Walter Isard and the Role of Regional Science and Peace Science for the Poor Countries

Introduction

Walter Isard is the founder of two social science disciplines: Regional Science and Peace Science. In the last four decades, there have been tremendous contributions to these fields. One thing that is not often realized is that although these disciplines have developed and flourished in rich countries, they have much more potential applications to poor countries since those countries have more diversity with respect to resource location, demography, language, social structure and cultures, and associated conflict situations. Walter himself knew it and encouraged me to work on these problems with him. I was associated with Walter for many years as a student, colleague, coworker, and coorganizer of Regional Science and Peace Science activities around the world along with such scholars like Iwan Azis (Cornell), Kaizhong Yang (Peking), Chitta Pathak (India). We established quite some time ago the Indian and Chinese sections of Regional Science Association (International). In this article, I shall first discuss his contribution to Regional Science, Peace Science, and Social Science in general, since elsewhere (Chatterji and Kuenne 1990a, 1990b), we have presented his contribution more in some details addressing specific areas. I shall make a brief summary of that material and emphasize the unity of his thoughts that was pervasive throughout his personal and professional life.

Walter’s Contribution to Regional Science and Peace Science

In 1949, Walter published a classic paper on the iron and steel industry coauthored with William Capron (Isard and Capron 1949). It addressed the factors operative in past and prospective locational patterns for the iron and steel industry and its regional economic impacts. During this period, he published his path-breaking book Location and Space Economy (Isard 1956). It relates his early recognition of the need for a general equilibrium theory that included space and time in its formulation. This is the first step in developing a general equilibrium theory he formulated in his 1969 General Theory volume (Isard and Smith et al. 1969). International trade theory and Walrasian general equilibrium theory were special cases of the general theory of location and space economy he wished to create. The keys to his unification were distance and transport inputs.

This theme of integrating spatial economic theory with the body of neoclassical analysis, along with the implied need to unify existing location theories, dominates the work. The attempt to treat transport inputs analogously to capital inputs within an Austrian framework wherein space preference takes it place and time preference is strained. In the last section of the presentation, he acknowledges that transport inputs are not flows from a stock as are capital inputs, and therefore need not be treated as a factor of production. Implicitly, he recognized their more appropriate treatment as intermediate inputs.

Several of the dominant interests in Walter’s career are also foreshadowed in the book. His recognition of the applicability of location theory to urban land use in the appendix was insightful and inspired scholars like Alonso (1964) to pursue the theme. His fascination with empirically inspired frameworks—especially the gravity model was to inspire an extensive body of research. Its projected use—along with interregional Input–Output analysis—was meant to estimate trade flows.

His research in this period focused upon the definition, structure, and development of the region with an emphasis upon his old interest in metropolitan regions. He innovated the notion of industrial complex analysis, and with Thomas Vietorisz applied it to the Puerto Rican development problem, developing it more fully later with Vietorisz and Eugene Schooler (Isard, Schooler, and Vietorisz 1959), which established the technique firmly in the field. With Guy Freutel (Isard and Freutel 1954), he investigated the peculiarities of regional product projection and their relation to national counterparts. And, with Robert Coughlin (Isard and Coughlin 1957), he examined the revenue and cost implications of metropolitan growth at the same time that he continued his interest in the interregional and regional input–output model as a tool for study of regional development.

In 1960, Isard published the encyclopedic and influential book: Methods of Regional Science: which was to shape much of the research in the field for the next decade. The work has been translated into Polish, Russian, Japanese, Spanish, Persian, and French. The work is essentially a presentation and integration of Walter’s empirical methodologies designed to supplement the theoretical integration in Location and Space Economy, as promised in that earlier work. It constituted an important user’s manual, so to speak, for an infant field, explaining and demonstrating with case studies drawn from Walter’s research. Such techniques as gravity and potential models, multiregional input–output frameworks, interregional programming, industrial complex analysis, game-theoretic, and conflict resolution strategies and environment and ecological analysis, and so on, were presented in collaboration with David Bramhall, John Cumberland, Ben Stevens, and others. Of Walter’s works, it was probably the most influential in shaping the boundaries of Regional Science, orienting its empirical research analytically, and defining new theoretical directions in the 1960s. The last chapter includes suggested “Channels of Synthesis” containing empirical approaches and multidisciplinary theories that reveal his ability to challenge scholars through the exercise of creative research imagination.

In 1979, in collaboration with physicist P. Liossatos (Isard and Liossatos 1979) and others, he fulfilled an ambition which developed from his goal of bringing rigorous research to bear upon social problems and his fascination with social physics. It was to apply the techniques of field theory and general relativity to temporal and spatial economic dimensions in order to unify them. The work, in conjunction with his General Theory book (Isard and Smith et al. 1969), is significant as an extension of location theory, in evidencing most clearly Walter’s scholarly persona that have been recurrent in his career. His early interest in general economic equilibrium and conviction that the ultimate answers to the determination of spatial economic solutions must be sought within its confines have grown over the years to a belief in the need for general social equilibrium models with spatial and temporal dimensions illuminated by natural science techniques.

After devoting a major portion of his professional career in Regional Science, Walter Isard founded the social science field of Peace Science (Isard and Smith 1982) and worked in this field until he passed away. I am fortunate to follow him through his journey the same way I did for Regional Science. Peace Science (Gangopadhyay and Chatterji 2009) is applicable to manage and possibly solve the problems of development and security of the poor countries. Walter devoted considerable time and energy for the promotion of Peace Science in India, Indonesia, and so on. I helped him to establish Network of European Peace Science (NEPS), with Raul Caruso and others, and Asian Peace Science Network (APSN) with Iwan Azis and others. We organized meetings in Mumbai, Bali, Tokyo, New Delhi, Beijing, and so on. Some papers (Chatterji 2011a, 2011b) have shown how Peace Science theories need to be changed to suit the situation in the developing countries.

The Peace Research Society (later changed to Peace Science Society) was established in the late 1960s. I worked with Walter to edit papers of Peace Research Society (later changed to Conflict Management and Peace Science—CMPS). At present, large numbers of volumes of CMPS have been published. For some of Walter’s recent publications in Peace Science, readers are referred to different volumes of Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy (Caruso 2011). When he developed Peace Science theory, he had the poor countries in mind. His vision of Peace Science theory as an interdisciplinary field of study starts with cultural background and social organization of a country which greatly influences economic activities. In most poor countries, culture is quite complex due to diversity and is more susceptible to conflict. After this cultural background, he considers individual and group behavior. Although economic motivation is important, in these societies individual and group behavior are intrinsic to conflict depending on geography, ethnicity, religion, and so on.

Then, Walter used game theory to analyze and possibly predict individual and group behavior. For that purpose, he took help from cognitive science and psychological and sociological approaches. Considering the characteristics of political behavior of the leader, he also integrated it with spatial characteristics particularly that of the leader. Recently, he veered to a new area which he called Mediation Science and made some contribution to principles of negotiation and mediation. He developed the quantitative and qualitative theories of mediation principles and devised a list of quantitative conflict management procedures (Isard 1992).

Another contribution by Walter was the development of coalition theory. If we look at Indian politics, for example, during the last thirty years, the central government and the state governments are based on coalition. The situation is the same as in many countries. The type of coalition depends on the ideologies of the parties in this coalition and the socioeconomic conditions of the Indian states in question. The coalition theory developed by Isard (1982) can be used very well in India’s political scene in determining the resulting form of a coalition and its dynamics. Walter also worked on military spending (Isard 1988) summarizing the most up-to-date studies done in this area. One area is Richardsonian principles of action and reaction model in military spending (Richardson 1960). In my own research, I have used this Richardsonian approach in developing a model related to India–Pakistan military spending (Chatterji 1997). In that article, I considered the role of China, former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the United States in the Indo-Pakistan military spending. In an excellent paper, Walter has used Saaty’s (1988) analytical hierarchy model in addressing the conflict problem between India and Pakistan with respect to Kashmir.

Isard kept a distinction between Peace Science, Peace Studies, and Peace Economics. Peace Studies is more descriptive and case-oriented. Peace Science is more theoretical and interdisciplinary. Peace Economics deals purely with economics and is more applied. Some of the subjects covered in Peace Economics are military expenditures, economic conversion, peace-keeping operations, trade, and development conflicts, resource conflicts, and so on.

Potentials of the Application of Regional Science and Peace Science to Developing Countries

I shall now present some areas of research in Regional Science and Peace Science related to developing countries, in which I worked guided by Walter or encouraged by him. I shall focus on India as a case study.

One of the basic problems facing the developing countries of the world is the low standard of living of its people. What is more disheartening is that the growth rate of income of these countries barely keeps up with the rate of population growth. The reasons for this are many. Among these are poor natural environments, severe climatic conditions, niggardly endowment of resources, social and cultural development, and restrictive religious practices.

Many of these countries, however, tried to reverse the trend by relying on national economic planning during 1950 to 1970. These countries are now putting more emphasis on free enterprise, deregulation, and liberalization. Planning consisted in formulating economic and social goals and adopting most efficient strategies to attain these goals with the available internal and external resources. There have been many experiments and numerous studies on the theory and practices of national planning are available in economic literature. However, over the years, it has been increasingly realized that national planning is not leading to a balanced development of the country. One of the reasons is that in most national economic planning strategies, we abstract the notion of space. What is needed along with a national framework is a series of interconnected regional plans consistent with national plans. The situation is basically the same in all the poor countries.

Two of the basic ingredients of the economic and social transformation in India are international peace and interregional cooperation. In both lies the importance of regional planning. The main impediments in the process of economic developments of many countries are continued tension due to occasional wars and conflicts (Sandler 2002). In the case of the Indian subcontinent, evidences of such disruptions abound. With the emergence of Bangladesh, a new era in South Asia has unfolded. Consider the countries of South Asia—India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, and Nepal. Afghanistan, currently involved in war, has serious border disputes with Pakistan, but it is also a Muslim country having strong similarities with Pakistan with respect to geography, culture, and social system. Bangladesh, though a Muslim country has strong cultural and sentimental ties with India (particularly West Bengal), but it does not want to be dominated by a big country such as India, and rightly so. The same is true of smaller countries like Myanmar and Sri Lanka. Pakistan will greatly profit if it cooperates with India. India with a large Muslim minority and stupendous problems of economic and social development is the last country to afford constant tensions in the subcontinent and risking wars costing billions of rupees. It will be naïve to suggest that every problem can be solved easily. Politics is a treacherous game. What is emphasized, however, is that peace, goodwill to cooperate, and common interests can also be powerful forces. Efforts should be made to emphasize the common good and benefits of cooperation and find objective peaceful ways to solve the problems through comprehensive regional plans. But the question is how? It is true that the decision to cooperate and give and take are made by the politicians, but there is considerable scope of preparing scientific studies showing how cooperation leads to benefits (Isard 1992). I suggest that a comprehensive regional plan for South Asia is formulated using the techniques of Regional Science and Peace Science. I understand that it will take years for such an effort to be fruitful or it may never materialize. But if we can show the benefits of regional cooperation through our studies, this process can be accelerated.

It is not suggested that the conflicts between regional and national goals do not exist in the developed countries. We can cite many examples in the case of Europe, United States, Russia, and other countries where this is quite serious, particularly in the realm of military spending. This has been accentuated recently by the environmental and energy crises. But poor countries cannot afford conflict. Walter repeatedly emphasized through his writings and presentations in meetings, the importance to apply Peace Science theories and methods in the areas of environment, energy, water, and health care conflicts.

One of the problems arising in environmental management and conflict is the allocation of responsibility for cleaning up the environment. This problem arises at the international, national, and regional levels. The developing countries argue against any uniform standard of production completely based on environmental consideration. According to them, the developed countries of the world have indiscriminately destroyed the balance in nature, and they should assume the major responsibility. Further, in the name of environment, the growth rate of economies of the developing countries might be reduced substantially if they are required to abide by worldwide standards on pollutant emissions.

When we come to the question of pollution at a regional level, it can be argued, say in the case of water pollution, that an upstream region pollutes the river and thus intensifies the pollution problem of the downstream regional community. Similarly, in the case of air pollution, the polluted air of one industrialized region can move to another area. The question is then, what should be the basis of sharing the responsibility for cleaning and managing the environment? Is there a basis of sharing responsibility to abate pollution, particularly in the area of global warming?

The problem is not simple. Nonetheless, it is necessary to address it. I applied (Chatterji 1975) a balanced regional input–output model (Leontief 1951) to identify interregional responsibility for pollution abating and control, especially when several regions are contained within a single nation. The idea of balanced regional input–output need not be limited to environmental problems. It is well known that there are some regions in a country like India which produce the basic raw materials for the production of goods that are demanded in different regions of the country. In the name of economic development, in India, some people complain that the land belonging to tribal and agricultural rural people, where most resources exist, are forcefully taken away from them with little or no compensation to meet the demand of goods in other regions. The question that naturally arises is what should be the proper share of these respective regions in terms of the division of the national wealth?

In Indian context, consider the consumption of national goods in New Delhi. For the production of these goods, inputs were required from and produced in other regions. The cost of mitigating the pollution that has been produced directly and indirectly in those regions for final consumption in New Delhi should be shared by the consumers in New Delhi.

I worked with Walter on Philadelphia input–output study. At that time, I had long conversation with him about the usefulness of input–output study for India. He thought a national input–output table for India at that time will not be very useful. He suggested I concentrate on regional tables. At that time and still now, most activities in a state or region in India were concentrated in metropolitan regions. So we used the metropolitan region’s data as surrogate for the state and use it in the input–output table. We also discussed about how to use the data for small-scale industries in the input–output model. Since the data in the poor countries are not satisfactory, he advised me about alternative ways he refined and used data in the Philadelphia input–output table.

He saw great prospect in the research in regional demography using sophisticated techniques. He encouraged me to work with Rank Size Rule, Markov Chain, and Gravity models in analyzing the population growth and migration in the developing countries and compare the results with those in the developed countries. He also suggested that I study a major industry in an Indian region and use the result to estimate the total activities of the region as a whole. Following his advice, I did a study of Jute industry in the Calcutta industrial region and used it to estimate income accounts for the state of West Bengal. If one looks at the Channels of Synthesis in the Chapter 12 of Walter’s Methods book, one can realize the extent of his vision. Those channels give us a clear picture of what Walter wanted to achieve ultimately in Regional Science. He encouraged me to think how to empirically estimate Channel 1 by taking India as an example. Due to the enormity of the problem, lack of resources and data, I did not venture to attempt it.

Walter strongly believed that energy and environment have strong role to play in regional development. Under his guidance, I organized a major meeting in Catholic University in Levven in 1975 linking energy and environment to Regional Science. He had a passionate interest in atomic power energy production. Long ago, he cautioned about the role of security in an atomic power station. According to Walter, the total cost of atomic power will be much higher compared to traditional sources of energy if we include the cost of security. In recent years, the government of India has embarked on an ambitious plan to use nuclear power with US collaboration. He wanted me to do a study on how this decision will change the industrial location in India and whether it was a right decision in view of security problems in South Asia. Such topics as poverty, health care (Chatterji et al. 1998), education, disaster management, terrorism, ethnic conflict and security, and so on, were always in his mind. He encouraged me to think how we can use Regional Science and Peace Science in analyzing the problems in those areas. He thought however ultimately that security will be of greater concern of the poor countries in contrast to the rich countries.

Models of Participation and Cooperation

It is a common complaint that while Indian plans are basically sound, they were too centralized and imposed from above. The goal, as Mahatma Gandhi pointed out, should be to decentralize and involve the people. Decision-making process should be decentralized in such a way that the unity of the country is not endangered. Center–state relations have attained significance in recent years when parties with different ideologies are controlling the central government and a number of key states. The future of democracy in India will be very much determined by the harmonious functioning of these relations and the participation of the people as a whole in the decision making at different levels. A strong government is necessary to protect the integrity of the country and fight against the disruptive elements. On the other hand, decentralization of decision making is a must to allow the broader participation of the people and organizations at different levels. The question then is to choose the optimum amount of decentralization in decision making with respect to international, national, regional, interregional, state, and local decisions at different nodes. For this purpose, Isard encouraged me to develop a participation potential model with symmetrical tree-like hierarchical system with the central government at the top and the zones, states, and districts at lower hierarchy (Chatterji 1997). Combining a number of states, we can define a zone. For example, in India, it will be North, East, West, and South. For each state, there are a set of districts. It is not necessary that this structure has to be symmetrical. For the sake of simplicity, it can be assumed to be so.

Following Isard, (Isard 1960, chap. 11) we can define the participating potential at each node:

Let us define the allocation decision variables (say the percentage of the resources or number of decisions) devoted to international, national, regional, and interregional, state, and local decisions.

Decentralization will involve certain costs. These costs are grouped into the following categories:

These costs will change with different degrees of decentralization. We need to determine the optimum level of decision variables such that the total participation potential of the country is maximized within a cost constraint. The parameters of the potential and cost functions will change over time with the growth of literacy rate, per capita income, and so on, and the problem becomes dynamic in nature.

Another vexing problem in the center–state relation is the question of capital resource allocation. It has been often argued by politicians in populous states that the allocation should be made according to population. This becomes unacceptable to those states from where a major portion of the central tax income come but the population of that state is low. However, it may be argued that the so-called industrial states in India are in a better position now since they had an earlier start during British rule. Again, a state with low per capita income (relative to a national average) can claim extra attention in the name of balanced regional growth. It can be claimed that the concept of an optimum allocation plan based on the productivity of capital cannot be applied as a rule of thumb. A single variable like population is not appropriate to use for the allocation of investment decision either. Other factors like capita–output ratio, savings–income ratio, per capita income, locational advantage, defense need, capacity of one state to bear its own burden, level of managerial skill, and other relevant norms should be considered.

Currently in India, private and foreign direct investments have become more important compared to public investment. Consequently, the criteria of locating an investment project have changed taking economic efficiency rather than equity and welfare as the main considerations. As a result of this globalization process, regions which are already developed are getting more investment, and there is no balanced regional economic development.

Need for cooperation can also be exemplified in sharing water resources by two regions (Chatterji, Arlosoroff, and Guha, 2002). River water can be used for different purposes in different region. Again, the benefits that accrue due to the efficient use in one area can be transmitted to the other part and a chain reaction can be generated to speed up the process of development. This will also stop the forces of separatist interest of any particular state. How the benefit is increased through cooperation can be explained by the theories and methods of Peace Science. Isard effectively used duopoly theory for such a purpose (Isard 1982).

Conclusion

In this article, I have discussed in a small way, Isard’s contribution to Regional Science and Peace Science for poor countries, scope of applying conflict resolution in regional planning and need of cooperation. Interestingly, in Walter’s vast written contribution to Regional Science and Peace Science, there is little direct reference to poor countries, but at heart he was very sympathetic and wanted others to use it. I know that since I had many discussions with him regarding these matters in which the seeds of many of the ideas were planted.

Isard was a scholar, a great mentor of an array of luminary students, and a fearless leader. But he was very humble. A few months before he died, he told me “All we are doing in Regional Science and Peace Science are not good enough. We need to extend our horizon for new ideas in the face of new circumstances.” Most readers of this article know about his contribution for Regional Science, but I am afraid many do not know what a revolution he has created in Quantitative Political Science and International Relations by creating a new discipline called Peace Science.

Walter did not undermine the importance of the use of descriptive and historical research vis-á-vis quantitative studies. He always thought that these two are complementary. Although we know that Isard was partial to input–output analysis, he was not against econometric theory. Particularly, he was happy when Spatial Econometrics came into use (e.g., Anselin and O’Laughlin 1990).

He believed that quantitative and theoretical models may throw new insights and help us to recommend some concrete policies which the politicians can use, leading to the path of development and peace.