Suchergebnisse

Der Autor setzt sich mit der Johnson-Prognose (J.J. Johnson, 1958) über die politische Zukunft der Länder Argentinien, Brasilien, Chile, Mexico und Uruguay auseinander. In einer kritischen Erörterung überprüft er Johnsons These, nach der die Mittelschichten der Motor politischer, wirtschaftlicher und sozialer Modernisierung in Lateinamerika waren. Da die Realitäten (politischer Umsturz durch Militärputsch in fast allen diesen Ländern) Johnsons hoffnungsvolle Annahmen falsifizierten, sucht der Autor nach alternativen Erklärungsansätzen für die Entwicklung. Er kommt zu dem Ergebnis, daß das Problem des Verhältnisses von Mittelschichten und politischer Macht noch nicht ausreichend geklärt worden ist. In diesem Zusammenhang verweist er auf neuere Untersuchungen, in denen zwei historische Momente in der Entwicklung der Mittelschichten unterschieden werden: Aufstieg und Konsolidierung. In dieser Entwicklung werden Kompromisse mit jeweils anderen Schichten gemacht, in der ersten Phase mit der Unterschicht, in der zweiten mit der Oberschicht. Auf Grund der faktischen und begrifflichen Schwäche von Johnsons Argumentation warnt der Autor vor Prophezeiungen, die auf irreführenden Analogien mit entwickelten Ländern beruhen. (Ru)

2 p. A new release on University of Oregon News Bureau letterhead quoting a statement made by President Robert D. Clark regarding the Johnson Hall sit-in and the larger social context that inspired the sit-in.

From the Ellard-Murphree-Pilgreen-Smith Family Papers Collection. Letter from Dennis Murphree to Sam Smith; February 29, 1940. Dennis Murphree is assuring Sam Smith that he will approach the newly elected Governor Johnson to advocate for Sam's reappointment to his position. He won't guarantee it will work. ; https://athenacommons.muw.edu/smithpapers/1160/thumbnail.jpg

Letter from Johnson to Dawson (Cincinnati, Ohio) discussing the Democrats of Hamilton County. ; https://www.exhibit.xavier.edu/dawson_correspondence/1092/thumbnail.jpg

HARRY JOHNSON'S REPUTATION AS A MACROECONOMIST RESTS AT LEAST AS MUCH ON HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLICY DEBATES AND ON HIS WIDELY READ SURVEY ARTICLES AS ON HIS ORIGINAL RESEARCH. IF ONE LOOKS AT HIS WRITTEN WORK FROM THE NARROW VANTAGE POINT OF NORTH AMERICA, IT IS EASY TO UNDERESTIMATE ITS IMPORTANCE. MUCH OF WHAT HIS LATER WRITINGS CONTAIN WAS WITHOUT A DOUBT "WELL KNOWN AT CHICAGO" WHEN IT WAS PUBLISHED. HOWEVER, HARRY'S CAPACITY FOR ABSORBING "ORAL TRADITION" WAS MATCHED BY A CONSIDERABLE ABILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO IT, AND IT IS DANGEROUS TO INFER A LACK OF ORIGINALITY FROM THIS FACT. IN ANY EVENT, IN MACROECONOMICS, HIS CHOSEN AUDIENCE MORE OFTEN THAN NOT CONSISTED OF RESEARCH WORKERS, TEACHERS, AND STUDENTS OUTSIDE THE MAJOR CENTERS, NOT TO MENTION POLICYMAKERS AND "INTERESTED LAYMEN." HIS ABILITY TO SYNTHESIZE AND EXPOUND THE ISSUES BEING TACKLED AND THE RESULTS BEING ATTAINED IN ALL AREAS OF THE FIELD ENSURED THAT THEIR SIGNIFICANCE WAS GRASPED BY THE PROFESSION AT LARGE FAR MORE RAPIDLY AND EFFECTIVELY THAN OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CASE. FOR THIS REASON ALONE HE IS A FIGURE OF CONSIDERABLE IMPORTANCE IN THE RECENT HISTORY OF MACROECONOMICS.