Those phenomena that are called revolutions, in the conventional sense of the word, are essentially moments of turbulent acceleration following periods of retardation; and such are the phenomena of the révolution tranquille in Québec, which are confused by some with the inclusive events of long duration. In this perspective, and as a prelude to the analysis of current conceptions of the so-called quiet revolution in Québec, the author offers a study of the economic and social history of the United States from 1920 to 1940. He sees no sharp break between the fabulous twenties and the depression decade; nor does he see a gap between the interwar period and the preceding so-called progressive period. This can be seen through the unfolding of social, political, and economic events, provided that care is taken to adopt the mental set of transcending the conflictual in order to assent to the cumulative aspects of the historical process. Seen from this angle, the issues appear more complex, and contemporaries may easily be pardoned for failing to grasp the fundamental questions or for seeing revolutions where there are none. In the freedom of dancing, smoking, and drinking with women or, again, in the freedom of teaching the theory of evolution in schools (freedoms conquered in the twenties and the early thirties), some have seen a revolution. In a like manner, the New Deal has been described as revolutionary, as has the economic theory of J.M. Keynes. But if capitalism really has undergone such trials, how then can it still carry on so vigorously? In fact, it has learned to adapt itself to the changing conditions of its survival without altering its basic character. New regimes arise and the system carries on. The New Deal created a new regime to which capitalism acclimatized itself; and in the new regime capitalism managed so well that it could take advantage of the change in mentality in order to save the system. Under the New Deal, however, capitalism reached an important stage of its politicization, as it did somewhat later, under the new fiscal policies derived from Keynes’ general theory. Yet, despite all revolutionary appearances, it continued to operate on the basis of usury, and while taking hold of the new media of information it mobilized resources with a view to profit and in so doing it organized things and men with equal indifference and efficiency. The system has continued to operate on the same basis of usury and, in order to sidetrack violent protest, it has adopted the issue of social justice; it has been willing to substitute assistance for employment, destructive idleness for creative leisure. Those benefits that are labeled social security and are now distributed without much regard for human creativity have the properties of a tranquillizing pill. And so we are reminded of the panem and circenses politics of a declining Empire. Are we really prepared to swallow the tranquillizing pill?

In the winter of 1970–1, about 1000 questionnaires were sent to members of the Canadian Political Science Association and la Société canadienne de science politique and to known political scientists outside the two associations with a view to procuring information about political scientists and the state of research, publication, and funding in Canada.

The federal government withdrew from the field of direct financial support of universities in 1967 under provisions of the new Act. Along with the full responsibility for university finance, the federal government transferred to each province certain tax revenues and a post-secondary education adjustment payment to bring the total financial transfer to at least 50 per cent of the allowable operating cost of post-secondary education. Costs allowable under the Act exclude capital costs, federal grants, student aid, and income for assisted, sponsored, and contract research. The federal councils and agencies continue to be the primary contributors to university research funds. The purpose of this note is to determine the current financial contribution of the government of Canada to university research. Much of the problem is its definition. To establish the framework for this definition, three sets of ideas are explored. These are: direct and indirect costs of university research, university research as an embedded activity, and the problem of relating university activity costs to incomes received from specific sources. These notions lead to formulae which yield divergent alternatives of the federal contribution depending upon the set of assumptions deemed appropriate. Much of the data needed for these calculations were gathered from primary sources and illustrate the application of the formulae for the four-year period 1966–70.

In a brief footnote in Political Man, S.M. Lipset argued that political scientists had, in the past, approached the phenomenon of electoral change in terms of its being “a rational reaction to new situations or factors.” Sociologists and social psychologists who had channelled their endeavours in this directtion, on the other hand, had, Lipset argued, placed emphasis elsewhere: when it came to explanations of the vote, group pressures and the fulfilment of personal needs were first in their repertoire.

The interactions of a group of non-identical voting units may be studied by applying the concept of the Shapley value from n-person co-operative game theory. In this theory one assumes that voting units, or players, may form coalitions of various kinds in order to achieve success in the game, and one may assign a “value” to each such coalition based on what it can accomplish against arbitrary coalitions of the remaining players. The relative value of an individual player is calculated by considering how much he brings to each coalition he might join, that is, by how much the value of that coalition increases because of his membership, and summing this figure over all coalitions of which he could be a part.