Book Reviews : The Politics of Food for Peace. By PETER A. TOMA. (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1967. Pp. 195. $3.95.)
| Date | 01 September 1968 |
| DOI | 10.1177/106591296802100328 |
| Author | Heinz Eulau |
| Published date | 01 September 1968 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
530
Asia
depends
on
how
the
leaders
find
a
way
to
transform
the
traditional
order
into
a
modern
society.
East
Texas
State
University
KUO-WEI
LEE
The
Politics
of
Food
for
Peace.
By
PETER
A.
TOMA.
(Tucson:
The
University
of
Arizona
Press,
1967.
Pp. 195.
$3.95.)
This
is
an
important
book
that
deals
with
a
number
of
important
matters.
American
food
aid
to
the
starving
nations
of
the
world
is
important;
a
good
book
about
the
politics
of
American
food
policy
is
important.
But
this
book
is
important
also
because
Toma’s
analysis
is
a
real
contribution
to
the
scientific
study
of
public
policy.
A
journalist,
dealing
with
the
same
material,
might
also
have
written
a
good
book;
it
is
unlikely
that
he
would
have
written
the
kind
of
book
at
hand.
To
appreciate
the
importance
of
this
book,
it
must
be
located
in
the
context
of
the
continuing
effort
by
political
scientists
to
make
political
science
relevant
to
the
analysis
of
public
policy.
This
is
no
simple
matter
and
there
is
no
master
formula.
Political
scientists
have
for
a
long
time
written
excellent
analyses
of
the
policy
process,
in
general
or
in
reference
to
a
particular
issue.
That
is,
they
have
dealt
with
policy
content
only
to
the
extent
that
it
could
not
be
avoided
in
the
analysis
of
the
policy
process.
Toma’s
book
is
clearly
in
this
familiar
tradition.
Its
focus
is
executive-legislative
interaction
in
connection
with
Public
Law
480 --
known
since
1961
as
the
Food
for
Peace
program
-
during
the
1964
extension.
But
there
is
more
to
this
book
than
the
traditional
concern.
Toma’s
interest
is
not
only
in
understanding
the
policy
process,
but
also
in
appraising
policy
content.
In
fact,
he
seeks
to
elucidate
the
effect
of
the
policy
process
on
policy
content.
This,
indeed,
is
an
eminently
appropriate
task
of
political
science
in
the
study
of
public
policy.
But
it
is
a
task
beset
by
a
dilemma
that
is
probably
intrinsic
to
the
study
of
policy
content
by
political
scientists.
For
as
political
scientists
we
are
ill
prepared
to
deal
with
the
technical
complexities
of
policy
content.
We
do
not
have
the
training
of
a
radiologist,
or
a
hydrologist,
or
of
an
economist,
or
of
a
bacteriolo-
gist,
and
so
on,
to
say
anything
competent
or
significant
about
policy
concerning
nuclear
fall-out,
water
conservation,
agricultural
production
or
air
pollution.
We
are
presumably
competent
in
matters
of
policy
that
involve
governmental
organiza-
tion
(and
perhaps
more
so
than
the
lawyers),
or
perhaps
in
matters
of
foreign
policy.
But
in
most
other
substantive
policy
areas
the contribution
of
political
science
to
either
policy
formulation
or
policy
analysis
is
very
limited.
The
fact
is,
whether
we
like
it
or
not,
that
political
scientists
are
less
consulted
by
policy-makers
than
physicists,
engineers,
economists,
psychologists,
or
any
other
academic
pro-
fession
whose
competence
might
be
relevant
to
policy
content.
What,
then,
is
left
for
the
political
scientist? It
is
this
question
to
whose
answer
Toma’s
book
makes
an
important
contribution.
I
am
not
sure
whether
he
is
aware
of
an
aspect
of
his
book
that
I
may
be
reading
into
it.
He
makes
it
quite
clear
that
the
policy
process
in
regard
to
Food
for
Peace
was
influenced
from
the
beginning
by
the
shifts
in
policy
content
involved.
While
the
original
Public
Law
480
of
1954
was
primarily
designed
as
a
domestic
response
to
American
agricul-
To continue reading
Request your trial