUMBER 2

Muhammad Farah, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Uni­versity of Chicago, for research in Morocco on the trans· formation of Tangier, 1830-1976

Donald C. Holsinger, Ph.D. candidate in history, North­western University, for research in France and Algeria on the economic history of the Mzab in the 18th and 19th centuries

Katie Platt, Ph.D. candidate in social a:1thropology, London School of Economics and Political Science, for research in Tunisia on the fishing and agricultural economy, the religious activities, and the historical identity of the society of the Kerkenna Islands

WESTERN EUROPE

The following dissertation fellowships were awarded by the Doctoral Research Fellowship Selection Committee for Western Europe-Donald R. Hodgman (chairman), Gerard Braunthal, Richard F. Kuisel, Richard A. Littman, and Guenther Roth-at its meeting on March 5, 1976. It had been assisted by the Screening Committee-Michael Edel­stein, Maurice Garnier, Penny T. Gill, Lynn H. Lees, Rayna R. Reiter, and William H. Sewell, Jr.

Charlotte H. Aull, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Duke University, for research in the United Kingdom on ethnic nationalism in Wales

Sheila M. Cooper, Ph.D. candidate in history, Indiana Uni­versity, for research in the United Kingdom on the func­tions of women in 17th century East Anglia

Philip M. Dine, Ph.D. candidate in political science, Massa­chusetts Institute of Technology, for research in France and West Germany on trade union responses to immi­grant workers

David J. Hakken, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Ameri­can University, for research in the United Kingdom on the education of workers and the reproduction of working class culture

Martha C. Howell, Ph.D. candidate in history, Columbia University, for research in the Netherlands and West Germany on the labor history of women in the late medieval and early modern Rhenish urban economies

Anthony C. Masi, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Brown Uni­versity, for research in Italy on the socioeconomic and demographic impact of the location of the Italsider steel­works in southern Italy

Mary C. McCleod. Ph.D. candidate in architecture, Prince­ton University. for research in France on regional syndi­calism and the architecture and urban planning of Le Corbusier

Anne M. F. Meservey. Ph.D. candidate in art history. Co­lumbia University. for research in Italy on public painting programs under Fascism

Leslie P. Moch, Ph.D. candidate in history. University of Michigan. for research in France on new urbanites in Montpellier. 1850-1914

Eusebio M. Mujal-Leon, Ph.D. candidate in political science. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for research in Spain and France on Spanish Communists in the post­Franco era

Debra J. Perry. Ph.D. candidate in history. Yale University. fo~ r~search in France on the origins of literary Bohe­mlarusm

Marsha E. Renwanz. Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, Stan­ford University. for research in the United Kingdom on responses of the legal system to economic change in the Shetland Islands

JUNE 1976

Marsha L. Rozenblit. Ph.D. candidate in history. Columbia University, for research in Austria on the effects of urban­ization on the Jews of Vienna, 1867-1914

Raymond M. Seidelman, Ph.D. candidate in government, Cornell University, for research in Italy on Communism

Joel S. Singer. Ph.D. candidate in history. Uitiversity of California, Los An~eles. for research in West Germany on rural industriahzation and social change in south­western Germany

Peter M. Solar, Ph.D. candidate in economics. Stanford University. for research in Ireland on population growth and agrarian change among peasants, 1750-1850

Susan E. Waisbren, Ph.D. candidate in clinical psychology. University of California, Berkeley, for research in Den­mark on family reactions to the birth of severely mentally retarded children

Mark A. Willis, Ph.D. candidate in economics. Yale Univer­sity. for research in the United Kingdom and France on innovation and productivity growth in housing construc­tion

GRANTS TO MINORITY SCHOLARS FOR RESEARCH ON RACISM AND OTHER

SOCIAL FACTORS IN MENTAL HEALTH

The Committee on Grants to Minority Scholars for Re· search on Racism and Other Social Factors in Mental Health-Charles V. Willie (chairman), Rodolfo Alvarez, James P. Comer. Bernard M. Kramer. Cora Bagley Marrett. Alfonso Ortiz. Marian Radke Yarrow, and Lloyd H. RogIer -at its meeting on January 10, 1976 awarded grants to the following individuals:

Frank X. Acosta. assistant professor of psychiatry, of Medicine. Universitl of Southern California, search on reactions 0 Mexican-American and American patients to Mexican-American and American psychotherapists

School for re­Anglo­Anglo-

Benjamin P. Bowser. assistant dean. Graduate School, Cornell University, for research on community organiza­tion and public social interaction as intervening factors in the distribution of mental illness among Blacks in New York City

Jacqueline Fleming. fellow. Radcliffe Institute. for research on personality determinants of inhibition in interracial situations

Bernadette Gray.Little, assistant professor of psychology, University of North Carolina, for research on the effect of race and other relevant personality and social variables on responses to inequitable treatment

James Carl Martin. project director, Oklahoma Indian Education Needs Assessment Project. Oklahoma State University, for research on the use of defense mechanisms by Indian and non-Indian adolescents

Eligio R. Padilla. assistant professor of medical psychology. School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, for research on performance differences on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory by white and Mexican· Amencan subjects

Raymond E. Rainville, assistant professor of psychology, State University of New York at Oneonta, for research on covert racial prejudice in the speech of television foot· ball announcers

27

Albert Ramirez, associate professor of psychology, University of Colorado, for research on the influence of higher education on Chicanos

Roland M. Smith, assistant professor of history, Carnegie­Mellon University, for research on caste, class, and society on the Southwestern frontier, 1850-1880

GRANTS FOR INTERNATIONAL POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCH

AFRICA

The Joint Committee on African Studies, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies-Sara S. Berry and Aristide R. Zolberg (cochairmen), George C. Bond, Sekene Mody Cissoko, B. J. Dudley, James W. Fernandez, Jean Herskovits, and Edward W. Soja-at its meeting on March 5-6, 1976 made awards to the following individuals:

Beryl Larry Bellman, assistant professor of sociology, Uni­versity of California, San Diego, for research in Liberia on the Poro secret society bush schools and initiation cere­monies

Lee V. Cassanelli, assistant professor of history, University of Pennsylvania, for research in Somalia on the concepts of time and history in Somali society

Willy DeCraemer, associate professor of sociology, Uni­versity of Pennsylvania, for research in Zaire on the ori­gins and consequences of the occupational aspirations of secondary school students

Karen E. Fields, assistant professor of sociology, Boston University, for research in London, Malawi, and Zambia on the social and religious origins of evangelical Protes­tant missions in British Central Africa

Judith I. Gleason, adjunct associate professor of humanities, New York University, for research in Mali, Niger, and Nigeria on the history, culture, and religious ceremonies associated with the Niger River

Allen F. Isaacman, associate professor of history and Afro­American studies, University of Minnesota, for research in Mozambique, Malawi, and Zambia on a social and economic history of precolonial South Central Africa

Peter H. Koehn, assistant professor of political science, Uni­versity of Montana, for research in Ethiopia on the mo­bilization of local interests, on policy making, and on implementation under the new system of urban coopera­tives

Gayle H. Partmann, assistant professor of linguistics and sociology-anthropology, Oakland University, for research in the Ivory Coast on the perception and social evaluation of variation in spoken French in the region of Abidjan

David W. Robinson, Jr., assistant professor of history, Yale University, for research in Senegal and Mali on the talibe crusaders of the U marian movement

Janet L. Siskind, associate professor of anthropology, Rut­gers University, for research in Tanzania on the voluntary associations of Sukarma women

Constance R. Sutton, associate professor of anthropology, New York University, for research in Nigeria on Yoruba sex roles and ideology

C. Sylvester Whitaker, professor of political science, Brook­lyn College, City Umversity of New York, for research in Nigeria on the Constitutional Commission and the chal­lenge of civil reconstruction

28

CHINA

Research on Contemporary and Republican China

The Joint Committee on Contemporary China, sponsored wi th the American Council of Learned Societies-John Lewis (chairman), Richard Baum, Myron Cohen, Albert Feuerwerker, Ying-mao Kau, Philip A. Kuhn, Michel Ok­sen berg, and Dwight H. Perkins-at its meeting on Febru­ary 27-28, 1976 awarded grants to the following individuals:

Byung-joon Ahn, assistant professor of political science, Western Illinois University, for research in Hong Kong on the revolution in China's higher education, 1970-1975

Sherman G. Cochran, assistant professor of history, Cornell University, for research in Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong on bankers and politics in Republican China

Lowell Dittmer, assistant professor of political science, State University of New York at Buffalo, for research in Taiwan and Hong Kong on Ch'en Po-ta and the rise of agrarian radicalism

Tetsuya Kataoka, associate professor of government and public affairs, Southern Ilhnois University, Edwardsville, for research in Japan and Taiwan on politics and the social preconditions of land revolution in Kiangsi

Steven I. Levine, assistant professor of political science, Co­lumbia University, for research on world politics and revolutionary power in Manchuria, 1945-1949

Suzanne Ogden, assistant professor of political science, Northeastern University, for research on the theoretical basis of Chinese foreign policy

Nancy J. Olsen, assistant professor of sociology, University of Santa Clara, for research on authority patterns in Tai­wanese families

William L. Parish, Jr., assistant professor of sociology, Uni­versity of Chicago, for research on communes and markets in contemporary China

Paul G. Pickowicz, assistant professor of history, University of California, San Diego, for research on Ch'u Ch'iu-pai and the theory and practice of Marxist literary criticism in China

Chung-wen Shih, professor of Chinese, George Washington University, for research in the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong on 20th century Chinese drama

Research on the Chinese economy

At a meeting on January 30, 1976, the Subcommittee on Research on the Chinese Economy-Dwight H. Perkins (chairman), Robert F. Dernberger, Albert Feuerwerker. John G. Gurley, and K. C. Yeh-made its recommendations to the Joint Committee on Contemporary China concerning grants. The Joint Committee approved awards to the follow­ing individuals:

Shannon R. Brown, assistant professor of economics, Univer­sity of Maryland (Baltimore County), for research in Eng­land on the transfer of technology to China in the 19th century

Kang Chao, professor of economics, University of Wiscon­sin, for research in Taiwan and Japan on farming insti­tutions in China, 1370-1949

Sherman G. Cochran, assistant professor of history. Cornell University, for research in Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong on bankers and politics in Republican China

Nicholas R. Lardy, assistant professor of economics, Yale

VOLUME 30, NUMBEll 2

University. for research on welfare and growth in Chinese economic planning

Bruce L. Reynolds. assistant professor of economics. Union College. for research on Chinese supply planning. 1953-1975

Advanced training in Chinese studies

The Liaison Committee of the Joint Committee on Con­temporary China and the American Council of Learned Societies' Committee on Studies of Chinese Civilization­John Lewis and Frederic Wakeman (cochairmen). Jack L. Dull. Albert Feuerwerker. Donald J. Munro. and Dwight H. Perkins-at its meeting on February 29, 1976 made awards for advanced training in Chinese studies to the following individuals:

TRAINING IN EAST ASIA

Lillian M. Li. assistant professor of history. Swarthmore College. for the study of Japanese

John L. McCreery. assistant professor of anthropology. Mid­dlebury College. for the study of modern Chinese

J. Kenneth Olenik. assistant professor of history. Montclair State College. for the study of Japanese

Andres D. Onate. assistant professor of Oriental studies. University of Arizona, for the study of modern Chinese

Timothy A. Ross. associate professor of history. Arkansas State University. for the study of modern Chinese

Lynda N. Shaffer. assistant professor of history. Tufts Uni­versity. for the study of modern Chinese

Rodney L. Taylor. assistant professor of religious studies, University of Virginia. for the study of Japanese

INTERNSHIPS

Dennis M. Ahern, assistant professor of philosophy. Uni­versity of Maryland. for the study of naming and expres­sion in early Chinese philosophy and reli~ion

John Lagerway. assistant professor of Chmese. Wellesley College. for a study of Taoism

R. Keith Schoppa. assistant professor of history, Valparaiso University. for training in quantitative methods for the study of Chinese elites

Yu-ming Shaw. assistant professor of history. University of Notre Dame. for the study of Chinese reactions to Ameri· can missionary activities

Stephen F. Tobias. member. School of Social Science. Insti­tute for Advanced Study (Princeton. New Jersey) for the study of the relations of neo-Confucian and Buddhist thought to modern popular culture

JAPAN

.Under the program sponsored by the Joint Committee on Japanese Studies, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies. the Subcommittee on Grants for Re­search-Kozo Yamamura (chairman). Keith Brown. Marlene J. Mayo. Tetsuo Najita. T. J. Pempel. William F. Sibley­at its meeting on March 27. 1976 voted to make awards to the following individuals: Haru~i Befu. associate professor of anthropology. Stanford

UI.l1versity. for research in Japan on the Mizushima oil spIll and the environmental protection movement .

Mary Je~ Bowman. emeritus professor of economics and education. University of Chicago. for research in Japan

JUNE 1976

and the United States on career perceptions of Japanese youth

Robert E. Cole, associate professor of sociology. Univer­sity of Michigan. for research in Japan. Malaysia. and the United States on technological transfer and innova­tion in the Japanese context

Peter DullS. associate professor of history. Stanford Uni­versity. for research in Japan on the business community and imperialist expansion in Asia. 1905-1937

William B. Hauser. assistant professor of history. University of Rochester. for research in Japan and the United States on Osaka as a city in transition. 1600-1900

Thomas R. H . Havens. professor of history, Connecticut College. for research in Japan on the social history of war­time Japan, 1937-1945

Yutaka Horiba. associate professor of economics. Tulane University. for research 10 Japan and the United States on the skill intensities of Japanese foreign trade

Jan K. Kott. professor of English and comparative literature. State University of New York at Stony Brook, for research: in the United States and Japan on symbolism in no, ka­buki. kyogen, and bunraku

Akira Kubota. associate professor of political science, Uni­versity of Windsor (Windsor. Ontario). for research in the United States on the relationship between the bureau­cratic and the political elites in Japan

Jack G. Lewis, visiting assistant professor of political sci­ence. University of Illinois. for research in Japan and the United Stfltes on patterns in the political recruitment of Japanese city mayors

Chieko I. Mulhern. assistant professor of Japanese. Uni­versity of Illinois. for research in the United States on Higuchi Ichiyo and the tragedy of Japanese women

Herman Ooms. associate professor of history. University of Illinois, Chicago Circle. for research in Japan on early (1600-1670) Tokugawa thought. with emphasis on the school of Yamazaki Ansai

Karen Cole Smith, instructor of sociology. University of Pittsburgh. for research in Japan on sex-based differences in Japanese child-rearing values

Thomas C. Smith. professor of history and comparative studies. University of California. Berkeley. for research in Japan on sex selection in Tokugawa villages

H. Paul Varley. associate professor of history. Columbia University. for research in Japan on the Higashiyama epoch

KOREA

The Joint Committee.on Korean Studies. sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies-Chong-Sik Lee (chairman). John Jamieson. Gari K. Ledyard. Chae-Jin Lee. Youngil Lim. Richard Pearson-at its meeting on March 5-6, 1976 awarded 10 grants to individuals and two col­laborative research grants.

Joseph B. Axenroth, assistant professor of sociology. Central Connecticut State College, for research in Korea on family structure and delinquency among Korean children

Jonathan W. Best. Ph.D. candidate in fine arts and East Asian languages and civilization, Harvard University. for research on Buddhism in preunification Silla

Sung-il Choi, assistant professor of political science. Hobart and William Smith Colleges. for research on the institu­tionalization of the military coup and its relationship to democratization in South Korea

29

G. Cameron Hurst III, associate professor of history and East Asian studies, University of Kansas, for research in Korea on the Koryo aristocracy .

Hugh H. W. Kang, associate professor of history, Uni­versity of Hawaii, for research in Japan and Korea on the Yangban system

Kichung Kim, associate professor of English, San Jose State University, for research in Korea on the rise of the modern Korean novel, 1906-1918

K yong-Dong Kim, assistant professor of sociology and anthropology, North Carolina State University, for re­search on social stratification in North and South Korea

Young Chin Kim, associate professor of economics, Northern Illinois University, for research in Korea on the implica­tions of capital-utilization studies for development plan­ning in South Korea

C. Kenneth Quinones, assistant professor of history, St. Michael's College (Winooski, Vermont), for research on the origins of the Sedo Ch6nch'i thesis in Yi dynasty political history

Jang Hee Yoo, assistant professor of economics, Clark Uni­versity, for research in Korea on the demand for man­power in Korea's medical industry

C ollab01·ative ,·esearch grants

Penelope Canan Austin, Ph.D. candidate in sociology, Uni­versity of Denver, and

Choong-Hyun Paik, assistant professor of law, Seoul Na­tional University, for research in Korea on legal education in Korea from a sociolegal perspective

Larry L. Wade, professor of political science, University of California, Davis, and

Bong-Sik Kim, professor of public administration, Kyung Hee University (Seoul) for research in Korea on public policy and economic development

LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

Tlie Joint Committee on Latin American Studies, spon­sored with the American Council of Learned Societies­Albert O. Hirschman (chairman), Guillermo Bonfil Batalla, Francesca Cancian, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Alejandro Foxley, Peter H. Smith, Alfred Stepan and Hernan Vidal­at its meeting on March 18-20, 1976 awarded 33 grants to individuals and three collaborative research grants.

Jorge Balan, researcher, Center for Social Research, Torcu­ato Di Tella Institute, Buenos Aires, for research in Argentina on the regional economies of Tucuman and Mendoza, 1870-1930

Beba Carmen Balve, director, Center for Social Science Research, Buenos Aires, for research in Argentina on workers' strategy in 1974 and the class struggle in C6rdoba

Jose Pedro Barran, professor of history, Juan Zorrilla of San Martin Institute, Montevideo, for research in Uru­guay on the influence of the international market on the rural economy, 1905-1914

Douglas Carleton Bennett, instructor of ,political science, Temple University, for research in Mexlco on the regu­lation of the impact of multinational corporations

Bernardo Berdichewsky, visiting professor, University of Texas at Austin, for research in the United States on the process of agrarian reform in Chile and its repercussions on indigenous Araucanian peasants

Laurence Austin Breiner, assistant professor of English, Bost?n Univer~ity~ for research in Jamaica on the in­ventIon of an mdlgenous culture for the West Indies in

30

the poetry of Aime Cesaire, Edward Brathwaite, and Derek Walcott

Carmen Cariola, researcher, Latin American Council of the Social Sciences (Santiago), for research in the United Kingdom on the depression of 1930 and the politics of industrialization in Chile

Alfredo Costales Samaniego, director, Ecuadorian Institute of Anthropology (Quito), for research in Ecuador and Peru on the subordination and control of jungle-dwelling native minorities

Michael John Craton, professor of history, University of Waterloo (Waterloo, Ontario), for research in the West Indies and the United Kingdom on the history of the British West Indies, 1807-1838, with special reference to the slave rebellions of 1816 (Barbados), 1823 (Demerara), and 1831/2 Oamaica)

Norman Paul Girvan, director, Caribbean Centre for Cor­porate Research (Kingston), for research in Jamaica on the international aluminum-bauxite industry and the relations between multinational corporations and nation states

Charles A. Hale, professor of history, University of Iowa, for research in the United States and Mexico on "scientific politics" and liberalism in Mexico, 1867-1910

Barry William Higman, lecturer, University of the West Indies, King~ton, for research in the United States on African and Creole slave family systems in the British Caribbean

Dale Leonard Johnson, associate professor of sociology, Rutgers University, for research in Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Chile, and Portugal on social structure and the character of the state in dependent societies

Bolivar Lamounier, professor of political science, Brazilian Center for Analysis and Planning (Sao Paulo), for research in Brazil on authoritarianism and liberalism in Brazilian political thought

Beatriz Rosario Lavandera, assistant professor of anthropol­ogy, The Johns Hopkins University, for research in the Unitf\d States on the structure of the Buenos Aires speech community

Fabio Lucas, visiting professor, Indiana University, for re­search in Brazil on vanguard literature and ideological dependence

Joseph Roy Manyoni, assistant professor of anthropology, Carleton University, Ottawa, for research in Barbados on the labor movement, sociopolitical change, and ethnic relations in Caribbean societies

Viviane Brachet Marquez, professor of sociology, Center for Sociolo~ical Studies, El Colegio de Mexico, for research in Mexlco on technological innovation in Mexican enter­prises

Frank. Daniel McCann, associate professor of history, Uni­versity of New Hampshire, for research in Brazil on the Brazilian army in the Republican era

Alfredo Monza, professor of economics, Graduate School of Agricultural Economics, Buenos Aires, for research in Argentina on the role of the state in the distribution of income, 1940-1975

Benjamin Nahum, professor of history, Jose Batlle y Ord6iiez Institute (Montevideo), for research in Uruguay on the influence of the international market on rural society, 1905-1914

Guillermo A. O'Donnell, director, Center for the Study of the State and Society (Buenos Aires), for research in Argentina on the national bourgeoisie and its relations with the state, 1967-1975

Crisostomo Pizarro, professor of sociology, Center for the Study of Planning, Catholic University of Chile, for

VOLUME 30, NUMBER 2

research in Chile on the role of pressure groups in the formation of public policy .

Carlos Real de AZlla, researcher, Cen ter for InformatlOn and Social Studies of Uruguay (Montevideo), for research on the relationship between Uruguay's conservative ideo­logical traditions and its neoconservative sociopolitical alliances

Zulma Recchini de Lattes, as~ociate researcher, Center for Population Studies, Bariloche Foundation, San Carlos de Bariloche (Argentina), for research in Argentina on the economically active female population in Argentina, Bolivia, and Paraguay

Kenneth Evan Sharpe, assistant professor of political science, Swarthmore College, for research in Mexico on the impact of multinational corporations, with special reference to the agribusiness and automotive sectors

Joseph Sommers, professor of literature, University of Cali­fornia, San Diego, for research in the United States on problems of ideology in the modern Latin American novel

Juan Carlos Torre, researcher, Center for Social Research, Torcuato Di Tella Institute (Buenos Aires), for research in Argentina on the state and the development of the contemporary labor movement

Pilar Vergara, professor of economics, Center for the Study of Planning, Catholic University of Chile, for research in Chile on the role of the state in the process of develop­ment

Hebe Vessuri, Caracas, for research in Venezuela on inequal­ity, hierarchy, and the ideological system in the Santiago del Estero district, Argentina

David Vinas, visiting professor, Universi ty of California, San Diego, for research in Argentina on the liberal city in Latin America, 1890-1910

Judith Anne Weiss, assistant professor of Spanish, Mount Allison University (Sackville, New Brunswick), for re­search in Cuba on the Escambray Theatre Group

Peter Edward Winn, assistant professor of history, Princeton University, for research in the United States on the Batllista state, the export economy, and Uruguayan de­velopment, 1903-1933

Collaborative research grants

Enzo Faletto, researcher, Latin American Council of the Social Sciences (Santiago), and

Julieta Kirkwood, researcher, Latin American Council of the Social Sciences (Santiago), for research in Chile on anarchy and social protest as reflected in literature at the beginning of the 20th century

Jose Luis Romero, professor of history, University of Buenos Aires, and

Luis Alberto Romero, researcher, Center for Urban and Regional Studies, Torcuato Di Tella Institute (Buenos Aires), for research in Argentina on the urban popular classes in Latin America before industrialization, 1850-1920

Helen Icken Safa, professor of anthropology, Rutgers Uni­versi ty, and

Heleieth Saffioti, professor of sociology, Faculty of Philos­ophy, Science, and Letters of Araraquara (Araraquara, Sao Paulo), for research in Brazil and the United States on a comparison of female blue-collar workers

NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST

T he Joint Committee on the Near and Middle East, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies

JUNE 1976

-Marvin Zonis (chairman), Edmund Burke III, Shmuel N. Eisenstadt, Serif Mardin, Frances E. Peters, William B. Quandt, Amal Rassam, Nur O. Yalman, Abdelkader Zghal -at its meeting on February 21-22, 1976 awarded grants to the following individuals: Feroz Ahmad, associate professor of history, University of

Massachusetts, for research in Turkey on the young Turks at war, 1914-1918

Hamid Algar, associate professor of Near Eastern Studies, University of California, Berkeley, for research in Turkey, Syria, Afghanistan, and the Soviet Union on the history, devotional practices, and present status of the Naqshbandi Sufi order

Sarah Moment Atis, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for research on the possibilities and limitations of literature as a source for sociological research in modern Turkey (renewal of 1975 award)

William O. Beeman, assistant professor of anthropology, Brown University, for research in Iran on village musical and theatrical traditions

Alan W. Fisher, associate professor of history, Michigan State University, for research in Turkey on the slave trade in the Black Sea and the Mediterranean area, 1450-1700

Arnold H. Green, assistant professor of history, American University in Cairo, for research on Sufi Brotherhoods in Tunisia from 1750 to the present

Tamara M. Green, assistant professor of classics, Hunter College, City University of New York, for research in Turkey concerning the effect of Moslem domination on the beliefs and cult practices of the Sabians of Harran

R . Stephen Humphreys, visiting assistant professor of his­tory, University of Chicago (on leave from State Univer­sity of New York at Buffalo), for research on concepts of change and causation in medieval Arabic historiography before Ibn Khaldiin

.T. C. Hurewitz, director of the Middle East Institute and pro­fessor of government, Columbia University, for research on the Middle East and North Africa in world politics

Nikki Keddie, professor of history, University of California, Los Angeles, for research in the United Kingdom and Iran on the modern history and current structure of handicraft and carpet production in Iran

Malcolm H. Kerr, professor of political science, University of California, Los Angeles, for research in Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco on the politics of higher education in Egypt and North Africa

Laurence D. Loeb, assistant professor of anthropology, Uni­versity of Utah, for research in Israel on cultural persis­tence among the Habbanite Jews

K. Allin Luther, professor of Persian studies, University of Michigan, for research in Iran on a historiographical analysis of Persian and other historical texts of the late 12th and 13th centuries

Bruce McGowan, assistant professor of history, University of Michigan, for research in Austria and Turkey on the spread of commercial agriculture in the Ottoman Europe before 1783

Jon E. Mandaville, associate professor of history and Middle Eastern studies, Portland State University, for research in Yemen on the Ottoman court records, 1538-1917

Irfan A. Shahid, professor of Arabic, Georgetown Univer­sity, for research in Jordan and Syria on Arab-Byzantine relations from the reign of Constantine to the reign of Heraclius

Morris Singer, professor of economics, University of Con-

31

necticut, for research in England and Turkey on Turkey's economic development from 1960 to the present

Donald L. Stilo, assistant professor of Persian, University of 'California, Los Angeles. for research on the grammar and lexicon of Tati language materials and their rela­tions to other Northwestern Iranian languages

Gernot L. Windfuhr, professor of Iranian studies, University of Michigan, for research on West Iranian dialects

SOUTH ASIA

The Joint Committee on South Asian Studies, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies-Ainslie T. Embree (chairman), Marc Galanter, Stanley J. Hegin­both am, McKim Marriott, Karl H. Potter, Rosane Rocher, and John W. Thomas-at its meeting on February 20-21, 1976 awarded grants to the following individuals:

Aziz Ahmad, professor of Islamic studies, University of Toronto, for research in the United Kingdom, France, and West Germany on the social history of Islamic India

J. H. Broomfield, professor of history, University of Michi­gan, for research on economic entrepreneurship and social mobility in eastern India

Carlo Coppola, associate professor of Hindi-Urdu and linguistIcs, Oakland University, for research in Canada on the Urdu marsiyah

Joseph W. Elder, professor of sociology and South Asian studies, University of Wisconsin, tor research on the changing social structure of rural India

James M. Freeman, associate professor of anthropology, San Jose State University, for research on the effect of rapid urbanization on the life styles of Indian villagers

Stewart N. Gordon, senior fellow, American Institute of In­dian Studies (New Delhi), for research in the United King­dom and the Netherlands on kingship and public order in 18th century India

Jean Grossholtz, professor of political s(ience, Mount Hol­yoke College, for research on political parties and political participation in Sri Lanka

Tom G. Kessenger, associate professor of history and South Asian studies, University of Pennsylvania. for research

in the United States and the United Kingdom on a ma­jor Punjabi family, 1700-1970

David Lorenzen, research professor of Asian and North African studies, El Colegio de Mexico, for research on the relation between religious change and cultural domi­nation in medieval India, 16th century Mexico, and medieval North Africa

Michelle B. McAlpin, assistant professor of economics, Tufts University, for research in the United States and the United Kingdom on responses to recurrent famines in India

Robert Perimbanayagam, assistant professor of sociology, Hunter College, City University of New York, for re­search in Sri Lanka on mental illness and its treatment in northern Sri Lanka

Lloyd and Susanne Rudolph, professors of political science, University of Chicago, for research on the diary of Amar Singh

D. Seyfort Ruegg, professor of Asian languages and litera­ture, University of Washington, for research in the United Kingdom and France on the history of tKe Madhyamaka school of Mayayana Buddhism

Heraliwala Seneviratne, assistant professor of anthropology, University of Virginia, for research in Sri Lanka on the contemporary Buddhist monkhood

Jim G. Shaffer, assistant professor of anthropology, Case­\A/estern Reserve University, for research in Pakistan on Harappan pottery

Bam Dev Sharda, assistant professor of sociology, University of Utah, for research on the changing social structure of rural India

Lucy C. Stout, Ph.D. candidate in history, University of Cali­fornia, Berkeley, for research in England on social change in northern India, 1857-1919

Helen E. Ullrich, visiting scholar, University of Texas at Austin, for research on urban multilingualism in Banga­lore

Alex Wayman, professor of Sanskrit, Columbia University, for research in Switzerland on Buddhist logic from the 4th to the 14th centuries

Sheila Weiner, research fellow in art, Wellesley College, for research on the foundations of early Hindu art

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL

605 THIRD AVENUE. NEW YORK. N.Y. 10016

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

Directors, 1976: BRIAN J. L. BERRY. PETER B. DEWS. ROBERT EISNER. LEON D. EpSTEIN. JACOB J. FELDMAN. CLIFFORD GEERTZ. PHILIP W . JACKSON.

HAROLD H. KELLEY. LAWRENCE R. KLEIN, FRANKLIN W. KNIGHT. WILLIAM H. KRUSKAL. OTTO N . LARSEN. CHARLES E. LINDBLOM. GARDNER LINDlEY.

LEON LIPSON. CORA BAGLEY MARRETT. HERBERT MCCLOSKY. SALLY FALK MOORE. MURRAY G. MURPHEY, PAUL H. ~IUSSEN, GUY H. ORCUTT. SAMUEL

C. PATTERSON. JOHN W. PRATT. ALICE S. ROSSI, PEGGY R. SANDAY. ELEANOR BERNERT SHELDON. JANET T . SPENCE. ALBERT J. STUNKARD, JOliN M .

THOMPSON. HARRIET ZUCKERMAN

O{jicel'S and Staff: ELEA ... OR BERNERT SHELDON, Presidellt; DAVID JENNESS, DAVID L. SILLS, Executive Associates; RONALD P. ABELES, ALVIA Y. BRANCH,

LAWRENCE R. CARTER. ROBERT A . GATES. ;-'fARTHA A. GEI·IIART. LOUIS 'VOLF GCODMAI' . PATRICK G. MADDOX. ROBERTA B. MILLER. ROWLAND

L. MITCHELL. JR., ROBERT PARKE. PATRICIA R . PESS.\R. SUSAI' J. PH ARR. PETER B . READ, DAVID SEIDM AI' . DAVID L. SZANTO .... ROlL\NN A. VAN

DUSEN; MARTHA W . FORMAN, Assistallt Treasurer; CATHERI NE V. ROI'NA:N. Fillflllcial Secretary; NANCY L. CAR~HCHAEL. Librarian

32