No view without a viewpoint: Gunnar Myrdal

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.

Ethics and the Social Sciences. Edited by Leo R. Ward. (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press. 1959. Pp. xi, 127. $3.25.) - Value In Social Theory. Essays by Gunnar Myrdal, selected and edited by Paul Streeten. (New York: Harper & Brothers. 1959. Pp. xlvi, 269. $5.00.) - Volume 54 Issue 2

This paper directs itself to the impact of American social science on the writings of Alva and Gunnar Myrdal on the role of education and social science in “modern” industrial democracy. After a brief sketch of the Myrdals' role in the development of Swedish welfare reforms and of their intellectual contacts in the United States during the 1930's, the paper outlines four theoretical “dilemmas” of “modernity” to the solution of which education and social research was seen to contribute: the relationships between facts and values, the individual and the collective, child rearing and social change, and theory and practice. The paper concludes by tracing the articulation of these themes in the Social Democratic Party school reform proposals of 1948.

Sociology of Sport and Social Theory presents current research perspectives from major sport scholars and leading sociologists regarding issues germane to the sociology of sport. Each chapter of this resource explains historical and contemporary social theories and applies these theories to current topics in sport, such as performance-enhancing drugs, gender, race and identity issues, and the role of religion in sport. Sociology of Sport and Social Theory introduces readers to the historical and theoretical underpinnings of social theory, how sport studies have incorporated or diverged from these theories, and how the application of various sociological lenses to sport contexts may converge for future research. Merging the fields of sport studies and sociology, the text provides readers with a fresh view on how prominent social issues may be applied to exciting issues in sport;an opportunity to analyze engaging topics in sport, including Tiger Woods’ dominance, the costs of building stadiums, and NCAA institutional logic; andan accessible presentation of seemingly complex theories from scholars with backgrounds in sociology and sport studies. Structured in four parts, this text expands discussion beyond theoretical paradigms typically employed by sport sociologists to consider traditional theories (conflict theory and structural functionalism) and contemporary sociological theories (feminist theory, social capital theory, and relational theory) and their application in sport contexts. Each chapter begins with a theory overview and concludes with suggestions for future research and an annotated list of additional resources. In part I of the text, readers will encounter a Weberian analysis of sport, learn how Mills’ theory of the sociological imagination provides a lens through which an athlete-author can analyze athletic events, and read a discussion of Elias’ figurational theory as applied to issues of hooliganism in soccer. Mid-level sociological theories, which provide a moderate convergence of theory and empirical research, are the focus in part II of the text. Chapters in part III address sport-related issues of gender, race, ethnicity, and social class using the contemporary sociological views of feminist theory, social reproduction theory, hegemonic masculinity theory, and structuration theory. Part IV considers issues of power, personality, citizenship, and dominance in sport. Sociology of Sport and Social Theory addresses a range of topics at the forefront of both scholarly and public discourse and provides readers the opportunity to consider these issues in light of traditional and contemporary sociological theories. With its broad range of perspectives and analyses, Sociology of Sport and Social Theory illustrates for students, sport scholars, and social scientists how sociological theory can provide a suitable framework for understanding patterns that exist in the world of sport.

A theory of strongly endogenous interactive relationship in participatory development is expounded through the use of a class of models of complementarities between selected variables representing their underlying agencies. Such a model is referred to as circular causation approach and resembles the social causation theory propounded by Gunnar Myrdal. The paper sets up the theoretical groundwork of circular causation in the context of development sustainability by virtue of estimating and simulating quantitative policy-theoretic approach that is applied to the exemplary problem of population and economic growth contra the neoclassical stand on their marginal substitution in population versus growth paradigm. Thus out of studying the theoretical and quantitative policy-theoretic perspective of the learning type endogenous model of development participation between variables and their agencies the ethical index is established. The participatory process of inter-variable complementarities between the selected variables conveys the substantive idea of development sustainability. The resulting functional objective criterion then represents the human wellbeing index. Several of the neoclassical theories as of the immserization theory of economic growth principally are critically examined.

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.

Dependence is dead, long live dependence and the class struggle: An answer to critics

Of all the social science theories that have been applied to school desegregation policy, none has a longer or more important history than the harm and benefit thesis. In its simplest form, the thesis holds that school segregation is harmful to the social, psychological, and educational development of children, both minority and white, and that school desegregation is beneficial for undoing or at least ameliorating the damages from segregation and discrimination. While the harm and benefit thesis began as a purely social science theory, its apparent endorsement by the Supreme Court in Brown gave the thesis an enormous boost, elevating it from academic theory to moral authority. From Brown to the present time, the harm and benefit thesis has played a curious and bifurcated role in the evolution of school desegregation policy. Although it began as a social science theory that had apparently found its way into judicial doctrine, its role in the courts soon parted from its role among educators, social scientists, and civil rights groups. On the judicial front, a number of lower court decisions in the early 1970s stressed the harms of school segregation and the benefits of integration remedies. The Supreme Court itself never again explicitly addressed the harm and benefit thesis after Brown, however, and its judicial relevance diminished over the next three decades as the high Court majority restricted the application of Brown to government-enforced school segregation. For this reason many constitutional scholars have long maintained that the psychological harm finding in Brown is not an essential part of constitutional law. To the extent that a harm thesis can be inferred from current judicial doctrine, then, harm arises only if school (or other) segregation is sanctioned by law or official action. For many other actors on the desegregation stage, however, the harm and benefit thesis has had a far broader applicability. During the periods when the earliest formulations began to appear, such as that by Gunnar Myrdal in 1944 or the famous doll studies of Kenneth and Mamie Clark in the late 1930s, most existing segregation was in fact sanctioned by law, and thus most social science research on this issue of necessity reflected the effects of official segregation.

REVIEWS Get access VALUE IN SOCIAL THEORY. A SELECTION OF ESSAYS ON METHODOLOGY. By GUNNAR MYRDAL. Edited by PAUL STREETEN. [London: The International Library of Sociology and Social Reconstruction, Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd.. 1958. xlv+269 pp. 32s.] H. M. H. M. Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 1, Issue 3, January 1961, Pages 291–292, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a047104 Published: 01 January 1961

This chapter deals with developments in economics in the rest of Europe—Sweden, Norway, Netherland, France, Italy, USSR. Firstly, the development of an original economic thinking in Sweden with the formation of the Neo-Wicksellian Stockholm School with Erick Lindahl, Gunnar Myrdal and Bertil Ohlin is analyzed. Then the development of the small centers of Oslo and Rotterdam is considered: here, Ragnar Frisch and Jan Tinbergen gave a fundamental impetus to the new econometric movement, a theoretical project which attracted scholars from many European countries and the United States. Then the theoretical development in France, Italy and URSS is analyzed: in France, the econometric approach attracted the group of engineer-economists of the Grandes Ecoles; in Italy, economic theory developed along the neoclassical mainstream established in the pre-war years; in the Soviet Union, an essentially heterodox work developed in the 1920s thanks to the writings of Kondratieff, Chayanov, Slutsky and many others.

Most of the existing reviews of K. William Kapp's concept of social costs and his critique of economic theory originate in the seventies and eighties when Kapp was rediscovered as one of the founders of environmental policy. A review of his works pertaining to his theoretical approach to institutional economics is lacking, however. The main purpose of this survey is to trace the key concepts of Kapp's theoretical approach and to show how that approach was influenced by cultural anthropology, social psychology, and sociology. Kapp's revision of economics and economic policy is based on a philosophy of science often neglected in the discussion about his concept of social costs, and his contribution to institutional theory goes beyond a theoretical foundation of the concept of social costs. First, I present a review of the core ideas of Kapp's institutional theory. The reconstruction of Kapp's socioeconomic approach concentrates on both published and unpublished works and correspondence. Focusing on the lifework of Kapp, I show that the older or historical institutionalism in the tradition of Thorstein Veblen, Gunnar Myrdal, Adolph Lowe, and Kapp has a theoretical framework based on a model of social action. Commonalities have not yet been recognized. This leads to a different concept of rationality and to a search for alternative institutional arrangements capable of producing social welfare. It will be shown how Kapp's institutional approach to economics therefore bears important implications for economic policy and welfare analysis. In keeping with the tradition of the American (Veblen, Commons) and European institutionalism (Myrdal, Lowe, Perroux), Kapp believed the economy to be embed

This paper seeks to establish that contributions to regional theory advanced by Gunnar Myrdal exhibit high levels of explanatory power when clarifying challenges facing Germany's eastern region since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Myrdal's evolutionary institutionalist contribution is contrasted with the "convergence hypothesis" advanced by R. Barro and X. Sala-i-Martin. Challenged is their prediction that Germany's eastern region would experience relatively higher annual rates of per capita output growth, and that levels of per capita output would converge between the eastern and western regions over time. Myrdal's approach is argued superior as it allows for considering backwash and spread effects within a framework of circular and cumulative causation, emerging between Germany's western and eastern regions.

This paper argues that Gunnar Myrdal's theory of the state fruitfully elucidates which set of factors contributed to the transformation of the Welfare State into what James K. Galbraith has described as the modern Predator State. Myrdal employs the circular cumulative causation hypothesis (Berger forthcoming; 2008; Berger and Eisner 2007) to explain the evolution of the state as the result of multiple interrelated factors. Myrdal's evolutionary-institutional analysis of the state is found to be compatible with Galbraith's (2008) recent Veblenian approach in that it highlights the role of corruption (pecuniary considerations) in the relationship between big business (the "organized sector") and government.

The twenty-nine essays in this volume deal with three main topics: issues in development economics; mathematical planning techniques and models of economic growth; and the links theoretical discussions and various specific experiences in development. The book closes with a series of tributes by Chakravarty to his contemporaries, including Joan Robinson, John Hicks, Gunnar Myrdal, Rosenstein-Rodan and P.C. Mahalanobis.

Introduction: Classical and Marxian Antecedents to Development Economics Development economics is a post-1945 phenomenon. After World War II, some mainstream economists responded to the challenges of anticolonial nationalism and began to study those structured processes that prevented significant increases in material living standards throughout much of the Global South. By the end of the 1950s, with the substantial financial assistance of many American foundations and governmental institutions, an enormous literature on underdevelopment had emerged. Academics such as W. Arthur Lewis, Gunnar Myrdal, Ragnar Nurkse, and Albert Hirschman had attained substantial academic fame, and talented graduate students entered this field with alacrity. As a result, nearly every economics program in the Western world had at least one development expert on its faculty.