¹ Osipov, G. V., et al., “Marksistskaya sotsiologiya i sotsiologicheskyye issledovaniya [Marxist Sociology and Sociological Research],” Nauchnyye Doklady Vysshey Shkoly, No. 5, 1962, 24Google Scholar.

² Kazimirchuk, V. P., “Nauka prava i metod konkretno-sotsiologicheskogo isslededovaniya [Legal Science and the Method of Concrete Sociological Research],” Sovetskoye Gosudarstvo i Pravo (hereafter SGP), No. 1, 1964, 35Google Scholar.

³ XXII S”ezda Kommunisticheskoi Partii Sovetskogo Soyuza, Stenograficheskii Otchet [22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Stenographic Report], 1962, Volume III, 324Google Scholar.

⁴ The first poll was published in Komsomolskaya Pravda, the Young Communist League newspaper, on May 19, 1960. For a critical evaluation of early polling efforts, see “Voprosam metodologii izucheniya obshchestvennogo mneniya [Problems of Methodology in Studying Public Opinion],” Vestnik Statistiki, No. 6, 1961, 82–84Google Scholar. See also Wilder, Emilia, “Opinion Polls,” Survey, No. 48 (07, 1963), 118–129Google ScholarPubMed; and Kassof, Allen, “Moscow Discovers Public Opinion Polls,” Problems of Communism, 10, No. 3 (05–06, 1961), 52–55Google Scholar.

⁵ Kazimirchuk, op. cit., 35–36.

⁶ See Shubkin, V. N., “Kolichestvennyye metody v sotsiologii [Quantitative Methods in Sociology],” Voprosy Filosofii (hereafter VF), No. 3, 1967, 33Google Scholar; Selyukov, F. T., “Kolichestvennyye metody v sotsial'nykh issledovaniyakh [Quantitative Methods in Social Research,” SGP, No. 8, 1967, 143Google Scholar; Zhabskii, M. I., “Testirovaniye voprosnika v sotsial'nom issledovanii [Pretesting Questionnaires in Social Research],” Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta (hereafter VMU), Seriya VIII, Filosofiya, No. 4, 1967, 63–69Google Scholar; Golubeva, N. V. and Ivanyuk, M. I., “Tekhnika provedeniya nestandartizovannogo interv'yu [Techniques of Conducting Non-Standardized Interviews], Filosofskiye Nauki, No. 1, 1969, 110–116Google Scholar.

⁷ Rumyantsev, A. M. and Osipov, G. V., “Marksistskaya sotsiologiya i konkretnyye sotsial'nyye issledovaniya [Marxist Sociology and Concrete Social Research],” VF, No. 6, 1968, 4Google Scholar; Lisavtsev, E., et al., “Na nauchnoi osnove: sotsial'nyye issledovaniya v praktiku partiinoi raboty [On a scientific Basis: Apply Social Research to Party Work],” Pravda, 05 11, 1965, 2Google Scholar. See also Shubkin, op. cit., 31.

⁸ “O merakh po dal'neishemu razvitiyu obshchestvennykh nauk i povysheniyu ikh roli v kommunisticheskom stroitel'stve [On Measures for Further Developing the Social Sciences and Increasing Their Role in Communist Construction],” Pravda, 08 22, 1967, 1Google Scholar. See also Yadov, V., “Prestige in Danger,” Literaturnaya Gazeta, 02 28, 1968, 11Google Scholar; translated in Current Digest of the Soviet Press (hereafter CDSP), 20, No. 10 (03 27, 1968), 7–8Google Scholar.

⁹ When writing for a foreign audience, Soviet scholars sometimes suggest that political science is a recognized field of study in the USSR. See, e.g., Zvorykin, M., “The Social Sciences in the USSR: Achievements and Trends,” International Social Science Journal (hereafter ISSJ), 16, No. 4 (1964), 588–602Google Scholar; Gorianov, Makar and Glagoliev, Igor, “Notes Concerning Research on Peace and Disarmament Conducted in the USSR,” ISSJ, 17, No. 3 (1965), 417–419Google Scholar. Zvorykin (596–597) defines political science as “the study of the political superstructure of a given society.”

¹⁰ Until 1965, this organization was known as the Soviet Association of Political (State) Sciences. Its present name is, more properly, the Soviet Association of Political Sciences.

¹¹ E. V. Tadevosian, then President of the Association, is reported to have assured a Western scholar that creation of the organization did not imply recognition of political science as an independent discipline. See Skilling, Gordon, “In Search of Political Science in the USSR,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 29, No. 4 (11, 1963), 519CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹² Pomerantsev, I. T., “V Sovetskoi assotsiatsii politicheskikh nauk [In the Soviet Political Science Association],” SGP, No. 6, 1966, 135Google Scholar.

¹³ Ostroumov, G. S., “Nauchnyye osnovy politiki—v tsentre vnimaniya Sovetskoi assotsiatsii politicheskikh (gosudarstvovedcheskikh) nauk [The Scientific Bases of Politics—At the Center of Attention of the Soviet Association of Political (State) Sciences],” SGP, No. 7, 1965, 151Google Scholar.

¹⁴ S. Z., “Mezhdunarodnyi forum po voprosam politicheskoi nauki [International Forum on Questions of Political Science],” SGP, No. 1, 1968, 140Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Shatrov, V. P., “V Sovetskoi assotsiatsii politicheskikh (gosudarstvovedcheskikh) nauk [In the Soviet Association of Political (State) Sciences],” SGP, No. 8, 1962, 127Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Shatrov, V. P., “Tret'e ezhegodnoye sobraniye Sovetskoi assotsiatsii politicheskikh (gosudarstvovedcheskikh) nauk [Third Annual Meeting of the Soviet Association of Political (State) Sciences],” SGP, No. 7, 1963, 163Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Slavin, V., “Pervoye ezhegodnoye sobraniye Sovetskoi assotsiastsii politicheskikh (gosudarstvovedcheskikh) nauk [First Annual Meeting of the Soviet Association of Political (State) Sciences],” SGP, No. 7, 1961, 133Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Ibid., 131–135; Shatrov (1962), op. cit., 127; S. Z., op. cit, 139; Kalenskii, V. G., “O predmete i metode burzhuaznoi politicheskoi nauki [On the Scope and Method of Bourgeois Political Science],” SGP, No 9, 1966, 37Google Scholar; Ostroumov, G. S., “Teoriya gosudarstva i prava kak politicheskaya nauka [The Theory of State and Law as Political Science],” SGP, No. 2, 1968, 29–30Google Scholar. Soviet writers are particularly critical of the American literature on systematic political theory and pluralist theory. See Kalenskii, op. cit., 41; Shabad, B. A., “O sovremennykh antikommunisticheskikh teoriyakh gosudarstva [On Present-Day Anti-Communist Theories of the State],” SGP, No. 8, 1968, 82–89Google Scholar; Guliyev, V. Ye. and Kuz'min, E. L., “O nekotorykh burzhuaznykh teoriyakh gosudarstvennoi vlasti [Several Bourgeois Theories of State Power],” VMU, Seriya XII, Pravo, No. 2, 1968, 31–38Google Scholar; Kalenskii, V., Politicheskaya nauka v SShA [Political Science in the USA], 1969Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Burlatskii, F., “Politika i nauka [Politics and Science],” Pravda, 01 10, 1965, 4Google Scholar.

²⁰ Alekseyev, S. S. and Chirkin, V. Ye., “O sisteme nauk, izuchayushchikh problemy politicheskoi organizatsii obshchestva, gosudarstva i prava [On the System of Sciences Concerned with Problems of the Political Organization of Society, the State and Law],” SGP, No. 5, 1965, 48–50Google Scholar; Keizerov, N. M., “O sootnoshenii ponyatii ‘sotsial'naya’ i ‘po-liticheskaya’ vlast” [On the Relation Between the Concepts ‘Social’ and ‘Political’ Power],” Vestnik Leningradskogo Universiteta (hereafter VLU), Seriya Ekonomiki, Filosofii i Prava, No. 5, 1966, 45Google Scholar; Ostroumov (1965), op. cit., 150; Chesnokov, D. I., “Vzaimootnosheniye obshchestvennykh nauk i mesto nauchnogo kommunizma sredi nikh [Interrelations Among the Social Sciences and the Place of Scientific Communism Among Them],” VF, No. 3, 1965, 24Google Scholar; “O razrabotke problem politicheskikh nauk [On Working Out Problems of the Political Sciences],” Pravda, 06 13, 1965, 4Google Scholar.

²¹ Tadevosian, E. V., “Diskussiya o politicheskoi nauke [A Discussion of Political Science],” VF, No. 10, 1965, 165Google Scholar; “O razrabotke problem politicheskikh nauk,” op. cit., 4; Ostroumov (1965), op. cit., 148.

²² Revesz, Laszlo, “Political Science in Eastern Europe: Discussion and Initial Steps,” Studies in Soviet Thought, VII, No. 3, 194Google Scholar. See also Frankel, Joseph, “Theory of State, Cybernetics and Political Science in the Soviet Union,” Political Studies, 15, No. 4 (02, 1967), 59–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Churchward, L. G., “Towards a Soviet Political Science,” Australian Journal of Politics and History, 12, No. 1 (05, 1966), 66–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²³ Ostroumov (1968), op. cit., 24.

²⁴ According to P. N. Galanza, jurists ought to deal with political science only if “the legitimacy of the latter should ultimately be proved.” See Ostroumov (1965), op. cit., 149, and Bociurkiw, Bohdan R., “The Post-Stalin ‘Thaw’ and Soviet Political Science,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, XXX, No. 1 (02, 1964), 33Google Scholar.

²⁵ Ostroumov (1965), op. cit., 149.

²⁶ “On Teaching the USSR Constitution in Graduating Classes of Secondary Schools in the 1961–1962 School Year,” Uchitelskaya Gazeta, 04 4, 1961, 3Google Scholar; translated in CDSP, XIII, No. 18 (May 31, 1961), 26.

²⁷ Ostroumov (1965), op. cit., 151.

²⁸ Perttsik, V. A., “Puti sovershenstvovaniya deyatel'nosti deputatov mestnykh Sovetov [Ways of Improving the Work of Deputies of Local Soviets],” SGP, No. 7, 1967, 16–21Google Scholar.

²⁹ Kalits, I.et al., “Izucheniye deyatel'nosti deputatov c pomoshch'yu konkretno-sotsiologicheskogo metoda [Studying the Work of Deputies With the Aid of Concrete Sociological Methods],” SGP, No. 9, 1965, 65–70Google Scholar. A more recent study of deputies of local Soviets in the Armenian SSR tends to confirm the conclusions of the Estonian researchers. “Effektivnost' deputatskoi deyatel'nosti [The Effectiveness of the Deputy's Work],” SGP, No. 1, 1969, 110–115Google Scholar.

³⁰ “Varshavskaya konferentsiya Mezhdunarodnogo instituta administrativnykh nauk [Warsaw Conference of the International Institute of Administrative Sciences],” SGP, No. 10, 1964, 138–140Google Scholar; Ts. S., “XIII Mezhdunarodnyi kongress po problemam administrativnykh nauk [XIII International Congress on Problems of Administrative Sciences],” SGP, No. 11, 1965, 146–149Google Scholar.

³¹ Manokhin, V. M., “O predmete i zadachakh nauki upravleniya v sovremennyi period [On the Scope and Tasks of the Science of Administration in the Current Period],” SGP, No. 2, 1965, 87–88Google Scholar. See also Kerimov, D. A., “O perspektivakh razvitiya obshchestvennykh nauk v universitete [Perspectives on the Development of the Social Sciences in the University],” VLU, Seriya Ekonomiki, Filosofii i Prava, No. 23, 1965, 18–19Google Scholar; “Revolyutsionnaya teoriya osveshchaet nash put' [Revolutionary Theory Illuminates Our Path],” Pravda, November 5, 1964, 2Google Scholar.

³² Z. M. Bor, Upravleniye proizvodstvom i organizatsiya truda [The Administration of Production and the Organization of Labor], 1967, 17; Petrov, G. I., “Predmet nauki sotsial'nogo upravleniya [The Subject Matter of the Science of Social Administration],” SGP, No. 6, 1968, 75–82Google Scholar; Umanskii, Ya. N., “O predmete i nauke sovetskogo stroitel'stva [The Subject Matter and the Science of Soviet Construction],” SGP, No. 10, 1968, 73–79Google Scholar. See also Baldina, K. I. and Salishcheva, N. G., “Koordinatsionnoye soveshchaniye po voprosam nauki upravleniya [Coordinating Conference on Questions of Administrative Science],” SGP, No. 2, 1969, 137–138Google Scholar; Tikhomirov, Yu. A., “Teoriya sotisalisticheskogo upravleniye [The Theory of Socalist Administration], SGP, No. 7, 1969, 77–85Google Scholar. The proposed science of “soviet construction” would focus exclusively on government bodies (the Soviets). The broader sciences of “social administration” and “socialist administration” would deal with government bodies and with such nongovernment bodies as the trade unions and the Komsomol.

³³ Afanasiev, V. G., Nauchnoye upravleniye obshchestvom [The Scientific Administration of Society], 1968, 22–51Google Scholar. See also two earlier works by Afanasiev: “Nauchnoye rukovodstvo sotsial'nymi protsessami [Scientific Direction of Social Processes],” Kommunist, No. 12, 1965, 58–73Google Scholar, and V. I. Lenin o nauchnom upravlenii obshchestvom [V. I. Lenin on the Scientific Administration of Society], 1966.

³⁴ Yampolskaya, Ts. A., “K metodologii nauki upravleniya [Toward a Methodology for the Science of Administration],” SGP, No. 8, 1965, 12–21Google Scholar. Quotation on 12.

³⁵ Selyukov, op. cit., 143.

³⁶ Yablokova, Ye. A., “Problema malykh grupp v burzhuaznoi i marksistskoi sotsiologii [The Problem of Small Groups in Bourgeois and Marxist Sociology],” VMU, Seriya VIII, Filosofiya, No. 4, 1968, 101–103Google Scholar.

³⁷ Yermolenko, D., “Sociology and International Relations,” International Affairs (Moscow), No. 1, 1967, 14–19Google Scholar; Yermolenko, D., “Sociology and Problems of International Conflict,” International Affairs, No. 8, 1968, 47–53Google Scholar; Ustinov, N., “Mathematical Methods in the Analysis of International Relations,” International Affairs, No. 12, 1968, 74–82Google Scholar. See also Gerasimov, G., “Teoriya igr i mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya [Game Theory and International Relations],” Mirovaya Ekonomika i Mezhdunarodnyye Otnosheniya, No. 7, 1966, 101–108Google Scholar; Vorobiev, N. N., “Nekotoryye metodologicheskiye problemy teorii igr [Several Methodological Problems of Game Theory],” VF, No. 1, 1966, 93–103Google Scholar; Petrovskaya, L. A. and Petrovskii, S. A., “Teoriya igr i sotsiologiya [Game Theory and Sociology],” VMU, Seriya VIII, Filosofiya, No. 4, 1968, 49–59Google Scholar. A comprehensive treatment of the Soviet literature on international relations may be found in Zimmerman, William, Soviet Perspectives on International Relations (1969)Google Scholar.

³⁸ Selyukov, op. cit., 143.

³⁹ Verkhovskaya, A. I., “Pis'mo v gazetu i yego avtor kak ob”ekt sotsiologicheskogo issledovaniya [The Letter to the Editor and Its Author as an Object of Sociological Research],” VMU, Seriya XI, Zhurnalistika, No. 4, 1968, 49–59Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Murashov, S. and Orel, V.. “The Student and the Social Sciences,” Komsomolskaya Pravda, April 20, 1966; 1–2Google Scholar; translated in CDSP, 18, No. 17 (May 18, 1966), 5.

⁴¹ Arutyunian, Yu. V., “Opyt sotsial'no-etnicheskogo issledovaniya [An Experiment in Social-Ethnographic Research],” Sovetskaya Etnografiya, No. 4, 1968, 3–13Google Scholar; Lentsman, L. N., “Konkretnyye sotsiologicheskiye issledovaniya partiino-ideologicheskoi raboty v Estonskoi SSR” [Concrete Sociological Research into Party-Ideological Work in the Estonian SSR], in Mudragei, V. I.et al., Problemy nauchnogo kommunizma [Problems of Scientific Communism], 1968, volume 2, 76–78Google Scholar.

⁴² Sherkovin, Yu. A., “O prirode i funktsiyakh massovoi kommunikatskii [The Nature and Functions of Mass Communications],” VMU, Seriya XI, Zhurnalistika, No. 6, 1967, 41–58Google Scholar; Korobeinikov, V. S., “Analiz soderzhaniya massovoi kommunikatsii” [Content Analysis of Mass Communications], VF, No. 4, 1969, 100–110Google Scholar; Ye. A. Nozhin, “Teoriya kommunikatsii i yeyo znacheniye dlya propagandy” [The Significance of Communications Theory for Propaganda], in Mudragei et al., op. cit., 149–172; Yu. A. Sherkovin, “O vzaimo-destvii reklamy i propagandy” [The Interaction Between Advertising and Propaganda], in Mudragei et al., op. cit., 186–200; and Fedotova, L. N., “Analiz soderzhaniya—sotsiologicheskii sposob izucheniya pechati, radio, televideniya” [Content Analysis—Sociological Means for Studying the Press, Radio and Television], VMU, Seriya XI, Zhurnalistika, No. 4, 1969, 57–65Google Scholar.

⁴³ Krylov, B. S., “K probleme suvereniteta federatsii i shtatov v SShA [The Problem of Federal and State Sovereignty in the USA],” SGP, No. 9, 1964, 74–85Google Scholar; Dmitriyev, A. V., “O federal'nom kontrole assignovanii na vybory presidenta SShA [Federal Control of Spending in Presidential Elections in the USA],” VLU, Seriya Ekonomika, Filosofiya, Pravo, No. 17, 1968, 114–116Google Scholar; Abarshalin, V. M., “Parlament Efiopii” [The Parliament of Ethiopia], VMU, Seriya XII, Pravo, No. 3, 1969, 49–58Google Scholar; Sivachev, N. V., “Vmeshatel'stva organov ispolnitel'noi vlasti SShA v trudovyye konflikty v gody vtoroi mirovoi voiny” [Interference by Executive Organs of the USA in Labor Conflcts During the Second World War], VMU, Seriya XII, Pravo, No. 4, 1969, 20–30Google Scholar; and Smirnov, V. V., “Munitsipal'naya Sistema N'yu-iorka” [New York's Municipal System], VMU, Seriya XII, Pravo, No. 6, 1969, 44–52Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ For example, in his study of American campaign spending, Dmitriyev argues that only the American working class, struggling “to create a broad anti-monopoly front and to democratize the country's political life,” can prevent abuses. Dmitriyev, op. cit., 116. See also Vil'danov, R. Kh., Konstitutsii v politicheskoi sisteme burzhuaznogo obshchestva [Constitutions in the Political System of Bougeois Society], 1968Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Yermolenko (1967), op. cit., 17.

⁴⁶ Lepeshkin, A. I., “Nazrevshiye voprosy razvitiya nauki sovetskogo gosudarstvennogo prava [Urgent Questions in Developing the Science of Soviet Public Law],” SGP, No. 2, 1965, 5–15Google Scholar. Quotation on 6–7

⁴⁷ Perttsik, op. cit., 21

⁴⁸ Safarov, R. A., “Vyyavleniye obshchestvennogo mneniya v gosudarstvenno-pravovoi praktike [The Expression of Public Opinion in State and Legal Practices],” SGP, No. 10, 1967, 46–54Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ See Hollander, Paul, “The Dilemmas of Soviet Sociology,” Problems of Communism, 14, No. 6 (11–12, 1965), 43–45Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ The present contradictory approach to the social sciences was stated explicitly and succinctly by S. Kovalev: “Our social science must combine consistent Marxist-Leninist party-mindedness with a strictly scientific approach.” “Trebovaniya zhizni i obshchestvennyye nauki [Life's Demands and the Social Sciences],” Pravda, 05 6, 1966, 3Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Demichev, P., “Stroitel'stvo kommunizma i zadachi obshchestvennykh nauk [The Construction of Communism and Tasks of the Social Sciences], Kommunist, No. 10, 1968, 14–35Google Scholar; Rumyantsev and Osipov, op. cit., 7.

⁵² For the official attitude toward the social sciences in East Germany, see the October, 1968 resolution of the SED Politburo, Einheit, December, 1968, 1455–1470Google Scholar. In Hungary, a recent article by the Director of the Sociological Research Group of the Academy of Sciences, Kalman Kulcsar, gave support to the idea of political science. Other articles have described empirical research on village councils, and on certain aspects of the legal system, being carried out by the Sociological Research Group and Legal Sciences Institute in Hungary. See Partelet, July, 1969, 36–41Google Scholar and Nepszabadsag, May 31, 1969, 4–5Google Scholar.

⁵³ For the development of Polish political science, see Wiatr, Jerzy J., “Les Sciences Politiques en Pologne,” International Social Science Council Bulletin, March, 1966, 66–77Google Scholar; Zychowski, Marian, “Nauki polityczne [The Political Sciences],” Nowe Drogi, 20, No. 12 (1966), 20–27Google Scholar; Warszawski, Uniwersytet, Metodyczny, OsrodekPolitycznych, Nauk, Studia Nauk Politycznych: Biuletyn Informacyjno-Naukowy [Studies in the Political Sciences: Scientific Information Journal], No. 1, 1966Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Smailagić, Nerkez, “Problemi nastavnog plana Fakulteta političkih nauka [Problems of the Curriculum of the Faculty of Political Sciences] Politička Misao, 1, No. 1 (1964), 114–50Google Scholar; Ratković, Radoslav, “O predmetu i mestu političkih nauka [On the Subject and Role of Political Sciences] Naša Stvarnost 14, No. 2 (02, 1960), 156–68Google Scholar; Geršković, Leon, “O stanju i problemima studija političkih nauka u visokoškolskoj nastavi [On the Situation and Problems of the Study of Political Sciences in the Higher School Curriculums],” Arhiv za Pravne i Društvene Nauke, 49, No. 4 (10–12, 1963), 489–501Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ The meaning of “politologija” is not entirely clear in Yugoslav literature. One position is that politologija is an approach to the study of politics designed to integrate existing fields of political science through the development of a comprehensive theory of politics. See Professor Geršković's, views in Politička Misao, 2, No. 1 (1965), 145Google Scholar. The term often is used by Yugoslav political scientists simply to refer to the study of politics generally.

⁵⁶ Politička Misao, 2, No. 1 (1965), 119Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Vjesnik, 06 28, 1968, 1Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Šamalik, František, “Význam sociologie pro vědu o státu a právu [The Meaning of Sociology for the Science of the State and Law],” Právník, 102, No. 3 (1963), 177–85Google Scholar; “Pr̆ekonání důdledků kultu osobnosti a dogmatismu ve vӗdӗ o státu a právu [Overcoming the Consequences of the Cult of Personality and Dogmatism in the Science of the State and Law],” ibid., 102, No. 8, (1963), 621–33.

⁵⁹ For contributions to the discussion by Ort, Alexandr, Ondris, Karel, Kratochvíl, František, Soukup, Miroslav and others, see Nová Mýsl, No. 5, 1965, 684–93 and 1966, No. 8, 12–14Google Scholar; No. 18, 13–15; No. 20, 16–18 and No. 25, 24–28.

⁶⁰ Rudé Právo, 07 6, 1967, 3Google Scholar.

⁶¹ The interdisciplinary research team referred to above, originally part of the Institute of State and Law, was made part of a new Institute for the Political Sciences. The period between January and August was also marked by a rapid increase in the number of public opinion polls on political and other subjects. Ninety per cent of those responding to a Rudé Právo questionnaire indicated that they preferred a multi-party system to a one-party system. Rudé Právo, June 27, 1968.

⁶² Analele Institutului de Studii Istorice si Social-Politice de pe Linga CC al PCR, 05, 1968, 249–50Google Scholar.

⁶³ The Chairman of the Rumanian Political Science Association, George Macovesco, is First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.

⁶⁴ See Trăsnea, Ovidiu, “Probleme actuale ale ştiinţei politice [Current Problems of Political Science],” Lupta de Clasă, 48, No. 3 (03, 1968), 84–93Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ This research is summarized by Narojek, Winicjusz, Studies in the Polish Political System (Warsaw, 1967), 179–200Google Scholar and Studia Socjologiczno Polityczne, No. 23, 1967, 29–43Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ Zygmunt Bauman in Studies in the Polish Political System, op. cit., 13–32; see also his “Economic Growth, Social Structure, Elite Formation: The Case of Poland,” ISSJ, 16 (1964), 203–16Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ Wiatr, Jerzy, “Niektore zagadnienia opinii publicznej w świetle wyborów 1957 i 1958 [Several Problems of Public Opinion in the Light of the Elections of 1957 and 1958], Studia Socjologiczno Polityczne, No. 4, 1959Google Scholar, entire issue; Stanislaw Bereza, “Wybory do Dzielnicowej rady narodowej Warzawa-Ochata w roku 1958 [Elections to the People's Councils of Warsaw Ochata During 1958],” ibid., No. 2, 1959, 161–64; Institut Nauk Prawnych Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Problemi Rad Narodowych: Studia i matenaly [Problems of the People's Councils: Studies and Materials], No. 7, 1966Google Scholar, entire issue.

⁶⁸ See Studia Socjologiczno Polityczne, No. 25, 1968.

⁶⁹ See Markiewicz, Wladyslaw, “Sociological Research in People's Poland,” in Ehrlich, Stanislaw (ed.), Social and Political Transformations in Poland (1964), 221–54Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ Winicjusz Narojek, loc. cit.

⁷¹ Postawy społeczno-polityczne chtopow [Socio-Political Attitudes of the Peasants],” Studia Socjologiczno Polityczne, No. 16, 1964, 207–49Google Scholar.

⁷² Jerovšek, Janez, “Neformalne strukture odlučanje na nivoju opčine [The Informal Structure of Decision Making at the Level of the Opstina],” Sodobnost, 12, No. 12 (1964), 1183–94Google Scholar. See also his “Distribucija moči na nivoju občine [The Distribution of Power at the Level of the Opstina],” Teorija in Praksa, 2, No. 4 (1965), 652–64Google Scholar, and “Uticaj socijalne diferencijacije na strukturu moći na lokalnom nivou [The Influence of Social Differentiation on the Structure of Power at the Local Level],” in Zbornik promene klasne strukture savremenog jugoslovenskog društva (1967).

⁷³ Mlinar, Zdravko, “Kje se zaustavljate pobuda in kritika [Who Prevents Initiative and Criticism],” Teorija in Praksa, 3, No. 11 (11, 1966), 1514–27Google Scholar; “Sociološki aspekti samoupravljanje u komuni [Sociological Aspects of Self-Government in the Communes],” Gledište, 6, No. 2 (02, 1965), 195–210Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ One pioneering work which provides selected data from a sample survey on the role of the Party in institutions of self-government carried out in the district of Kraljevo (Serbia) is Kilibarda, Krsto Š., Samoupravljanje i Savez Komunista: Resultati sociološkog istraživanja u srezu Kraljevo [Self Government and the League of Communists: Results of a Sociological Investigation in the District of Kraljevo] (1966)Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ The vast literature which has appeared in these areas cannot be cited here in detail. Some of the best empirical data on workers' councils have appeared in Sociologija, No. 1, 1961, and in the work by Derganc, Jože and Cukova, Ana, Delovna skupina v sistemu delavskego samoupravljanja [Workers' Councils in the System of Self-Management], Institut za sociologijo in filizofijo, Ljubljana (mimeographed) (1966)Google Scholar. The Institute for Social Sciences in Belgrade has published many studies in this area as well. An excellent monograph on the Yugoslav commune, which may well be the best empirical piece yet produced by a Yugoslav political scientist, is Pusić, Eugene, “Area and Administration in Yugoslav Development,” ISSJ, 21, No. 1 (1969), 68–82Google Scholar. For a solid discussion of the problems of public administration arising from the operation of the Yugoslav federal system utilizing concrete examples from Yugoslav practice, see Institut za uporedno pravo, Podela normativne funkcije izmedju organa različitih političkih jedinica [The Division of Normative Functions Among Organs of Different Political Units] (1966)Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ See Mlinar, Zdravko, “Družbena struktura komune in problem oblasti [The Social Structure of the Commune and the Problem of Authority],” Problemi, 2, No. 13 (1964), 69–79Google Scholar; Knežević, Milan, “Neformalne grupe [Informal Groups],” Oslobodjenje, 02 8, 1967, 5Google Scholar; Zečević, Miodraga Dj., Društvene organizacije i udruženja gradjana u komuni [Social Organizations and Associations of Citizens in the Commune] (1965)Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ See for example, the poll taken in 1964 on national attitudes in Yugoslavia: “O aktuelnim političkim i društvenim pitanjima [On Immediate Political and Social Problems],” Jugoslovensko Javno Mnenje, Series A-3, 1964, 83–108Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Janicijević, Miloslavet al., Jugoslovenski studenti i socijalizam [Yugoslav Students and Socialism] (1966)Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ “O aktuelnim političkim i društvenim pitanjima 1965 [On Actual Political and Social Questions 1965,” Jugoslovensko Javno Mnenje, Series A-3, 1965, 78–79Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ Institut društvenih nauka, Godišnjak 1965 [Yearbook 1965], 126Google Scholar.

⁸¹ See also Komisije Rady narodowej m. Lodz: podstawy praume struktura, sklad i dzialalnosc [The Commission of the People's Council of Lodz: The Foundation of its Legal Structure and Activity] (1960); Sokolowicz, Wojciech, Rzad a prezydia rad narodowych [The Work of the Presidia of the National Councils] (1964)Google Scholar.

⁸² Gjanković, Dan, “Dvostranački sistem u SAD [The Two Party System in the USA],” Politička Misao, 1, No. 3 (1964), 11–63Google Scholar; Pavlović, Kosara, “Organizaciona struktura političkih partija Zapadne Evrope [The Organizational Structure of Political Parties in Western Europe],” Gledišta, 4, No. 8 (1963), 46–56Google Scholar; Hirszowicz, Maria, “Problemy panstawa Brytyjskego [Problems of the British State],” Studia socjologiczno polityczne, No. 7, 1960Google Scholar, entire issue; Meszorer, Albert, Brytyjski System parlamentarny w zarysie [The British Parliamentary System in Outline] (1962)Google Scholar; Zawadski, Sylwester, Panstwo dobrobytu [The Welfare State] (1964)Google Scholar; Ehrlich, Stanisław, Wlada i interesy. Studium Struktury Politycznej Kapitalizmu [Power and Interests. A Study of the Political Structure of Capitalism] (1967)Google Scholar; Wiatr, Jerzy, Amerykańskie wybory [American Elections] (1961)Google Scholar.

⁸³ Institut za izučavanje radničkog pokreta, Društveno-politički sistemi socijalističkih zemalja [Social-Political Systems of Socialist Countries] (1964)Google Scholar; Pregled, 54, No. 4 (04, 1964), 404Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ Szymczak, Tadeusz, Instytucja prezydenta w socjalistycznym prawie panstwowym [The Institution of the President in Socialist State Law] (1963)Google Scholar; Gelberg, Ludwig, “Problem kolegialnege prezydenta w panstwach socjalistycznych [Problems of the Collegial President in Socialist States],” Panstwo i Prawo, 22, No. 4–5 (04–05, 1967), 749–53Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ Ninćić, Djure, “Metodologija proučavanja medjunarodnih odnosa [The Methodology of Studying International Relations],” Arhiv za Pravne i Društvene Nauke, 46, No. 3–4, 1960, 238–55Google Scholar; Institute of International Politics and Economics (Prague), International Relations: A Czech Foreign Policy Review, Selections of Studies from Volume II, 1967, 55–81Google Scholar; Antonín Šnejdárek, “The Development of Research in Czechoslovakia on International Relations,” ibid., Selection of Studies from Volume I, 1966, 5–18; Jerzy Wiatr, “Les Sciences Politique en Pologne,” op. cit., 76–77.

⁸⁶ Some of the vast literature appearing in Poland on underdeveloped areas is described in Polski Instytut Spraw Miedzynarodowych, Bibliografia polskich publicacji na temat Ajryki [Bibliography of Polish Publications on Africa] (1965)Google Scholar. For Czech works, International Relations (Prague), loc. cit., Evidence of Yugoslav interest is found in Institut za izučavanje radničkog pokreta, PolitičKi sistemi i pokreti u nerazvijenim zemljama: Metodološko-teorijski okviri izučavanje [Political Systems and Movements in Underdeveloped Nations: Methodological-Theoretical Frameworks for Research] (1964)Google Scholar.

⁸⁷ One approach to the gathering of empirical data which has been tried on several occasions in Yugoslavia is the organization of joint research projects with foreign social scientists. While this enables the outside researcher to gather much valuable material, the impact on Yugoslav political science, measured in terms of published data, has not been significant. Differences have also arisen over the interpretation of the data gathered by international research teams of this type; an early and well known case is the research of the French sociologist, Albert Meister, on workers' councils. See his Socialisme et Autogestion: L'Experience Yougoslave (1964).

⁸⁸ Djurić, Mihailo, “Stara i nova nauka o politici [The Old and the New In Politics],” Gledišta, 8, No. 6–7 (06–07, 1967), 846Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ “Partijski monopolizam i politička moć društ-venih grupa [The Party Monopoly and the Political Power of Social Groups],” Gledišta, 8, No. 8–9 (08–09, 1967), 1053–1066Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ See “Politički sistem Jugoslavije u nastavi [The Political System of Yugoslavia in the Curriculum],” Arhiv za Pravne i Društvene Nauke, 52, No. 2, 1966, 175–88Google Scholar.

⁹¹ “O federativnom karateru naše države [On the Federal Character of Our State],” Zbornike Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu, No. 4, 1964, 230–34Google Scholar.

⁹² See his work, “Area and Administration in Yugoslav Development,” supra.

⁹³ See especially his debate with Geršković, , “Neka pitanja ostvarivanja i razvitka socijalističke demokratije [Some Questions of the Creation and Development of Socialist Democracy],” Politička Misao, 1, No. 2 (1964), 153–82Google Scholar.

⁹⁴ “Socijalna diferencijacija i struktura moći [Social Differentiation and the Question of Power],” Socijalizam, 9, No. 3 (1966), 378–81Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ Examples of this type of work are the immense and erudite work of Professor Djordjević, Jovan, PolitiČki sistem [Political System] (1967)Google Scholar; Geršković, Leon, Problemi i perspektive razvoja skupštinskog sistema Jugoslavije [Problems and Perspectives of the Development of the System of Assemblies in Yugoslavia] (1967)Google Scholar; Lukić, Radomir, Ustavnost i zakonitost [Constitutionalism and Legality] (1966)Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ Arhiv za Pravne i Društvene Nauke, 50, No. 1–2 (1964), 84Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ Politički sistem Jugoslavije u nastavi,” loc. cit.

⁹⁸ See earlier references to Bauman's works.

⁹⁹ See Trybuna Ludu, 03 22, 1968, 4–5Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ Those involved were Bauman, Maria Herszowicz and Julian Hochfeld.

¹⁰¹ Ostrowski, Krzysztof, “Uwagi o perspektywach badań socjologicznych w Polsce [Remarks on the Perspectives for Sociological Research in Poland], Nowe Drogi, 21, No. 4 (04, 1967), 129–36Google Scholar.

¹⁰² Trybuna Ludu, 12 19, 1967, 6Google Scholar.

¹⁰³ Trybuna Ludu, 12 21, 1967, 4Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁴ Zycie Gospodarcze, February 4, 1968.

¹⁰⁵ The first issue of the journal, which became available in 1969, provided a broad range of articles on such subjects as international relations, political theory and local government. Current publications and professional activities in the field outside Poland were well reported. At the same time, the journal was more ideologically oriented than its Yugoslav counterpart, Politička Misao. Zychowski, in his account of Polish political science, focused mainly on the contribution the discipline was expected to make to the “Fundamentals” course.