The legislative highpoint of the social indicators movement in the United States was marked by
U.S. Senator Walter F. Mondale's persistent attempts over the period of 1967 to 1973 to enact
proposals for the establishment of a Council of Social Advisers and the development of a national
system of social reporting. Mondale argued that, by providing an independent accounting of the
social state of the nation, a system of social indicators would greatly improve congressional
scrutiny in the field of social policy, much as economic indicators were believed to do in the field
of economic policy. This bold effort to build a constituency of the future around social scientists
is now largely forgotten, but its history illuminates the uneasy relationship between social
science and government. This article presents a detailed account of the Mondale Initiative and
draws out some lessons still relevant today.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aaron, H. (1978). Politics and professors: The Great Society in perspective. Washington, DC: Brookings .
2.
Booth, T. (1979). Research and policy making in local authority social services. Public Administration, 57, 173-186.
3.
Boulding, K.E. (1967). Dare we take the social sciences seriously? American Psychologist, 22, 879-887.
4.
Brayfield, A.H. (1967). Introduction. American Psychologist , 22, 877-878.
5.
Bunker, D. (1978). Organizing to link social science with public policy-making. Public Administration Review, 38, 223-232.
6.
Etzioni, A. (1977). Social sciences in the White House. Evaluation, 4, 13.
7.
Gardner, J. (1969, December 14). Paralyzed nation needs a jolt from leaders. Washington Post.
8.
Gouldner, A. (1970). The coming crisis of Western society. London: Heinemann.
9.
Green, P. (1971). The obligations of American social scientists . Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 394, 13-27.
10.
Gross, B.M. (1965). The social state of the union. Trans-action, 3(1), 14-17.
11.
Gross, B.M., & Straussman, J. (1974). The social indicators movement . Social Policy, 5(3), 43-54.
12.
House, E.R. (1991). Big policy, little policy. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 21-26.
13.
Hoos, I. (1973). Systems techniques for managing society: A critique . Public Administration Review, 33 (March/April), 157-164.
14.
Johnson, L.B. (1964, June 4). To fulfill these rights. Harvard University address.
15.
Kopkind, A. (1967). The future planners. New Republic , 25, 19-23.
16.
Lebergott, S. (1965). Men without work. New York : Prentice-Hall.
17.
Lyons, G. (1969). The uneasy partnership: Social science and the federal government in the twentieth century. New York : Russell Sage.
18.
Macrae, D. (1985). Policy indicators: Links between social science and public debate. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
19.
Miller, S. (1974). Policy and science. Social Policy , 3, 73-94.
20.
Miller, S. (1975). Planning: Can it make a difference in capitalist America? Social Policy, 6(2), 12-22.
21.
Miller, S.M., & Rein, M. (1975). Can income redistribution work? Social Policy, 6(1), 3-18.
22.
Mondale, W.F. (1967). New tools for social progress. The Progressive, 31, 28-31.
23.
Mondale, W.F. (1968). Reporting on the social state of the union. Trans-action, 5(7), 34-38.
24.
Mondale, W.G. (1970, Summer). Social advisors, social accounting and the presidency. Law and Contemporary Problems, pp. 496-504.
25.
Mondale, W.F. (1972). Social accounting, evaluation and the future of the human services. Evaluation, 35(3), 29-34.
26.
Moynihan, D.P. (1967). A crisis of confidence? Public Interest, 7(Spring), 3-10.
27.
Moynihan, D.P. (1970). The role of the social scientist in action research . SSRC Newsletter, 10(November), 8-9.
28.
Murray, C. (1984). Losing ground: American social policy 1950-1980 . New York: Basic Books.
29.
National Academy of Sciences. (1968). The behavioral sciences and the federal government. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
30.
National Academy of Sciences/Social Science Research Council. (1969). The behavioral and social sciences: Outlook and needs. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
31.
National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. (1968). Report (Kerner, chair. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
32.
National Commission on Technology, Automation and Economic Progress. (1966). Technology and the American economy (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
33.
National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence. (1970). To establish justice, to insure domestic tranquility. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
34.
National Science Foundation. (1969). Knowledge into action (Report of the Special Commission on the Social Sciences of the National Science Board. Washington, DC : U.S. Government Printing Office.
35.
Olson, M. (1969). The plan and purpose of a social report. Public Interest, 15(Spring), 85-97.
36.
Rein, M. (1976). Social science and public policy. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
37.
Rivlin, A. (1971). Systematic thinking for social action. Washington, DC: Brookings.
38.
Rivlin, A. (1972). Why can't we get things done? The Brookings Bulletin, 9(2), 5-9.
39.
Rule, J. (1978). Insight and social betterment. New York: Oxford University Press.
40.
Schneider, J. (1974). Making government work: Political versus technical obstacles to social accounting. American Behavioral Scientist , 17, 585-608.
41.
Schonfield, A. (1972). Research and public policy: Lessons from economics . In A. Cherns, R. Sinclair, & W. Jenkins (Eds.), Social science and government (pp. 67-80). London : Tavistock.
42.
Sharpe, L. (1975). The social scientist and policy-making: Some cautionary thoughts and transatlantic reflections. Policy and Politics , 4(4), 7-34.
43.
Sharpe, L. (1978). Government as clients for social science research . In M. Bulmer (Ed.), Social policy research (pp. 67-82). London: Macmillan .
44.
Shostak, A. (1978). Updating Mondale's Social Accounting Act. Policy Studies Journal, 7(2), 290-300.
45.
Springer, M. (1970). Social indicators, reports and accounts: Towards the management of society. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 388, 1-13.
46.
Stacey, M. (1971). Sociology and the civil service. SSRC Newsletter, 13(November), 8-10.
47.
U.S. Congress. Subcommittee on Government Research. (1967). Hearings on S.843 (90th Congress, 1st Session . Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
48.
U.S. Congress. Special Needs Subcommittee on Evaluation and Social Programs. Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. (1970a). Hearings on S.5 (91st Congress, 1st Session . Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
49.
U.S. Congress. (1970b). Senate Report No. 91-998 (Full Opportunity Act, July 1, Calendar No. 1002. 91st Congress, 2nd Session. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
50.
Will, G. (1976, September 9). Mondale's idea of "sensible statecraft ." Washington Post, p. A23.
51.
Williams, W. (1980). Domestic program policy analysis: Some observations on its practice at the top of the government in the U.S. and the U.K. (Discussion Paper No. 4. Seattle: University of Washington, Institute of Governmental Research.
