'To relate knowledge and action': The impact of the rockefeller foundation on foreign policy thinking during America's rise to globalism 1939-1945

Minerva

Volumn 40, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 235-263

  Parmar, Inderjeet ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 27744468948     PISSN: 00264695     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1019572526066     Document Type: Article

References (139)

1. Robert F. Arnove (ed.), Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism. The Foundations at Home and Abroad (Boston: GK Hall and Co., 1980). Most studies of philanthropy and public policy, however, focus entirely on domestic affairs;
2. this has been most recently demonstrated by Judith Sealander, Private Wealth and Public Life: Foundation Philanthropy and the Reshaping of Social Policy from the Progressive Era to the New Deal (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997).
3. Lawrence Shoup and William Minter, Imperial Brain Trust. The Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1977).
4. Arnove (ed.), op. cit. note 3;
5. Edward H. Berman, The Influence of the Carnegie, Ford and Rockefeller Foundations on American Foreign Policy: The Ideology of Philanthropy (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983).
6. Stephen Gill, American Hegemony and Trilateralism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), highlights the importance of Rockefeller interests in promoting 'transnationalism' during the 1970s and 1980s.
7. Barbara Howe, 'The Emergence of Scientific Philanthropy, 1900-1920: Origins, Issues, Outcomes', in Arnove (ed.), op. cit. note 3, 34 (25-54).
8. Arnove (ed.), op. cit. note 3.
9. Eldon J. Eisenach, The Lost Promise of Progressivism (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1994), 131.
10. Emily S. Rosenberg, Spreading the American Dream. American Economic and Cultural Expansion, 1890-1945 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1982);
11. William E. Leuchten-berg, 'Progressivism and Imperialism: The Progressive Movement and American Foreign Policy, 1898-1916', Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 39 (3), (1952-1953), 483-504.
12. Gramsci cited by Enrico Augelli and Craig N. Murphy, 'Gramsci and International Relations', in S. Gill (ed.), Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 128.
13. See also, Gwyn A. Williams, 'The Concept of "Egemonia" in the Thought of Antonio Gramsci', Journal of the History of Ideas, 21 (4), (1960), 586-599. This article uses rival theories as an aid to understanding the historical material. It is clear that objective observation and analysis is problematic, especially in the social sciences. Facts do not speak for themselves. Testing rival theories against historical evidence, therefore, allows us to ask searching questions from a range of perspectives, permitting a wider range of factors to be taken into account before reaching conclusions.
14. Stuart Hall (ed.), The Hard Road to Renewal (London: Verso, 1988), 166.
15. Arnove (ed.), op. cit. note 3;
16. Berman, op. cit. note 5.
17. Lewis A. Coser, Men of Ideas. A Sociologist's View (New York: Free Press, 1965).
18. Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell-Smith (eds.), Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1971), 146.
19. Arnove (ed.), op. cit. note 3;
20. Berman, op. cit. note 5;
21. Thomas R. Bates, 'Gramsci and the Theory of Hegemony', Journal of the History of Ideas, 36 (2), (1975), 351-366.
22. For fuller discussion of the concept of 'state spirit', see Hoare and Nowell-Smith (eds.), op. cit. note 14.
23. For the historic role of the foreign policy establishment, see Joseph Kraft, Profiles in Power. A Washington Insight (New York: New American Library, 1966);
24. and Godfrey Hodgson, 'The Establishment', in America in Our Time (New York: Vintage Books, 1978), 111-133.
25. Hoare and Nowell-Smith (eds.), op. cit. note 14, 258-259.
26. Gramsci, quoted in S. Gill, American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 122.
27. Barry D. Karl and Stanley N. Katz, 'Foundations and Ruling Class Elites', Daedalus, 116 (1), (1987), 1-40. Karl and Katz's views have become influential in the study of foundations, as shown by the special edition of Daedalusin which their views appeared in the late 1980s; by their acknowledged influence on Ellen Condliffe Lagemann, The Politics of Knowledge. The Carnegie Corporation, Philanthropy, and Public Policy (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1989), and by a special issue of Minerva, 35 (3), (1997). Their arguments may be considered to be a form of 'sophisticated conservatism', or 'critical insider-ism'; they echo the 'managerial thesis' of several decades ago, suggesting that the separation of ownership and control of foundations profoundly altered their raison d'etre and activities.
28. Michael Hogan, 'Corporatism', Journal of American History, 77 (1), (1990), 153- 160;
29. see also, Hogan, The Marshall Plan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989);
30. Ellis W. Hawley, 'The Discovery and Study of a "Corporate Liberalism" ' Business History Review, 12 (3), (1978), 309-320;
31. and Thomas J. McCormick, 'Drift or Mastery? A Corpor-atist Synthesis for American Diplomatic History', Reviews in American History, 10 (4), (1982), 318-330.
32. Michael Hogan, A Cross of Iron: Harry S. Truman and the Origins of the National Security State, 1945-1954 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
33. T. Skocpol, States and Social Revolutions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979);
34. see also, P. Evans, T. Skocpol et al. (eds.), Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985);
35. S. Krasner, Defending the National Interest (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978);
36. and M. Mann, States, War and Capitalism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1988).
37. These initiatives have been selected because they represent the best-funded. In fact, the initiatives featured almost exhaust the number carried out by the RF. The only programme not reviewed here has been analysed in Parmar, 'The Carnegie Corporation and the Mobilisation of Opinion, 1939-1945', op. cit. note 2.
38. Shoup and Minter, op. cit. note 4;
39. Kraft, op. cit. note 15;
40. Hodgson, 'The Establishment', op. cit. note 15;
41. Max Holland, 'Citizen McCloy', The Wilson Quarterly, 15 (3), (1991), 22-42.
42. Carnegie Corporation, New York (hereafter CC), Grant Files, Box 187: International Relations; Rare Book and Manuscript Collection, Butler Library, Columbia University; N. Peffer, 'Memorandum on Carnegie Grants in the Field of International Relations', 17 April 1942. By 1939, the journal, Foreign Affairs, had 15,000 subscribers.
43. RFA, RG1 Projects Series 100 International; Box 97, Folder 100S, CFR 1936-1937; W.H. Mallory (CFR) to E.E. Day (RF), 11 January 1936. By 1945, there were several groups approaching completion of their deliberations, including the Group on Legal Problems of Reconstruction, and the Cartel Group. Other groups included US-Soviet Relations, The Export of Technology, and Compulsory Military Training. See RG1 Projects Series 100 International, Box 97, Folder 100S, CFR, 1945, Application for funds, W.H. Mallory (CFR) to J.H. Willits (RF), 15 January 1945.
44. The group included economists Alvin Hansen and Jacob Viner, historians W.L. Langer and James Shotwell, and lawyers and businessmen, John Foster Dulles and Norman Davis.
45. Shoup and Minter, op. cit. note 4, 120-122. The War-Peace Studies project was divided into five study groups: Economic and Financial; Political; Armaments; Territorial; and Peace Aims. Each group had a designated leader and a research secretary, with an overall steering committee allocating topics to each group, a member of which produced an initial statement of the problem which, after protracted discussion, was written up and forwarded to the President and the State Department.
46. Shoup and Minter, op. cit. note 4.
47. William P. Bundy, The Council on Foreign Relations and Foreign Affairs. Notes for a History (New York: CFR, 1994), 22.
48. Shoup and Minter, op. cit. note 4;
49. G. William Domhoff, The Power Elite and the State (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1990);
50. I. Parmar, 'The Issue of State Power: A Case Study of the Council on Foreign Relations', Journal of American Studies, 29 (1), (1995), 73-95. The Moscow Agreement of October 1943 was the first meeting of the three big powers - United States, Russia and Britain - during the Second World War. It set up the European Advisory Commission that worked out the basic principles for the treatment of post-war Germany: the destruction of German military power and of the Nazi party, the punishment of war criminals, the zones of control, and the arrangements for reparations payments.
51. RFA, RG1 Projects Series 100 International, Box 99, Folder 897; Bowman to Willits, 23 November 1943. The CFR memoranda had dealt with reparations (which the State Department had nothing on at all), forms of post-war aid to Russia; and on confederation in Russia.
52. Kirk was member of the Yale Institute of International Studies, a War-Peace Studies project research secretary and independent consultant to the State Department. RFA, Memorandum of conversation, Kirk and Willits, 22 November 1943, in same file as Bowman's letter, op. cit. note 31.
53. RFA, Interview, Pasvolsky and Willits; 3 December 1943, in same file as Bowman letter, op. cit. note 31.
54. Shoup and Minter, op. cit. note 4;
55. RFA, Edward Stettinius (Under-Secretary of State) to J.H. Willits (RF), 24 November 1943, in same file as Bowman to Willits, 23 November 1943, op. cit. note 31.
56. RFA, Fosdick to Mallory, 8 October 1946, as for Bowman, op. cit. note 31, but Folder 898.
57. William P. Bundy, The Council on Foreign Relations and Foreign Affairs (New York: CFR, 1994), 22.
58. RFA, RG1 Projects Series 100 International, Box 99, Folder 100S; CFR - War Problems, 1939-1940, Tracy B. Kittredge to Joseph H. Willitts, 12 November 1940.
59. Peter Grose, Continuing the Inquiry: The Council on Foreign Relations from 1921 to 1996 (New York: CFR, 1996), 23-26.
60. Shoup and Minter, op. cit. note 4;
61. Parmar, op. cit. note 2. One of the most significant ways in which officials encouraged the wide dissemination of policy ideas was through the Carnegie Corporation-financed CFR programme of regional committees, officially known as the Committees on Foreign Relations.
62. For further elucidation of this theme, see Parmar, op. cit. note 30.
63. See FPA data in RFA files, RG1.1 Series 200; and in RG III 2 Q, Box 1; RG III Series 910, Box 7.
64. See IPR data in RFA files, RG1.1 Series 200 US (IPR), Boxes 350-351. See also, Paul F. Hooper, 'The Institute of Pacific Relations and the Origins of Asian and Pacific Studies', Pacific Affairs, 61 (1), (1988), 98-121.
65. Owen Lattimore of the IPR, for example, joined the CFR's War-Peace Studies Project in the State Department, headed the US Office of War Information's San Francisco office, and served as political adviser to Chiang Kai-shek. General Frank L. McCoy, President of the FPA, also served in the War-Peace Project and in the US Office of War Information.
66. RFA, RG1.1 Series 200, Box 334, Folder 3975 for citations of comments by Nelson Rockefeller, Co-ordinator of Inter-American Affairs in the Executive Office of the President, and by Dean Acheson, Assistant Secretary of State; memorandum, TB Kittredge, 'Program of the Foreign Policy Association', 29 October 1941.
67. Figures compiled from Annual Reports of the Foundation.
68. George M. Beckmann, 'The Role of the Foundations', The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 356 (November 1964), 12-22.
69. As Nadel and Rourke argue, the political sensitivity of an issue is a key determinant of the State Department's historical role in 'organizing' private campaigns, thereby concealing the Department's responsibility for various initiatives. See, Mark V. Nadel and Francis E. Rourke, 'Bureaucracies', in Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby (eds.), Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 5, Governmental Institutions and Processes (London: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1975), 373-440.
70. RFA, Internal correspondence and memoranda, particularly 'FPA request for renewal', by R.B. Fosdick, 6 August 1943.
71. William C. Olson and A.J.R. Groom, International Relations Then and Now (London: Routledge, 1991), 75-76.
72. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Yale University - International Relations, Box 416 Folder 4941; funding notes, 17 May 1935 and 16 May 1941.
73. See Yale Institute Annual Report, 1942 in RFA, Box 417, Folder 4957, in same series as note 50.
74. RFA; see Inter-Office memo by J.H. Willits, 29 February 1940; Frederick S. Dunn (Director of YIIS) to Willits, 2 June 1941; Dunn to Willits, 11 August 1944; and YIIS Annual Report, 1938-1939, p. 3;
75. all in Boxes 416 and 417, Folders 4944, 4947 and 4955. See also, William T.R. Fox, The American Study of International Relations (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1966) for the policy-oriented character of YIIS, of which Fox was a member.
76. Olson and Groom, op. cit. note 49, 99.
77. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 416, Folder 4944, Memorandum, 'Yale University - Research in International Relations', 6 March 1940.
78. Figures compiled from annual reports and other internal RF sources.
79. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 416, Folder 4944, Memorandum, 29 February 1940. According to Fox, Dunn's motive, to advance practical knowledge to enhance US national security, ensured foundation support. The RF's Director of the Division of Social Sciences, Joseph H. Willits, wrote that Spykman's ideas showed wisdom, maturity, 'hard-headedness, realism and scholarly standards'; op. cit. note 49, 50-51.
80. YIIS Annual Report, 3-4, 1942.
81. YIIS Annual Report, 1-4, 1942 (author's emphasis).
82. RFA, Memorandum, 'A Security Policy for Postwar America', 8 March 1945, in RFA RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 417, Folder 4948.
83. See review, 'The Gyroscope of Pan-Americanism', November 1943, in RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 416, Folder 4946. Written by the historian Samuel Flagg Bemis, The Latin American Policy of the United States, published in 1943, was described by a Foundation reviewer as 'readable and provocative'. Bemis claimed that US policy towards Latin America was a benevolent, or 'protective imperialism, designed to protect, first the security of the Continental Republic ... and the security of the entire New World, against intervention by the imperialistic powers of the Old World'. It was, he continued, 'an imperialism against imperialism. It did not last long and it was not really bad'.
84. This was a veiled reference to the confidential work of the Council on Foreign Relations for the State Department. See RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 417, Folder 4947; see Dunn's covering letter to Willits, 23 December 1943, which accompanied his memorandum, in which he tries to show what a university institute can achieve 'in spite of Leo Pasvolsky's one hundred and one experts'.
85. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 417, Folder 4947.
86. RFA, see Annual Report for 1941-1942, 18-19; 25.
87. RFA, see YIIS Annual Report 1945-1946.
88. RFA, Annual Report, 14-15, 1943.
89. Louis Morton, 'National Security and Area Studies. The Intellectual Response to the Cold War', Journal of Higher Education, 34 (2), (1963), 142-147.
90. See David Reynolds, Britannia Overruled: British Policy and World Power in the Twentieth Century (London: Longman, 1991), 173;
91. and Olson and Groom, op. cit. note 49, 100.
92. See also William T.R. Fox, The Superpowers: The United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union - Their Responsibilities for Peace (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1944) and Nicholas J. Spykman, America's Strategy in World Politics: The United States and the Balance of Power (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1942).
93. John A. Thompson, 'Another Look at the Downfall of "Fortress America" ', Journal of American Studies, 26 (3), (1992), 393-408, at 401.
94. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 416, Folder 4945; Lambert Davis (Harcourt, Brace) to George W. Gray (RF). So influential, that it was also produced in Braille.
95. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 416, Folder 4945.
96. Olson and Groom, op. cit. note 49, 99.
97. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 417, Folder 4948; 'Radio Program Notice', 6 April 1945.
98. Olson and Groom, op. cit. note 49, 106-111.
99. Olson and Groom claim that the publication of this journal was 'one of the most significant events in the history of the field [of international relations]'; op. cit. note 49, 118.
100. Hadley Cantril, Gauging Public Opinion (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1944, 1947), vii-viii.
101. Eldon J. Eisenach, The Lost Promise of Progressivism (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1994).
102. V.O . K e y , J r ., Public Opinion and American Democracy (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965), 17.
103. In the Annual Report, 1940, 61, the President of the Foundation argued that 'Nations fight not only on military, economic, and diplomatic fronts: they fight with words and pictures'. It was with the impact of 'words' that Cantril was principally concerned, particularly those used by American leaders regarding the war and the post-war world.
104. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Princeton University-Public Opinion, Box 270, Folder 3216; Memorandum, 5 December 1939.
105. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 270, Folder 3216; funding note, 12 July 1940.
106. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 270, Folder 3216; 'A Proposed Study of the Effect of the War on Public Opinion in the United States', attached to a letter from Cantril to John Marshall (Rockefeller Foundation) 13 November 1939.
107. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 270, Folder 3218, 'Application for Renewal of Public Opinion Study', attached to a letter to John Marshall. Cantril went to great pains to demonstrate the power of public opinion poll results, analysed scientifically. 'The practical leader', he suggested, 'when confronted with a real problem, could avail himself of this information'. He further commented that such information could be used to 'guide education' and to help government to 'predict the resistances they would meet in formulating peace proposals; it would show what education and propaganda is necessary . . . to get people to accept a "just peace" . . .'. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 270, Folder 3216; Cantril to Marshall, 28 November 1939.
108. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 270, Folder 3218; Cantril to Marshall, 9 September 1940.
109. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 271, Folder 3228; 'Comparison of Opinions of Those Who Do and Do Not Listen to the President's Radio Talks: Confidential Report', by Hadley Cantril, 17 September 1941.
110. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 271, Folder 3228; 'The People Who Would Join a "Keep-Out-of-War" Party: Confidential Report', by Hadley Cantril, 21 November 1941.
111. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200S Subseries 200; RF report on Cantril's work, 'The Changing Attitude Toward War', 16 January 1941.
112. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 271, Folder 3229; 'Confidential Report to Rockefeller Foundation on Work of the Office of Public Opinion Research of Princeton University from 1940 Through 1943', 14 December 1943, by Hadley Cantril.
113. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 270, Folder 3220; Interview, Cantril, Gallup and Marshall, 28 May 1941.
114. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 270, Folder 3221; Cantril to Marshall, 30 April 1942.
115. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 270, Folder 3224; Interview, Cantril and Marshall, 29 January 1943.
116. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 270, Folder 3225; Cantril to Marshall, 4 October 1943.
117. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 270, Folder 3225; Interview, Cantril and Marshall, 16 December 1943. See, for example, Franklin D Roosevelt Presidential Library (New York), PPF 8229 - Hadley Cantril; FDR to Cantril, 12 November 1942. For Cantril's political loyalty to FDR, David K. Niles to Grace Tully, 11 November 1942, in the same file.
118. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 270, Folder 3224; Memorandum, 'Proposed Work of Office of Public Opinion Research on Post-War Reconstruction', by Hadley Cantril, 10 February 1943.
119. RFA RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 270, Folder 3218; Cantril to Marshall, 3 August 1940.
120. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 270, Folder 3218; Cantril to Marshall, 10 December 1940.
121. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 270, Folders 3219 and 3221; Marshall to Cantril, 21 March 1941; and internal memo by J. Willits, 6 January 1942.
122. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 270, Folder 3218; Evarts Scudder of CDAAA to Marshall, 27 November 1940, thanking him for the report. Cantril also supplied reports to several other special interest groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers, trades unions, and farm organizations. See, RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 270, Folder 3224; Memorandum, 'Proposed Work of Office ...', 10 February 1943. The CDAAA was, itself, an ad hoc group of CFR members, led by William Allen White (editor of the Kansas Emporia Gazette) at the suggestion of FDR; see Michael Wala, The Council on Foreign Relations and American Foreign Policy in the Early Cold War (Providence: Berghahn Books, 1994).
123. Sulzberger was the publisher of The New York Times and a Rockefeller Foundation trustee and executive committee member. Markel later became a public opinion expert, publishing a book on the subject, Public Opinion and Foreign Policy (New York: Harper, 1949).
124. The only negative remarks about Cantril's work, or rather about his alleged methods, were made by Paul Lazarsfeld, the Columbia University public opinion expert. Lazarsfeld claimed, in a remarkable outburst, that Cantril behaved like 'a lower East-side Jew Kike on the make'. See RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 200S, Box 270, Folder 3224; Interview Note, Lazarsfeld and Willits, 29 March 1943.
125. See Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion (New York: Macmillan, 1941); and Edward Bernays, 'The Engineering of Consent', in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 250, March 1947, 113-128.
126. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200, Box 250, Folder 990; Willits to Earle, 9 January 1942.
127. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 US, Box 410, Folder 4851; Universities Committee on Post-War International Problems - Harvard University, 'Universities Committee: Statement of Purposes', November 1942. See also Perry's letter to Leo Pasvolsky on the striking similarities of outlook of academics and policymakers, 26 February 1943, in National Archives (College Park, Maryland), RG 59, General Records of the Department of State.
128. Records of Leo Pasvolsky, Special Assistant to the Secretary of State, 1938-1945, Box 3, File 12.
129. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200 US, Box 410, Folder 4851; Record of Interview, Willits and Perry, 8 October 1942.
130. RFA, RG1.1 Projects Series 200; Institute for Advanced Study, Box 350, Folder 4167; Earle to Lynd, 6 July 1940.
131. Robert S. Lynd, Knowledge For What? (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1940).
132. Telephone conversation, Willits and William W. Lockwood, 9 October 1940, in same file as Earle's letter to Lynd, op. cit. note 105. For further details of Lynd's proposal, see Parmar, op. cit. note 2. Lynd's application was also rejected by the Carnegie Corporation, after it had been vetted by no fewer than twenty-six referees, twenty-one of whom had been positive about the proposal.
133. Kraft, op. cit. note 15.
134. Beckmann, op. cit. note 46, notes a similar role of Rockefeller philanthropy in regard to 'non-Western' studies.
135. For the impact of foundation funding on political science, see Peter J. Seybold, 'The Ford Foundation and the Triumph of Behavioralism in Political Science', in Arnove (ed.), op. cit. note 3, 269-304;
136. for sociology, see Donald Fisher, 'The Role of Philanthropic Foundations in the Reproduction and Production of Hegemony: Rockefeller Foundations and the Social Sciences', Sociology, 17 (2), (1983), 206-233;
137. and Fisher, 'American Philanthropy and the Social Sciences in Britain, 1919-1939: The Reproduction of Conservative Ideology', Sociological Review, 28 (2), (1980), 277-315.
138. See, for example, McCormick, 'Drift or Mastery?' op.cit. note 19;
139. and Thomas Ferguson, 'From Normalcy to New Deal: Industrial Structure, Party Competition, and American Public Policy in the Great Depression', International Organisation, 38 (1), (1984), 41-94.