¹ Two doctrinaire Liberal dissents from this view may be found in the Yale Review: Friedman, Milton, “Foreign Economic Aid: Means and Objectives,” Vol. 47 (June 1958), pp. 500–516Google Scholar, and Kristol, Irving, “The Ideology of Economic Aid,” Vol. 46 (June 1957), pp. 497–510Google Scholar.

² The most carefully argued dissent from this proposition is to be found in Brzezinski, Zbigniew, “The Politics of Underdevelopment,” World Politics, Vol. 9 (October 1956), pp. 55–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar. He contends that economic development requires totalitarian regimes.

³ This has been proposed, however by Douglas, William O. in Strange Lands and Friendly People (New York, 1951)Google Scholar; and by Millikan, Max in “How Much Trade—How Much Aid?,” Foreign Policy Association Headline Series, No. 121 (January-February 1957)Google Scholar. Millikan says, “We can advise and help [underdeveloped countries to] reorganize their own social and economic institutions to make more productive economic activity possible.” Morgenthau, Hans in “The Frustrations of Foreign Aid,” New Republic, Vol. 134 (March 26, 1956), pp. 13–15Google Scholar, says “It is quite possible that foreign aid, in order to be effective, requires a political change either in the composition of the government or in the over-all political structure. There must be a policy then on how to interfere with the political processes of the foreign country ….” Peggy, and Streit, Pierre in “Close-up of Foreign Aid Dilemma,” New York Times Magazine, April 13, 1958, p. 103Google Scholar, have said, “A foreign aid program that recognizes the need for social and political development as well as economic development, that seeks to promote both hand in hand, is one of the few instruments the U. S. has to cope with some of the fundamental problems of … Middle Eastern countries.” A similar view, phrased in more academic language, is to be found in Pye, Lucian W., The Policy Implications of Social Change in Non-Western Societies, Center for International Studies, M.I.T. (Cambridge, 1957), p. 69 ff.Google Scholar

⁴ U. S. Senate, Foreign Aid, Report of the Special Committee to Study the Foreign Aid Program, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., S. Rept. No. 300, May 13, 1957Google Scholar.

⁵ Prepared at the request of the Special Committee to Study the Foreign Aid Program, Senate, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., Committee Print.

⁶ Ibid., p. 20.

⁷ See Streit and Streit, op. cit.

⁸ As we shall see, however, in certain situations this might be good tactics.

⁹ Research Center in Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago, The Role of Foriegn Aid in the Development of Other Countries, prepared at the request of the Special Committee to Study the Foriegn Aid Program (1957), p. 76Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Schelling, Thomas, “American Foreign Assistance,” World Politics, Vol. 7 (July 1955), p. 623CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ See Wolf, Charles Jr., “Economic Development and Reform in South and Southeast Asia,” Far Eastern Quarterly, Vol. 12 (November 1952), p. 40CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Dr. Wolf has called such related programs “competing incentives.”

¹² See Wolf, Charles Jr., “Soviet Economic Aid in Southeast Asia,” World Politics, Vol. 10 (October 1957), pp. 91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Thorp, Willard L., “Strings on Economic Aid,” Yale Review, Vol. 44 (Winter 1955), p. 207Google Scholar.

¹³ Despite Secretary Dulles' testimony to the contrary before a Congressional committee, New York Times, August 11, 1957.

¹⁴ See Thorp, loc. cit.

¹⁵ “Foreign Aid and the ‘Spirit we are of’” Reporter, June 28, 1956Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Jenkins, Shirley, American Economic Policy towards the Philippines (Stanford, 1954), p. 137Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Manila Chronicle, October 26, 1950. Authorship of the release was traced to the President's private secretary, but Quirino disclaimed any responsibility.

¹⁸ Manila Chronicle, November 9, 1950.

¹⁹ Manila Chronicle, December 3, 1950.

²⁰ Congress of the Philippines, Congressional Record, House, Dec. 21, 1950, p. 843Google Scholar.

²¹ See Dalton, James, “Ins and Outs in the Philippines,” Far Eastern Survey, Vol. 21 (July 30, 1952), pp. 117–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²² Increased personal income, estate, gift and residence taxes were still not passed, but the other new taxes were deemed sufficient by the administration to balance the budget.

²³ See Rep.Durano, Ramon in Congressional Record, House, March 16, 1951, p. 791Google Scholar.

²⁴ See Morabe, Emiliano, The Minimum Wage Law (Manila, 1954)Google Scholar, ch. I, “Legislative History.”

²⁵ In July 1952, for example, it was discovered that from 1945–50 over ₱51 million of delinquent income tax assessments had accumulated, or nearly 20 per cent of the total tax revenues for 1950. See Davis, Ray E., Special Report on Income Tax Collection of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (Manila, 1953), p. 19Google Scholar. Over ₱10 million of this was collected in the first six months of screening records.

²⁶ Central Bank of the Philippines, Ninth Annual Report, 1957.

²⁷ Wage Administration Service, Annual Report for Calendar Year, 1955, and Report, FY 1956.

²⁸ Economic Survey Mission to the Philippines, Report, p. 96Google Scholar.

²⁹ See Ty, Leon O., “Solution to the Guam Labor Mystery,” Philippines Free Press, March 6, 1954, pp. 4, 53Google Scholar; “More Serious Than We Thought,” PFP, March 13, 1954, pp. 4, 61Google Scholar; “An ₱18,000,000 Question,” PFP, March 20, 1954, pp. 5, 65Google Scholar; “The President Takes a Hand,” PFP, March 27, 1954, pp. 4, 65Google Scholar.

³⁰ ‘Agrarian reform’ refers here broadly to a transformation of the political and economic power structure in rural society. ‘Land reform,’ unless in full quotes, refers only to direct attempts to change the pattern of land ownership.

³¹ See the author's “Philippine Agrarian Reform under Magsaysay,” Far Eastern Survey, Vol. 27 (Jan.-Feb., 1958)Google Scholar.

³² Economic Survey Mission to the Philippines, Report, pp. 57, 59Google Scholar.

³³ Rural Banks Administration, First Annual Report, 1953, pp. 20–23Google Scholar.

³⁴ Republic Act 821.

³⁵ During the first two fiscal years of operation, ACGFA received nearly ₱4 million from counterpart funds, more than from Philippine government sources. See United States Operations Mission, The Philippine FOA Agricultural Program, 1954, p. N2Google Scholar.

³⁶ ACCFA, Progress Report on Cooperatives, tabulated as of July 31, 1956Google Scholar. Also, Cooperative Farmer, Vol. 4 (Sept. 1956), p. 9Google Scholar.

³⁷ Over one-third of the first year's budget of the enforcing agency, the Agricultural Tenancy Commission, came from FOA counterpart funds. Since then it has received regular budget support.

³⁸ Manila Times, January 10, 1953.

³⁹ Manila Times, February 15, 1953.

⁴⁰ See IDC, First Semi-Annual Report to the President, October, 1955Google Scholar; Second Semi-Annual Report …, May 1956. The average is very deceiving. In apparent violation of the purpose of the project, nearly 20 per cent of the total grants and loans went to one enterprise.

⁴¹ See above, p. 460.

⁴² The most comprehensive analysis of the economic indices of aspirations and expectations and of the meaningfulness of their relationship for political developments is being done by Wolf, Charles Jr., See his Economic Development and Mutual Security: Some Problems of U. S. Foreign Assistance Programs in Southeast Asia, RAND Corp., Research Memo 1778-RC (August 1956), esp. pp. 19–53Google Scholar.

⁴³ Higgins, Benjamin, “Development Problems in the Philippines: A Comparison with Indonesia,” Far Eastern Survey, Vol. 26 (November 1957), p. 165CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁴ Note, for instance, the implication in King, John Kerry, Southeast Asia in Perspective (New York, 1956), p. 235Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ ECAFE, Economic Survey of Asia and the Far East, 1957, p. 33Google Scholar; and The Mutual Security Program, FY 1956 (Washington, 1955)Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ New York Times, September 10, 1958.

⁴⁷ “A New Approach to Foreign Aid,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (February 1957), pp. 42–47Google Scholar.