In a period of rapid social and political change, it is highly probable that academic laissez faire will result in temporary shortages in new areas of interest such as Chinese communism, urban ghettos, Afro-American studies, and radical economics. However, the American educational system is more flexible than most in responding to such felt needs.

The real question is whether the system discriminates against certain types of social criticism by means of the two types of control that are exercised: criteria for appointments and support for research. I do not propose to examine the former, although a think a case could be made for deliberately seeking a greater variety of social and political views in the Center for International Affairs and the departments from which it draws its members.

The nature of research is, however, at the heart of most of the questions raised about institutions such as the CFIA.

The Rebuttal

In assessing a research environment it is necessary but not sufficient to insist on the principles of academic freedom. These imply that an existing group of scholars should receive support for whatever they want to study and be uninhibited by outside pressures in the pursuit of their ideas. Since research funds are not unlimited, judgment must be made by either the wholesaler of funds (foundations and government) or the retailer (the research group itself) as to the relative merits of claimants.

Even when it works well, this process leaves two questions to be answered: 1) does the system concentrate research support too heavily on established scholars and traditional fields to the detriment of younger men and new ideas? 2) are there some important topics and ideas that are not even considered because no one outside the system puts them forward?

These questions underlie radicals' criticism of "the system" as a whole and makes them suspicious of the adequacy of the answer of "academic freedom" if it means freedom to ignore questions they think are important.

In approaching these questions, it should be accepted at the outset that the donors preferences and criteria do not agree with the recipients', either individually or in the aggregate. It is well known that natural science gets more adequate support than social science, which in turn fares better than most of the humanities. The same result is almost inevitable within fields.

The notable feature of the American system in comparison to Western European or Communist countries, however, is not how heavy the influence of the established system is, but how much flexibility there is within it. Even though some branches of government and some donors have a narrow definition of their interest, the availability of such support frees up other funds for less popular research areas. A research institution should therefore not be tested by whether it accepts funds that are limited to particular uses, but by the quality of its total product.

To put it more bluntly. if the more orthodox researcher can be financed from more restricted sources, he does not have to compete with the more radical critic for less restricted funds. From this point of view, the ideal institution is one which is orthodox enough to get sufficient financial support from a variety of sources and unorthodox enough to recognize the need for diversity in its output.

The Role of the CFIA

One's view of the performance of the CFIA depends largely on what one thinks its functions should be. Despite its title, the Center does not view itself as responsible for the whole area of international affairs, since there is a great deal of research at Harvard outside its aegis. Rather. Center programs for the past decade have been derived from the interests of its principal members. These have shifted over the years from the traditional concerns of foreign policy with security and the North Atlantic region to a major emphasis on the economic, social, and political aspects of modernization in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. The primary interest of many Center scholars is now comparative studies of countries in these areas, with international affairs as a byproduct.

Even though the Center does not claim exclusive jurisdiction in any branch of international relations or comparative studies. it does support a high proportion of the research at Harvard in these fields. It is therefore fair to ask whether its method of operation excludes some promising lines of investigation or leads to one-sided conclusions.

I will try to shed some light on this question in the fields of economic research where I have some responsibility.

Funds administered by the Center currently support research by twenty faculty members and a dozen graduate students in the general area of economic development. Over the past five years this work has been financed mainly from grants to the University by the Ford Foundation, the Agency for International Development, and the National Science Foundation. Research topics and procedures are proposed by members of the faculty or graduate students. incorporated in research proposals, and periodically reviewed with the supporting agencies.

Although each supplier of research funds has its own criteria, they apply only to the specified topics that its funds support. Thus the availability of funds from sources having different criteria-some favoring policy research and some pure research-is an important factor that makes its possible to support very diverse interests.

In practice we have been able to study a wide range of countries and topics ranging from planning models to income distribution and criticism of U.S. Aid Policy from a variety of points of view. In fact, I find it difficult to imagine any subject that would appeal to a serious scholar on which it would not be possible to work because of the sources of our financial support. This would include the functioning of socialist and communist societies, the factors conducive to social revolution and other examples suggested by Burke, MacEwan. and Bowles.