STATEMENT OF PERSONAL HISTORY

Name: William Jarvie Nicoson

Residence: 44 E. 63rd St., New York, N. Y. Tel: 212 TE 2-9020

Business Address: 48 Wall St., New York, N. Y. Tel: 212 HA 2-8100

Date of Birth: June 1, 1932

Place of Birth: Pittsburgh, Pa.

Marital Status: Married

EDUCATION

Preparatory School: Phillips Exeter Academy, Exeter, N.H.

Entered: 1946

Graduated: 1950, high honors

Average grade: B/

Prizes: award in oral French and cup for "qualities of leadership"

College: Princeton University, Princeton, N.J.

Entered: 1950

Graduated: 1954, cum laude

Average: B/

Degree: AB

Department: Modern Languages and Literatures

Prizes: Class of 1883 Prize in English composition; Francis Biddle Essay Prize

Foreign Study: University of Paris, Paris, France

With the permission of Princeton University, the third year (1952-1953) was spent studying literature and political science at the University of Paris.

Average: A-

Graduate Study: Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass.

Entered: 1956

Graduated: 1959

Average: B

Degree: LLB

Specialization: International transactions

PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT

Dates: September 1959-present

Employer: Sullivan & Cromwell, 48 Wall St., NY, NY

Title: Associate

Activity: Practice of law. The period Sept. 1962-Sept. 1964 was spent at the Paris office of the firm, established in September 1962.

MILITARY SERVICE

Dates: Sept 1944-Sept 1956

Branch: Artillery

Present grade: Lst Lt, USAR

Assignments:

a. Student officer; Ft. Bliss, Tex.; Sept 1954-Feb 1955.

b. Platoon leader, light AAA self-propelled platoon; commanding eight combat vehicles, 60 men; Hanau, Germany; Mar-Sept 1955.

c. Assistant S-3, AAA Battalion staff; supervising operations, plans and training; Hanau, Germany; Sept 1955-June 1956

d. Liaison officer, G-3 section, Corps Headquarters; coordinating emergency plans with French forces; Frankfurt, Germany; June-Sept 1956.

Service: Army

SUMMER EMPLOYMENT

I. Dates: June-August, 1951

Employer: Benson & Benson, Inc., Princeton, N.J.

Title: Interviewer, public opinion research

Activity: personal interviewing followed by tabulation, compilation and interpretation of data

II. Dates: June-August, 1952

Employer: Indiana Evening Gazette, Indiana, Pa.

Title: Drama critic

Activity: preparation of weekly articles reviewing summer stock productions

III. Dates: September, 1954

Employer: Davis Polk Wardwell Sunderland & Kiendl, 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza, New York, N.Y.

Title: Clerk

Activity: representing firm at call of court calendar, maintaining case dockets, elementary research

IV. Dates: July-August, 1958

Employer: Sullivan & Cromwell, 48 Wall St., N.Y., N.Y.

Title: Law Clerk

Activity: Legal research; preparation of legal memoranda

PUBLISHED ARTICLES

I. A series of weekly articles published in the Indiana Evening Gazette, Indiana, Pa., during the summer of 1952.

II. A series of two articles published in the American Milk Review (March and April issues, 1953) entitled "To Sell Intelligently You Need Sales Intelligence".

III. An article in the UCLA Law Review (January issue, 1962) entitled "Misuse of the Misuse Doctrine in Infringement Suits".

FEB 20 1968

PERSONAL
TO DR. KISSINGER From Nancy

Comments on Middle East Paper

General Comment

Too shallow to be useful.

In reading this paper, I am overwhelmed by the image of Secretary Stanton pulling something apart in front of a war profiteer, shaking his head and saying "shoddy goods."

Is it superfluous of me to request revision by the author?

MIDDLE EAST

Page 1

1. A map (better than the one at the end) of the Middle East should be included here - source must be given.

2. Some history - especially since World War I is needed - Mandates, alliances, European influences in the Middle East - certainly the creation of Israel must be included - How much effect Europe had on various states in the area.

3. Drop phrases such as "dismay and anger of the Arab Middle East,..."

4. Section I is _all_ very vague. The geographical part needs statistics - especially oil - Should be charted according to resources and output of each area.

5. Section I. It might be better to drop this whole section, except for the geographical - economic comments. Put the rest of the material in other sections.

6. II. (1) The amounts of aid over the last 8 years and the sources of this aid must be noted.

7. II. (2) The "sporadic efforts to modernize" must be handled specifically - which states have had the most success? The conflict between "modernization" and a theocratic society which identifies "modernization" with Christianity should be commented upon.

8. II. (1). Some specific information on subsistence agriculture - Efforts made to diversify agriculture - and problems involved - including local resistance. - More on other resources.

9. II. B. What economic expectations?

Page 2

1. II.4a. What European country imports the most? How oil-dependent is Europe upon the Middle East (i.e. comparison with imports from U.S. etc.). Of equal importance, the U.S. and European investment in the development of the oil in this area. Positive and negative consequences of this Western pressure, economically and physically, in the area. Also - extent of Japanese ties in the area.

- 2 -

2. II.4B. What strategic position? Which countries control key strategic points. Certainly, something on the recent difficulties over the Suez.

3. II.4C. How much arable land? Relation to population density. And what minerals.

4. II. 4D. I do not think a comment on Israel belongs under "Arab Economic Problems and Prospects"

5. (5) A. The meagerness of the resources should be shown.

6. (5) B. Western efforts to provide the "human" resources.

7. (5) C. Where are these problems particularly acute?

8. D. The extent, types and causes of Arab fractionalism need further development.

9. E. Specifics on defense budgets (at least since 1953) and an across the board analysis of them.

10. III. Religion is what? And how binding a force is it? What does Arab identity mean?

11. IIIA. The "incompetence" of the Arabs is probably a myth - but some explanation should be offered by the author for their failings on pages 1 and 2.

Page 2-3

1. What's so brilliant about their cultural and historical background? Is there a lack of flexibility or what - which accounts for their degree of retardation in the twentieth century?

Page 3

2. C. I think more should be said (earlier) about the artificiality of the Arab states' boundaries - the implications of this should be explored.

3. C. Extent of anti-Westernism? Which countries are the most anti-Western? And to what extent are the foreign policies of the various states reflected this bias - Conflict of economic interest and historical heritage? Use of anti-Westernism as a political tool?

-3-

4. E. This is all rather vague. And is xenophobia the sole reason? - Specific information since '45.

5. F. How is "Arab socialism" different from other "socialisms"?

6. Iraq - Which party is the dictator?

Page 4

1. This section on Iraq is very thin. What has the Soviet Union done in the area? and U.S.S.R. role in coup? What were the British and U.S. efforts specifically? And why did they fail.

2. 2. Syria.

A. Why did the French depart.

B. What is the Baghdad Pact?

C. What did the West do to try to gain Syria's adherence?

D. Why did Syria join Egypt?

E. Terms of Syrian-Egyptian collaboration?

F. Why did the union fail?

G. For what reason should Syria be the center of anti-Westernism in the Middle East? And it should be demonstrated that it has earned this title.

H. Why shouldn't Moscow be happy? One can hardly say that it did not encourage the Arabs to go to war against Israel.

You need to give some idea of the nature of the relationship between individual Arab states and the Soviet Union. The interaction of Soviet and Arab policies must be explored.

3. 3. **Egypt.** identification

a. Some states of Nasser - and the system he overthrew. (This should be done for each country).

b. Reason for friendly relations until '54. And what did this mean in terms of aid, etc.

c. What "arms deal?"

d. Why - what reasons did Dulles give.

- 4 -

Page 5

1. E. It has not been made clear that Nasser wished to dominate the Arab world. When did he begin to follow such a policy? What tools did he use to implement this idea? And what were the bases of "agreement" with other Arab states.
   Which states - and why - resisted Nasser.

2. F. What happened between '56 and '62 to disrupt the UAR and why?
   What "aid" in specific terms did Nasser give Yemen?

3. G. Details of closer relations between Egypt and the U.S.S.R. - And what, in terms of money and material, did such a relationship mean?

4. a. Who develops the oil?

b. Faisal's attitude towards the West.

c. What does holding onto politically "old ways" mean - And where is the technology coming from?

5. Living standards and state programs in Saudi Arabia?
   Comparison with other Arab states?

Page 6 Jordan

1. Type of government?

2. Basis of Jordan-Israeli problem. How did the refugees get there, etc?

3. Policy Hussein has tried to follow? His attitude towards the West?

4. What pressure has been put on him by other Arab nations?
   His reaction to such pressure?

5. What defense pact?

6. Omit Hussein as a "captor of his circumstances."

7. IVA. If some are rich and some are poor, that does not make economic equality a bond. The relation of political and traditional stability and economic potential seems worth integrating.

8. B. Is it the weaknesses of the propagandist policies of the radical political leaders which breed "activist

- 5 -

policies" i.e. have "activist policies" been used as
a diversionary tactic?

9. C. Seeking new markets and new resources are not the same thing - unless one thinks in terms of "co-property spheres" or you need new resources within each country. If so, this has not been shown. And what new markets, etc. have been sought - and by whom? Isn't there a guaranteed oil market - which has been used to blackmail the countries of Europe? What else is there to market? From where does each country import? And what is being imported? Show effort to keep outside influences to a minimum.

Page 7

1. E. Predictions are out of place.
The factionalism within the Arab world is not shown.

2. B. Read the Balfour Declaration and White Paper.

Page 8

3. D.1. The issue, in precise terms, that the British placed before the U.N.

4. D.2. U.N. voting line up? Why did the partition fail?

5. There should be a separate section on Israel as on Arab countries.

6. Point out terms on which a U.N. force can operate.

7. Drop Economist.

8. 1. What international commitment?

Page 9

1. (2) Separate section on Israel should include something on its military system - and awareness of the possibility of total destruction.

2. European, U.S.S.R., U.S. roles and attitudes in the conflict.

- 6 -

3. (4) When and what constitutes the UAR Jordan's awareness that a military solution might not be possible.

4. Some comment on the outcome of the war - i.e. extent of Arab defeat - as well as Arab participants and actions.

5. VI A. Drop A.

6. B?? Clarify?

7. Israeli atomic program?

8. E. How have these wars, exactly, increased the danger of a U.S.S.R. and U.S. confrontation? What role has the U.S. been playing in these wars?

Page 10

1. VII. A. How - in what way - is the U.S.S.R. a major Mediterranean power?

2. VII. B. Why should the U.S. seek Russian "help" in the Middle East?

3. What has been the U.S.' attitude towards Israeli occupation of Arab territory?

4. D. Information should be earlier - and, in more precise terms, what is the extent of U.S.S.R. strength in the Middle East. E. i.s. what "inroads."

5. F. Since when?

6. I question how much influence the U.S.S.R. has with Turkey.

Page 11

1. Specific information re policy efforts is needed.

2. B (2). What difficulty have we had?

3. B (3). Is pressing for an alliance enough to precipitate a revolution?

4. B (5) Specifically.

23

## Farm Exports as Related to the Long-time World Food Situation

The United States is the world's largest exporter of agricultural products. The production of 1/4 of every 4 cropland acres cultivated in the United States is exported and farm exports provide employment for 1/8 of every 8 farm workers.

The United States is also the world's third largest importer of farm products. About 10 per cent of the total food supply of the nation is imported, mostly in the form of non-competitive products such as coffee, bananas and other tropical fruits, tea, off-season fruits and vegetables, cocoa, and products of which we produce only part of our needs, such as sugar.

United States farm exports exceed farm imports by about a billion dollars annually. In general, farm exports have expanded more rapidly than other exports in recent years and provide a major surplus income producer to assist in maintaining our balance of payments in international trade.

For the 1950-54 period, the United States exported 3.3 billion dollars of farm products. This level increased to 5.4 billion for the 1960-64 period, to 8.2 billion in 1965, and to 6.9 billion in 1966. Most of our commercial farm exports are shipped to advanced industrial countries with Japan, the countries of Western Europe, and Canada being the major markets. The developing countries, including Latin America, Africa and Asia excluding Japan, took 85 per cent of our exports under Government gift and subsidy programs, but only 16 per cent of our commercial exports for hard currency in the 1965-66 marketing year.

24

In 1965-66, over three-fourths of all farm exports were sold for dollars; the remainder was sold under various types of Government-financed programs, mostly sales under Public Law 480. The importance of government-financed exports varies widely by commodities. In the 1961-66 period, about 70 per cent of all wheat and flour exports were assisted by Government programs. These programs have been relatively unimportant for fruits and vegetables, tobacco, and animal products other than dairy products.

Exports vary in importance for different farm products. In 1966, we exported 69 per cent of our wheat, 54 per cent of our rice, 48 per cent of all hides and skins and sorghum grains, 44 per cent of all soybeans grown, 37 per cent of all tallow, 34 per cent of the corn produced, 28 per cent of our tobacco, 24 per cent of our barley, and 20 per cent of all cotton sold.

The United States Department of Agriculture has prepared projections for agricultural exports to 1980. From the current level of around 7 billion dollars annually, exports of $8 billion are projected for 1970 and $10 billion in 1980. In view of trends in farm exports in the last 10 years, these projections appear reasonable and sound. In 1953-54, exports accounted for 10 cents out of every farm market dollar. In 1959-60 exports amounted to 14 cents of each farm income dollar and in 1965-66 to 17 cents. With present trends, this level will reach around 20 cents by 1975 and up to 25 cents in 1980.

These facts indicate that the over-all export picture for United States agriculture is promising. However, there are certain limiting

25

factors and points of caution. About one-fourth of the total export sales of United States farm products are being moved under various Government programs. These are heavily-subsidized sales that will last only as long as it is United States policy to continue to incur the costs involved. In an economy program, such costs most likely would be substantially reduced, with a similar reduction in exports and pressures of this volume on existing dollar sales. Also, a disproportionate part of these sales are for wheat and feed grains - the commodities with which we are already in most serious difficulty.

As has been indicated previously, the long-time world food situation is serious. Many of the developing countries will find it difficult, if not impossible, to produce the necessary food for their rapidly increasing populations. However, for the most part, these countries do not have the purchasing power - the dollar income - with which to buy United States farm products. These countries in the next 10 years will depend on our various government-financed food distribution programs just as they have depended on this same source for the last 10 years. For the United States farmer, such markets do not show promise of stability or good prices. Undoubtedly, the United States government will continue to assist starving nations in emergencies. There is a limit, however, to this type of assistance and it should not be expected to expand beyond current levels.

The expanding populations of the developing nations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America will need an estimated 300 million additional tons of grain by 1980 in order to maintain levels of living at current

26

rates. This is approximately the total production of the United States, Canada, and Western Europe at the present time. In the long run, most of this additional food will have to be produced in the countries where it is needed. These developing countries do not have the purchasing power to buy such food elsewhere and the developed countries do not have the productive capacity to produce such needs.

United States farmers are fortunate that a gradually increasing export market for their products is to be expected in the next 10 to 15 years. This increased market, however, is possibly sufficiently large to take care of the increased productivity per acre to be expected with continued applications of improved technology, but is not large enough to solve the excess capacity problem or to provide higher prices for over-all production. Thus, overproduction and surpluses will continue to be a major problem.

Government Costs for Agriculture Under Different Approaches

The two major governmental costs for agriculture involve expenditures for agricultural research and education and expenditures for farm price and income support and stabilization. From 1932 to 1965, funds from local, state, and federal sources for agricultural research and education have averaged about .3 billion annually; for 1966, a level of about .5 billion is a reasonable estimate. From 1932 to 1965, direct federal costs for supporting and stabilizing farm prices and incomes averaged about 1.5 billion annually; for 1966, a level of 3.3 billion in direct payments to farmers plus indirect costs of other support programs of 1.2 billion is indicated, or a total of 4.5 billion for all price and support programs.

27

The returns received for the investment in research and education have been difficult to measure. Various studies put the annual investment return from these expenditures at from 100 to 300 per cent. Increases in agricultural production and efficiency acquired through research and education have resulted in major increases in output per acre and per unit of livestock and per man hour worked. The result has been a 50 per cent increase in farm output and a 9 per cent reduction in total cropland since 1940, while total man hours worked decreased more than 50 per cent during the same period.

This increased efficiency on the farm has been passed on to consumers in the form of lower food costs and higher quality food. From 1950 to 1965, there has been a 25 per cent decrease in the proportion of consumer disposable income spent for food. The larger share of this reduction in the percentage of disposable income going for food has been in payments to farmers for their raw unprocessed products; this has amounted to a decrease of 36 per cent in the 1950-65 period. Marketing costs also declined but not to the same extent.

This investment in agricultural research and education has paid unusually high dividends and has resulted in increased efficiency in agriculture greater than that achieved in non-agricultural industries. There are no indications that this rate of return will be reduced in the future. Thus, the current level of expenditure of governmental funds, including local, state, and federal, of about .5 billion dollars annually should be expected to be continued. It will continue to be a good investment.

28

The returns from expenditures for supports and stabilization have been even more difficult to determine. Farm prices and farm income have been supported primarily by limiting production and by direct market price supports through a surplus management program and, more recently, by direct benefit payments to supplement income from farm product sales. Some studies have indicated that the annual realized net income of farm operators would have been 40 to 50 per cent lower in the absence of these programs. However, to the extent that farm output would be larger in the absence of supports and production controls, employment of and payments to owners of farm inputs purchased for increased production would most likely be increased so that the net impact on total income from agriculture would be less than the loss in direct farm income.

A summary of various studies made to evaluate the over-all impact of government support programs since 1955¹ indicates that farm prices would have been 10 to 20 per cent lower, gross receipts 5 to 15 per cent lower, and net farm income 25 to 50 per cent lower in recent years in the absence of government supports. These studies also indicate that farm prices and income would fall substantially if major government support programs were immediately terminated. With this result, the movement toward freer markets must be accompanied by measures to cushion the shock to farmers and to other elements of the economy while the adjustments are achieved.

¹Agricultural Policy: A Review of Programs and Needs, Volume V, Technical Papers, pp. 114-115, National Advisory on Food and Fiber, The White House, Washington, D.C., August, 1967.

29

These studies indicate that annual net farm income would have been approximately $6 billion lower annually in the absence of government support programs. As the Government is now spending around $4 billion annually to support farm income, this means that each dollar spent on farm income supports results in $1.50 in increased net farm income. This is considerably less than the $100 or more returned for each expenditure of one dollar in research and education. In both cases, the taxpayer pays for the inputs and the farmer receives the benefits. In the research and education area, the taxpayer receives the benefits in the form of lower prices and higher quality food. In the price support and farm income aid, he also receives the benefits in terms of maintaining a more stable agricultural economy and less rural unrest. In this case, the returns are much lower and there is always the question as to whether the approaches used really retard needed adjustments in agriculture, and thus continue high taxpayer costs and discontent in agriculture, rather than solve the long-time problems.

Programs such as the land-diversion and cropland adjustment approaches, especially the whole-farm diversion program, are much more efficient in returning more for the dollar expended than the direct-payment and commodity-support approaches. Thus, in the immediate future, it would be desirable from the point of view of obtaining maximum desirable adjustments at the least possible cost to maximize land diversion programs and minimize direct payments and price support programs.

In general, the current expenditure level of $4 billion to $4.5 billion annually should be expected to be continued for the next 3 to

30

5 years. Of this volume, the major expenditure is the 3.3 billion annual
cost for direct payments to farmers. If the programs are designed to get
out of the direct payments approach as soon as possible, and to emphasize
land diversion approaches, within 3 to 5 years, the costs can be reduced
to 2 to 3 billion dollars annually, and in 10 years to less than 1 bil-
lion a year, as increased demands catch up with available supplies and
the low-productive elements in agriculture withdraw from farming. If
the direct payments approach is emphasized and the land-diversion pro-
grams minimized, costs will continue at the $4.5 billion level and pos-
sibly at a higher level and the adjustment problem will be even more
serious 5 to 10 years hence as the existing over-productive capacity is
stimulated and encouraged even at a relatively low level of efficiency.

-*-*

Room 4100
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019

November 1, 1967

Dear Mary:

Enclosed is a memorandum that I sent on to your boss yesterday. I am not at all certain he read it very carefully; at least I am not certain he and I are talking on the same wave length about what we will have come November 30 and what was our original intent. However, Bill Butler's office is going to do us a sample (using education) that will indicate just what you will have in hand by November 30. We should have that by next week. I am meeting with Bill Butler at 10 a.m. on Friday, the tenth, which is the earliest he could see me after his return Wednesday from abroad.

NAR thought you might like to go through quickly the background papers prepared for the six reports. We have a complete set in this office and since they are so numerous, I think it might be simpler if you came here to go through them. There are 32 domestic papers (the subject with which we are primarily concerned), and 70 international (which is being worked on separately). I won't be back until Wednesday, but just call Peggy Kahoe (PL 7-1950) if you want to come ahead of that and she will be certain the papers are out. Also, Bob Armstrong will be here, and he is familiar with the total project. Further, as you know well, much study and projection was done by DNA four years ago.

The point at which I think Nelson and I were talking at different levels: He seemed to think that our original intent was to take all the *background* papers and update the statistics. Rather it has always been our intent to update and make new projections using the framework of the IV Report (a copy of which is enclosed). Apparently he must have gotten this impression from somewhere. I don't really feel that it will cause too serious a problem anyway, but we intend to write a 1-2-3 memo laying out just exactly what is being done.

THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
WASHINGTON

JUL 19 1967

Dear Nancy:

I am delighted to hear that you are planning
some follow up of the earlier reports. But
I am afraid that I can't be of much help in
suggesting individuals to do the reviews. I
am not as up on names and availabilities as
I used to be.

It was a pleasure to glance through the list
of names of the old panels. They brought back
memories of one of the most stimulating experi-
ences of my life.

Miss Nancy Hanks
Executive Secretary
Special Studies
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Room 4100
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019

JUL 21 1967

JUL 19 1967

Rockefeller Brothers Fund

30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York 20, New York

Laurance S. Rockefeller
President

Special Studies
Nancy Hanks, Executive Secretary
Room 4100, 1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019

July 14, 1967

Dear Henry:

It was very good to talk with you, and I am so pleased you will be able to tackle the work needed to be done in the national security area. Also, I much appreciate your calling Mr. Wilson about the urban renewal/environmental planning issues.

To recap our conversation: We do not wish to go into a major project, reconvening panels and the like. We do believe, however, that it will be possible to do something on a modest basis in regard to the economic and social report and the education report. We have in mind using the structure of the former, including education as a major section. Our thought would be basically to cover:

How the present situation compares with that forecast in the report;

Where we have come in each field since 1957, including major economic, social, and education developments, and dollar spending;

What are the major problems that appear in the future;

Projections to 1977 of future dollar requirements in each area.

Bill Butler's staff at Chase will do a great deal of the projections, as they did for the panel reports. However, there are certain areas in which we need assistance in projections and

ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND, INC.
SPECIAL STUDIES PROJECT

SUBPANEL IV -- U.S. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL OBJECTIVES AND POLICY

(As listed in report, published April 1958)

McCabe, Thomas B.
Chairman

President, Scott Paper Company
Former Chairman, Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System

Manning, Bayless A.
Panel Secretary

Associate Professor of Law,
Yale University

Burns, Arthur F.

President, The National Bureau of
Economic Research
Professor of Economics, Columbia
University

Granger, Lester B.

Executive Director,
National Urban League, Inc.

Josephs, Devereux C.

Chairman, New York Life Insurance
Company

Rosenberg, Anna M.

Public and Industrial Relations
Consultant
Former Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Manpower and Personnel

Wilde, Frazar B.

President, Connecticut General Life
Insurance Company

Butler, William F.

Vice President, Economic Research
Department, The Chase Manhattan
Bank

Coggeshall, Lowell T.

Dean of the Division of Biological
Sciences, University of Chicago
Former Special Assistant for Health
and Medical Affairs, Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare
President, Association of American
Medical Colleges
President, American Cancer Society

June 15, 1960

(Over)

- 2 -

Efferson, J. Norman
Professor of Agricultural Economics and Dean, College of Agriculture, Louisiana State University

Keezer, Dexter M.
Vice President and Director of Economics Department, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company

Lindsay, Franklin A.
Consultant, McKinsey & Company, Inc.

Livingston, Joseph A.
Financial Editor, The Philadelphia Bulletin
Former Economist, Business Week and War Production Board

May, Stacy
Economist

Perkins, Roswell B.
Debevoise, Plimpton and McLean
Former Assistant Secretary, Department of Health Education, and Welfare

Rostow, Eugene
Dean, Yale University Law School

Thomson, J. Cameron
Chairman of the Board, Northwest Bancorporation

Livingston, Joseph A.
Financial Editor, The Philadelphia Bulletin
June 15, 1960

Economist

SUBPANEL V -- U.S. UTILIZATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(As listed in report, published June 1958)

<table><tr><td>Gardner, John W.<br>Chairman</td><td>President, Carnegie Corporation of New York<br>President, Carnegie Foundation for the<br>Advancement of Teaching</td></tr><tr><td>Hechinger, Fred M.<br>Panel Secretary</td><td>Associate publisher, Bridgeport Herald<br>Education Editor, Parents' Magazine</td></tr><tr><td>Haskins, Caryl P.</td><td>President, Carnegie Institution of Washington</td></tr><tr><td>Hesburgh, Theodore M.</td><td>President, University of Notre Dame<br>Commissioner, Civil Rights Commission<br>Member, National Science Board</td></tr><tr><td>Hickey, Margaret</td><td>Public Affairs Editor, Ladies' Home Journal</td></tr><tr><td>Brown, J. Douglas</td><td>Dean of Faculty, Princeton University<br>Former member, Mobilization Program Advisory<br>Committee, Office of Defense Mobilization</td></tr><tr><td>Coggeshall, Lowell T.</td><td>Dean of the Division of Biological Sciences,<br>University of Chicago<br>Former Special Assistant for Health and<br>Medical Affairs, Department of Health,<br>Education and Welfare<br>President, Association of American Medical<br>Colleges<br>President, American Cancer Society</td></tr><tr><td>Coombs, Philip H.</td><td>Secretary and Director of Research, The Fund<br>for the Advancement of Education, Ford<br>Foundation<br>Former Executive Director, President's<br>Materials Policy Commission<br>Faculty Member, Amherst College and Williams<br>College</td></tr><tr><td>Farnsworth, Dana L.</td><td>Director, University Health Services, Harvard<br>University and Radcliffe College<br>President, Group for the Advancement of<br>Psychiatry<br>Physician, Massachusetts General Hospital</td></tr></table>

SUBPANEL V (Continued) - 2 -

Ginzberg, Eli
Professor of Economics, Columbia University
Director, Conservation of Human Resources
Director of Staff Studies, National Manpower
Council

Riesman, David
Professor, Sociology Department, University
of Chicago

Sterling, J.E. Wallace
President, Stanford University

Wilson, Howard E.
Dean of School of Education, University of
California, Los Angeles

Wolfe, Dael
Executive Officer, American Association
for the Advancement of Science
Former Director of the Commission on
Human Resources and Advanced Training
Editor of America's Resources of Specialized
Talent

*Killian, James R., Jr.
President, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology

*Served as chairman of Panel V until November 1957 when he was appointed
Special Assistant to the President.

June 15, 1960

SUBPANEL IV (Continued)

- 2 -

Individual and Social Welfare
Lester B. Granger
National Urban League

IV-8

Edited

Farm Problem

A Working Paper on Agricultural Policy
Theodore W. Schultz
Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences

IV-9

Edited

Some Concepts and Long-Time Objectives of Agricultural Policy
J. Norman Efferson
Louisiana State University

IV-10

Edited

Uneven Industrial Growth
Franklin A. Lindsay
McKinsey & Company

IV-11

Not
Written

Resources

Outlook for Natural Resources and Problems of Their Development
Joseph L. Fisher
Resources for the Future, Inc.

IV-12

Edited

Plans for Non-Renewable Resources
Franklin A. Lindsay
McKinsey & Company

IV-13

Edited

Statement on United States Water Problems
Fairfield Osborn and Robert G. Snider
The Conservation Foundation

IV-14

Edited

Transportation

Transportation: Trends, Problems and Recommendations IV-15
Ernest Williams
Columbia University

IV-15

Edited

June 15, 1960

SUBPANEL V - U.S. UTILIZATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES

| PAPERS and AUTHORS* | PAPER NO. | STATUS |
|---|---|---|
| A Look Ahead: Prospective Population Growth and Related Changes in the United States <br> Dudley Kirk <br> The Population Council, Inc. | V-1 | Edited |
| High Talent Manpower for Science and Industry <br> J. Douglas Brown <br> Princeton University | V-2 | Edited |
| The Challenge of American Education's New Era <br> Philip H. Coombs <br> Fund for the Advancement of Education | V-3 | Edited |
| Over-all Utilization of Manpower <br> Anna M. Rosenberg <br> Anna M. Rosenberg Associates | V-4 | Not Written |
| Human Resources and National Policy <br> Eli Ginzberg <br> Columbia University | V-4a | Edited |
| The Supply of Creative and Skilled Manpower <br> Franklin A. Lindsay <br> McKinsey & Company | V-5 | Edited |
| National Health -- Sociological Aspects <br> Lowell T. Coggeshall <br> University of Chicago | V-6 | Edited |
| Social Psychiatry -- Working Concepts <br> John C. Whitehorn <br> Chief of Psychiatry <br> Johns Hopkins Hospital | V-7 | Edited |

June 15, 1960

(Over)

*Author's association given as of date of paper, 1956-57.

Rockefeller Brothers Fund

30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York 10020

July 6, 1967

Dear Henry:

My, you are the travelingist man!

Since I will be out of the city almost the entire time between
now and September fifteenth, I thought I should write you a note
about our review of the IV and V reports in view of your former
directorship of ye olde special studies!

Dana Creel and Laurance Rockefeller have approved the
enclosed memorandum. Bill Butler, Rod Perkins, Karen Gerard, and
possibly Gene Setzer, are meeting with Special Studies staff on
June twelfth at 10 a.m. If you are in New York, you are cordially
invited to participate. This will be a session to decide more
specifically on the little papers needed and who is to do them. If
you can't come, could you call Bill Butler (212 LL 2-3703) to
express your views.

Although Nelson chaired the overall panel that produced these
two reports, I have not discussed the question of review with him,
but after the details are all set he should be apprised as a matter of
interest.

With best wishes,

Dr. Henry Kissinger
Center for International Affairs
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts

June 29, 1967

MEMORANDUM FOR → Laurance S. Rockefeller
Dana S. Creel

Subject: Review of the IV (economics) and V (education) Reports

From time to time former overall and subpanel members inquire
about examining the projections and findings of the Rockefeller Panel
Reports to determine how they have held up during the decade that has
passed since they were prepared. From the staff and Fund point of
view, in our planning for the future and our consideration of other
subjects for Rockefeller Reports, it would be extremely helpful to have
an analysis of the reports, as this would give us a better foundation on
which to base judgment as to procedures and philosophy on which
future panel work should be based.

After reviewing the reports, and after consultation with Bill
Butler and Rod Perkins, it is our recommendation that the Fund authorize
the Special Studies Project to take a look at the IV (economics) and
V (education) reports. The review would be for internal purposes only
and not intended for publication at this stage. A limited circulation
would be made to former Rockefeller Panel members.

Basically, the informal report (geared as nearly as possible to
sections of the IV report and including education as a section) would
include:

a statistical review comparing where we are
now and projections made in 1957,

a review of events indicating major economic,
social, and education developments that have taken
place in the decades

a statistical projection for ten years,

identification of the major future problems.