Gunnar Myrdal: A Life of Many Dilemmas by Claes Berg

This short article considers four questions about the lives led by Gunnar Myrdal and Alva Myrdal, world-famous Swedish social scientists. What were the social conditions for the development of their ideas? What implications (if any) did their developing social science theories have for their personal lives? Is consistency a necessary requirement in matching words and deeds? Is there any necessary relationship between the public and private lives of eminent scholars and public figures? All three of their children, Jan, Sissela, and Kaj, have written autobiographical accounts which, directly or indirectly, suggest that the Myrdal family was dysfunctional. The implications of this are explored.

This chapter attempts to understand Asian Drama in the context of the development debates of its time, and in terms of the sensibilities that Gunnar Myrdal—the brilliant economic theorist and philosopher of knowledge, and Swedish politician—brought to the conceptualization of the problems and prospects of development. The chapter covers: (i) what Myrdal brought to the analysis of development from his long, varied, and distinguished academic and practitioner career; (ii) the development terrain in the mid-twentieth century; and (iii) how Asian Drama lay on that terrain and in the remaining years of Myrdal’s continued eventful life. There are two central questions posed in the chapter. How did Myrdal’s broad experience and perspective influence Asian Drama? How did Asian Drama influence the development debate?

PurposeIn the early 1930s, Nicholas Kaldor could be classified as an Austrian economist. The author reconstructs the intertwined paths of Kaldor and Friedrich A. Hayek to disequilibrium economics through the theoretical deficiencies exposed by the Austrian theory of capital and its consequences on equilibrium analysis.Design/methodology/approachThe author approaches the discussion using a theoretical and historical reconstruction based on published and unpublished materials.FindingsThe integration of capital theory into a business cycle theory by the Austrians and its shortcomings – e.g. criticized by Piero Sraffa and Gunnar Myrdal – called attention to the limitation of the theoretical apparatus of equilibrium analysis in dynamic contexts. This was a central element to Kaldor’s emancipation in 1934 and his subsequent conversion to John Maynard Keynes’ The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936). In addition, it was pivotal to Hayek’s reformulation of equilibrium as a social coordination problem in “Economics and Knowledge” (1937). It also had implications for Kaldor’s mature developments, such as the construction of the post-Keynesian models of growth and distribution, the Cambridge capital controversy, and his critique of neoclassical equilibrium economics.Originality/valueThe close encounter between Kaldor and Hayek in the early 1930s, the developments during that decade and its mature consequences are unexplored in the secondary literature. The author attempts to construct a coherent historical narrative that integrates many intertwined elements and personas (e.g. the reception of Knut Wicksell in the English-speaking world; Piero Sraffa’s critique of Hayek; Gunnar Myrdal’s critique of Wicksell, Hayek, and Keynes; the Hayek-Knight-Kaldor debate; the Kaldor-Hayek debate, etc.) that were not connected until now by previous commentators.

As two of the leading social scientists of the twentieth century, Alva and Gunnar Myrdal tried to establish a harmonious, “organic” Gemeinschaft [community] in order to fight an assumed disintegration of modern society. By means of functionalist architecture and by educating “sensible” citizens, disciplining bodies, and reorganizing social relationships they attempted to intervene in the lives of ordinary men. The paradox of this task was to modernize society in order to defend it against an “ambivalent modernity.” This combination of Weltanschauung [world view], social science, and technical devices became known as social engineering. The Myrdals started in the early 1930s with Sweden, and then chose the world as their working field. In 1938, Gunnar Myrdal was asked to solve the “negro problem” in the United States, and, in the 1970s, Alva Myrdal campaigned for the world's super powers to abolish all of their nuclear weapons. The Myrdals successfully established their own "modern American" marriage as a media image and role model for reform. Far from perfect, their marriage was disrupted by numerous conflicts, mirrored in thousands of private letters. This marital conflict propelled their urge for social reform by exposing the need for the elimination of irrational conflicts from everyday life. A just society, according to the Myrdals, would merge social expertise with everyday life, and ordinary men with the intellectually elite. Thomas Etzemüller's study of these two figures brings to light the roots of modern social engineering, providing insight for today's sociologists, historians, and political scholars.

On the value of personal archives: Some examples from the archives of Alva and Gunnar Myrdal – with a main focus on Gunnar

This paper attempts to understand Asian Drama in the context of the development debates of its time, and in terms of the sensibilities that Gunnar Myrdal-the brilliant economic theorist and philosopher of knowledge, and the Swedish politician-brought to the conceptualization of the problems and prospects of development. The paper covers: (i) what Gunnar Myrdal brought to the analysis of development from his long, varied and distinguished academic and practitioner career; (ii) the development terrain in the mid-twentieth century; and (iii) how Asian Drama lay on that terrain and in the remaining years of Gunnar Myrdal's continued eventful life. The two central questions posed in the paper are: (i) How did Gunnar Myrdal's broad experience and perspective influence Asian Drama? (ii) How did Asian Drama influence the development debate?

-

-

For social scientists it is a sobering and useful exercise in self-understanding to attempt to see clearly how the direction of our scientific exertions, particularly in economics, is conditioned by the society in which we live, and most directly by the political climate (which, in turn, is related to all other changes in society)….Responding to that cue [from the sphere of politics], students turn to research on issues that have attained political importance….So it has always been. The major recastings of economic thought…were all responses to changing political conditions and opportunities.—Gunnar Myrdal in Asian Drama

Myrdal's thesis with regard to relations in American society is examined conceptually to bring out its underlying normative assumptions concerning nature of social integration and of social change. An alternate interpretation of relations in American society is offered, based upon assumptions that are more structural and less normative in character. PARTICULARLY since 1954, almost all attempts to treat members of minorities according to universalistic standards of citizenship have met with a storm of opposition in southern states. While this opposition was not unexpected or unforeseen, prognosis for relations and for culture change more generally in South depends largely upon meaning ascribed to it. This paper comments on a view, advanced most cogently by Gunnar Myrdal in 19441, that opposition has its source in a value with respect to relations, in American society. Myrdal's thesis has become so well institutionalized among sociologists that its assumptions have never been systematically examined, to my knowledge. Attention rather has been centered on issues of methodology raised chiefly by Myrdal's repudiation of disinterested social science2 or on issues of substance lending themselves to statistical test: notably hypothesis of a differential rank order of discrimination between whites and nonwhites3; and hypothesis of discomfort in practice of racial segregation4. By contrast, this paper attempts a conceptual rather than empirical analysis of Myrdal hypothesis. first part examines assumptions which underlie Myrdal's concept of American culture as a dilemma with respect to relations. second examines assumptions of his dynamic analysis, and suggests an alternate way to interpret dynamics of relations in American society, given assumptions concerning social integration and social process different from those which he employed. AMERICAN CULTURE AS DILEMMA In making a comprehensive study of Negro in America, it was perhaps inevitable that Myrdal should have been struck by existence in American society of two irreconcilable sets of values, in respect to race and race relations. One set emphasized inherent equality of individuals in terms of their origins, and moral desirability of minimizing race as criterion for avoidance-acceptance relations. other set emphasized inherent superiority of one group over another, and moral desirability of maximizing race as criterion for avoidance-acceptance relations. Myrdal conceptualized relationship between these two sets of values in terms of generality-specificity. To first set, he ascribed authority of what he called American Creed, saying that it operated on the general plane ... where American thinks, talks, and acts under influence of high national and Christian pre* writer is indebted to Professor Samuel DuB. Cook, Atlanta University, and to Professor David Riesman, Harvard University, for helpful comments and suggestions. They are in no sense responsible, however, for views expressed here. I Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma (New York: Harper Bros. 1944), 2 vols. 2 See for example, G. Nettler, A Note on Myrdal's 'Notes onFacts and Valuations' ' , American Sociological Review, 9 (1944) pp. 686-8; C. C. Bowman, Polarities and Impairment of Science, American Sociological Review, 15 (1950) p. 482. 3 For example, L. M. Killian and C. M. Grigg, Orders of Discrimination of Negroes and Whites in a Southern City, Social Forces, 39 (March 1961), pp. 235-9; E. E. Edmunds, The Myrdalian Thesis: Rank Order of Discrimination, Phylon, 15 (1954), pp. 297-303. 4 See E. Q. Campbell, Moral Discomfort and Racial Segregation-An Examination of Myrdal Hypothesis, Social Forces 39 (March 1961), pp. 228-

It is an honor to be asked to comment on the work of such a distinguished social scientist as Gunnar Myrdal. We say social scientist, rather than simply economist, for reasons which will become apparent. His contributions, now spanning almost half a century, stand as landmarks of our profession. Few men of our time have won such deserved recognition from colleagues in all parts of the world. First-rate economists usually prefer to begin life as theorists. So it was with Myrdal. During the nineteen twenties and thirties he was a member of the brilliant group at Stockholm which, together with Keynes and Robertson in England, laid the foundations of modern macroeconomics. Myrdal's work on monetary equilibrium can still stand comparison with other classics of that period.

No view without a viewpoint: Gunnar Myrdal

Gunnar Myrdal's An American Dilemma (1944) influenced the attitudes of a generation of Americans on the race issue and established Myrdal as a major critic of American politics and culture. Walter Jackson explores how the Swedish Social Democratic scholar, policymaker, and activist came to shape a consensus on one of America's most explosive public issues.

The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it. —Karl Marx, Theses on Feurbach. The mark of an important contribution, whether in the hard or the social sciences, is not that it reveals some eternal truth. It is, rather, that existing knowledge and analysis are put together in new ways, raising questions and offering conclusions which allow and force friends and enemies alike to push their own research and analysis into different areas. —Doug Dowd, refering to C. Wright Mills. For social scientist it is a sobering and useful exercise in self-understanding to attempt to see clearly how the direction of our scientific exertions, particularly in economics, is conditioned by the society in which we live, and most directly by the political climate (which, in turn, is related to all other changes in society). Rarely if ever, has the development of economics by its own force blazed the way to new perspectives. The cue to the continual reorientation of our work has normally come from the sphere of politics. Responding to the cue, students turn to research on issues that have attained political importance … So it has always been. The major recasting of economic thought .... were all responses to changing political conditions and opportunities. —Gunnar Myrdal, in Asian Drama.

The population policy in economics has been one of drift, relegating to the external and immutable laws of nature the restoration of an equilibrium between numbers and resources. In the political economy of population the emphasis is shifted to the ways and means of social control of numbers and the aims and objects of such regulation, due regard being paid to the qualitative and selective aspects of population changes.' Statistics and sociology now both help to forecast population in the future, and demographic planning which has so far been neglected is being dovetailed into economic planning by national etatisme. It is guided and coordinated by the objective of bringing the optimum nearer the actual population at the future date than if a policy of drift were followed. The political economy is frankly deterministic; in recognizing the role and functions of the state in regulating population and population trend it seeks to analyze what factors in a population situation can come under control and what are beyond it, and this from both quantitative and qualitative standpoints of the optimum. 1 The work of the Swedish Population Commission and the writings of the Swedish economist, Gunnar Myrdal, show the direction taken by this new movement (See Gunnar Myrdal, Population, a Problem for Democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1940. Z37 pp.).