I am grateful to Laura Helvey, Peter Katzenstein, Steve Krasner, Forrest Maltzman, Rose McDermott, John Meyer, John Odell, Francisco Ramirez, Nina Tannenwald, Kurt Weyland, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier drafts.

1. For purposes of this article a “norm” is defined as a rulelike prescription which is both clearly perceptible to a community of actors and which makes behavioral claims upon those actors. Although comments of McElroy were influential in formulating this definition, McElroy's own definition differs significantly from mine; see MCElroy, Robert, Morality and American Foreign Policy: The Role of Moral Norms in International Affairs (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1992)Google Scholar.

2. The history of states' changing attitudes toward science obviously is much more complex than the overview presented here. For more on this subject, see David, Joseph Ben, “The Scientific Role: The Conditions of Its Establishment in Europe,” Minerva 4 (Autumn 1965), pp. 15–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dupre, A. Hunter, Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and Activities to 1940 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957)Google Scholar; Gummett, Philip, Scientists in Whitehall (Manchester, England: Manchester University Press, 1980)Google Scholar; Herman, Ros, The European Scientific Community (Harlow, England: Longman Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Hutchinson, Eric, “Scientists as an Inferior Class: The Early Years of the DSIR,” Minerva 8 (07 1970), pp. 396–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kevels, Daniel, The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978)Google Scholar; Pfetsch, Frank, “Scientific Organization and Science Policy in Imperial Germany, 1871–1914: The Founding of the Imperial Institute of Physics and Technology,” Minerva 8 (10 1970), pp. 557–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Royane, Jarlath, Science in Government (London: Edward Arnold, 1984)Google Scholar; Varcoe, Ian, “Scientists, Government, and Organized Research in Great Britain, 1914–1916: The Early History of the DSIR,” Minerva 8 (04 1970), pp. 192–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Wuthnow, Robert, “The World Economy and the Institutionalization of Science in Seventeenth Century Europe,” in Bergesen, Albert, ed., Studies of the Modern World-System (New York: Academic Press, 1980), pp. 57–76Google Scholar.

3. Alter, Peter, The Reluctant Patron: Science and the State in Britain, 1850–1920 (Oxford: Berg, 1987), pp. 201ffGoogle Scholar.

4. The first of these directories appeared during the 1960s. See United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), World Directory of National Science Policymaking Bodies, 3 vols. (Paris: UNESCO, 1966–1968)Google Scholar. Volume 1 covered Europe and North America; volume 2, Asia and Oceania; and volume 3, Latin America. A second directory was published in 1984. See UNESCO, World Directory of National Science Policy-making Bodies, Science Policy Studies and Documents Series, vol. 59 (UNESCO: Paris, 1984)Google Scholar. A second edition of this 1984 directory was published in 1990. See UNESCO, World Directory of National Science Policy-making Bodies, Science Policy Studies and Documents Series, vol. 71 (Paris: UNESCO, 1990)Google Scholar. I have made several refinements to the UNESCO definitions. For further explanation, see the appendix.

5. I have borrowed the term “prerequisite” from Collier and Messick's analysis of the spread of social security across states. See Collier, David and Messick, Richard, “Prerequisites versus Diffusion: Testing Alternative Explanations of Social Security Adoption,” American Political Science Review 69 (12 1975), pp. 1299–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6. Dickson, David, The New Politics of Science (New York: Pantheon, 1984), pp. 25ffGoogle Scholar.

7. See the following chapters in Spiegel-Rosing, Ina and Price, Derek de Solla, eds., Science, Technology and Society: A Cross-disciplinary Perspective (London: Sage, 1977)Google Scholar: Salomon, Jean-Jacques, “Science Policy Studies and the Development of Science Policy,” pp. 43–70Google Scholar; Lakoff, Sanford, “Scientists, Technologists, and Political Power,” pp. 355–92Google Scholar; and Sapolsky, Harvey, “Science, Technology, and Military Policy,” pp. 443–72Google Scholar.

8. Gilpin, Robert, France in the Age of the Scientific State (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9. Ibid.

10. For example, in the French case, threats to influence and independence extended to cultural matters and led France to pursue a number of foreign policy initiatives aimed at preserving extending French language and culture in other states.

11. The Congo created its Conseil National de la Recherche Scientifique in 1963 when it reported having only nine scientists engaged in R&D jobs and when spending on R&D was only 0.11 percent of GDP. Measured in U.S. dollars, GDP per capita was only $253 that year, and military spending accounted for only 2.04 percent of GNP. Cameroon created its Office National de la Recherche Scientifique et Technique in 1965 when it reported employing only eighty scientists in research jobs and spending only 0. 16 percent of its GDP on research. Per capita GDP was $334 for that year, and the country spent only 2. 3 percent of its GNP on defense.

12. Alter, The Reluctant Patron. See also MCLeod, Roy and Andrews, E. Kay, “The Origins of the D. S. I. R.: Reflections on Ideas and Men, 1915–1916,” Public Administration, vol. 48, no. 1, 1970, pp. 23–48Google Scholar; and Varcoe, Ian, “Scientists, Government, and Organized Research in Great Britain 1914–1916,” pp. 192–216Google Scholar. The United Kingdom is not included in the quantitative analysis above because science data for that country for 1915 are unavailable.

13. Dickson, The New Politics of Science. See also England, J. Merton, A Patron for Pure Science: The National Science Foundation's Formative Years, 1945–1957 (Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1982)Google Scholar; Dupree, N., Science in the Federal Government; Bruce Smith, American Science Policy Since World War II (Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution, 1990)Google Scholar; and U. S. Congress, House Committee on Science and Technology, Task Force on Science Policy, A Historyof Science Policy in the United States, 1940–1985, Science Policy Study Background Report, no. 1, 99th Congress, 2d sess., 1986Google Scholar, serial R.

14. Gilpin, France in the Age of the Scientific State.

15. “Peak adoption year” in this case means the single year in which the largest number of states created these science policy bureaucracies.

16. By extending the period by five years to include the years 1976–80, the percentage of adopting states rises to 84.4.

17. For more on the science policy promotion activities of the OECD see Finnemore, Martha, “Science, the State, and International Society,” Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1991Google Scholar, chap. 3.

18. The following account of UNESCO activities is based on research done at the library and archives of UNESCO's Paris headquarters. While these contain a wide variety of documents authored by national governments, it must be acknowledged that carrying out the research at the international organization's headquarters does run the risk of bias in favor of an international organization-driven explanation at the expense of a national one. A research design in which the science policy archives were consulted at a variety of national capitals in countries of different regions and development levels and facing different security situations would be superior. However, such a design was not feasible in this case.

19. Details on the lobbying efforts of scientists for special recognition in the embryonic UNESCO can be found in Sewell, James, UNESCO and World Politics (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1975)Google Scholar.

20. Conference for the Establishment of UNESCO, “Opening Address by the President of the Conference, the Rt. Honorable Ellen Wilkinson, MP,” Conference for the Establishment of UNESCO, London, 1–16 November 1945 (Paris: UNESCO, 1946), p. 24Google Scholar.

21. Julian Huxley, the first executive director of UNESCO, and Joseph Needham, the first director of UNESCO's Natural Sciences Department, were instrumental in the founding of that organization and wrote extensively on their views of science as a transnational activity. See, for example, Huxley, Julian, Unesco: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy (Washington, D. C.: Public Affairs Press, 1947)Google Scholar. Sir Henry Dale, who persuaded the establishing conference to accept science as a distinct part of the embryonic UNESCO and who had been part of the League of Nations' International Institute for Intellectual Cooperation, held similar views. See Sewell, UNESCO and World Politics.

22. “Scientific unions” are scientists' professional organizations, such as the International Astronomical Union and the International Geodesy and Geophysical Union. Their umbrella organization is the International Council of Scientific Unions.

23. This summary is from Florkin, Marcel, “Ten Years of Science at UNESCO,” Impact of Science on Society 7 (09 1956), pp. 123–24Google Scholar.

24. See, for example, “Activities of Unesco in the Natural Sciences During 1948,” 14 02 1949, Natural Sciences (NS)/67, UNESCO Archives, ParisGoogle Scholar.

25. The Rio de Janeiro office was moved to Montevideo in 1949, and in 1951 the Nanking office was relocated to Djakarta in the wake of the Chinese revolution. In creating these field offices Joseph Needham (head of UNESCO's Natural Sciences Department) was realizing the International Science Cooperation Service he had proposed during the war. See Needham, Joseph, “An International Science Cooperation Service,” Nature 154 (25 11 1944), pp. 657–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For original plans for the field offices, see “UNESCO Science Cooperation Offices,” 12 06 1947 Nat Sci/28/1947, UNESCO Archives, ParisGoogle Scholar. For a brief history of early field office program see Florkin, “Ten Years of Science at UNESCO.”

26. Specifically, UNESCO helped found the Union of International Engineering Associations and the Council of International Organizations of Medical Sciences. See Florkin, “Ten Years of Science at UNESCO.”

27. Note that this was a deliberate shift from the way in which the Conference of Allied Ministers of Education's executive bureau and UNESCO's preparatory commission executive committee were constituted. Both of these were composed of national representatives. See Sewell, UNESCO and World Politics.

28. As quoted in Sewell, , UNESCO and World Politics, p. 169Google Scholar.

29. Ibid., pp. 168–69.

30. Both quotations are from ibid., p. 169.

31. Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization as reprinted in Preston, William, Herman, Edward S., and Schiller, Herbert I., Hope and Folly: The United States and UNESCO, 1945–1985 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989), p. 315Google Scholar. The original phrase, “war begins in the minds of men,” was coined by Clement Atlee. See ibid., p. 33.

32. Truman is quoted in Preston, , Herman, , and Schiller, , Hope and Folly, p. 33Google Scholar.

33. The original survey analysis is contained in UNESCO Archives, document NS/107. Survey results were also published as “Reports and Documents: Survey of National Research Councils for Pure and Applied Science in the Member States of UNESCO,” Impact of Science on Society 4 (Winter 1953), pp. 231–55Google Scholar.

34. “Reports and Documents,” p. 231. See also Auger, Pierre, “UNESCO and the Development of Research in the Field of Natural Sciences,” UNESCO Chronicle 1 (07 1955), p. 5Google Scholar.

35. See UNESCO/NS/124, UNESCO Archives, Paris, for the final report of this meeting. See also Auger, , “UNESCO and the Development of Research in the Field of Natural Sciences,” p. 5Google Scholar.

36. UNESCO Chronicle 1 (July 1955), p. 26.

37. Several of the presented papers were later published in the journal Impact of Science on Society. Most relevant is Moller's, Werner “National Research Councils and Science Policy,” Impact of Science on Society 6 (09 1955), pp. 155–68Google Scholar. Moller was a member of the Department of Natural Sciences at UNESCO.

38. The Belgian National Science Policy Council was established in 1959. UNESCO Archives, NS/(Research Organization Unit)ROU/100, UNESCO Archives, Paris.

39. See NS/ROU/Lebanon (LEB) 1–23; and NS/ROU/100, UNESCO Archives, Paris.

40. Auger had been the second head of the Natural Sciences Department after Joseph Needham and had recently retired from the Secretariat.

41. Auger, Pierre, Current Trends in Scientific Research (Paris: UNESCO, 1961), p. 220Google Scholar.

42. This report is routinely cited as the basis for UNESCO's science policy activities. See, for example, de Hemptinne, Y., (UNESCO's Role in the Organization of Scientific Research,” UNESCO Chronicle 9 (07 1963), p. 245Google Scholar; and Alexi Matveyev opening speech to the meeting of the Coordinators of Science Policy Studies, Karlovy Vary, Czechoslovakia, June 1966. Matveyev was UNESCO's Assistant Director-General for Science. His speech is reprinted in Principles and Problems of National Science Policies, Science Policy Studies and Documents Series, vol. 5 (Paris: UNESCO, 1967), p. 12. Also see, “Survey of UNESCO's activities and achievements with regard to science policy,” NS/ROU/100, UNESCO archives, Paris, p. 3.

43. UNESCO, General Conference, 11th sess., 1960, Resolutions, 2.1131 (Paris: UNESCO, 1960)Google Scholar.

44. UNESCO, General Conference, 13th sess., 1964, Resolutions, 2.112(d) (Paris: UNESCO, 1964), p. 32Google Scholar.

45. Auger, Pierre, Current Trends in Scientific Research, p. 220Google Scholar, emphasis added.

46. UNESCO, Principles and Problems of Science Policy, Science Policy Studies and Documents Series, vol. 5 (Paris: UNESCO, 1966), p. 87Google Scholar.

47. “The Proposed Science Policy Programme of UNESCO for 1967–68,” NS/ROU/117, UNESCO Archives, Paris, p. 1, emphasis added.

48. The terra “epistemic community” refers to “a community of experts sharing a belief in a common set of cause-and-effect relationships as well as common values to which policies governing these relationships will be applied.” See Haas, Peter, “Do Regimes Matter? Epistemic Communities and Mediterranean Pollution Control,” International Organization 43 (Summer 1989), pp. 377–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar; the quotation is drawn from footnote 20, p. 384. Haas provides a more extensive discussion of this definition on page 3 of Haas, Peter, “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination,” International Organization 46 (Winter 1992), pp. 1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49. United Nations, Secretariat, Economic and Social Council, 36th sess., Report to the Secretary-General on the Results of the United Nations Conference on Science and Technology for the Benefit of Less Developed Areas, 1963, E/3772, annexes, agenda item 15.

50. Ibid., section 181, p. 24.

51. This interpretation is compatible with the conclusions of Krasner, Stephen D. in,Structural Conflict: The Third World Against Global Liberalism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985)Google Scholar.

52. The Research Organization Unit was subsequently renamed the Science Policy Division. For more on the early activities of the Research Organization Unit, see Hemptinne, de, “UNESCO's Role in the Organization of Scientific Research,” pp. 244–48Google Scholar.

53. “UNESCO Science Cooperation Offices,” UNESCO Chronicle 7 (December 1961), pp. 433–435.

54. See Grestford, Guy B., “The Development of Science in South-east Asia,” Nature 186 (11 06 1960), pp. 859–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Houssay, B. A., (Organization of Scientific Research in Latin America,” Nature 188 (31 12 1960), pp. 1157–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The three Latin American countries having science bureaucracies were Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico. Resolutions and declarations from this seminar are found in NS/ROU/36, UNESCO Archives, Paris. On the Middle East conference, see UNESCO, Structural and Operation Schemes of National Science Policy, Science Policy Studies and Documents Series, vol. 6 (Paris: UNESCO, 1967)Google Scholar; and “Science Planning, Development and Co-operation in the Countries of the Middle East and North Africa,” Nature 189 (4 02 1961), pp. 362–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55. Results of some of the later meetings were subsequently published as part of the Science Policy Studies and Documents Series.

56. These were published in the (ongoing) book series UNESCO, Science Policy and Documents Series (UNESCO: Paris). The studies to which I refer here were published during the period 1965–90.

57. This was true for two of the volumes in particular. See UNESCO, Principles and Problems National Science Policies, Science Policy and Documents Series, vol. 5Google Scholar, and UNESCO, Structural and Operational Schemes of National Science Policy, Science Policy and Documents Series1, vol. 6 (UNESCO: Paris, 1966 and 1967Google Scholar, respectively).

58. Science policy establishment missions were complete or under way in Algeria, Congo (Leopoldville), Ethiopia, Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Kenya, Lebanon, Madagascar, Morocco, Senegal, Sudan, Tanzania, Venezuela, and Zambia. Science policy modification or reorganization programs were undertaken in Indonesia, Nepal, the Philippines, and the United Arab Republic, among others.

59. Unless otherwise indicated, citations of letters and memoranda below are from UNESCO Secretariat Registry files, UNESCO Archives, Paris. Where documents were assigned file numbers, these are so noted. For a description of the report on Lebanese science and technology, see memorandum by Yvan de Hemptinne, scientific secretary to the director of the Department of Natural Sciences, to Malcolm S. Adiseshiah, UNESCO Assistant Director-General, May 1961, NS memo 50. 085.

60. This proposal is described in a letter from Lebanese Director General of National Education Fouad Sawaya to UNESCO Assistant Director-General Adiseshiah, 23 May 1961.

61. Memorandum from de Hemptinne to Adiseshiah, May 1961, NS memo 50. 085. De Hemptinne also proposed an elaborate three-tiered structure for this coordinative bureaucracy. These proposals were greatly simplified under pressure from F. Karam at the Bureau of Member States (BMS) and from the Director-General of UNESCO himself. See memorandum from F. Karam, BMS, to José Correa, director of BMS, 5 May 1961, BMS 80/memo 100; and memorandum from UNESCO Director-General Maheu, Rene to Kovda, M. V., director of UNESCO Department of Natural Sciences, n.d. (possibly June or 07 1961)Google Scholar.

62. Memorandum from Maheu to Kovda, n.d. (possibly June or July 1961). The fact that the Director-General of UNESCO and the President of Lebanon both were involved in these negotiations indicates the importance attached to them by both parties. Maheu, in fact, goes on to say in the above-cited memo: “For many reasons, I attach the utmost importance to this project which, in my view, has great value as an example”; translation mine.

63. This proposed legislation comprises NS/ROU/7, 8 February 1962, UNESCO Archives, Paris.

64. See memorandum from F. Karam, BMS, to A. K. Kinany, chief, Unit of Arabic-speaking Countries, BMS, 15 December 1961; and letter from de Hemptinne to T. O. P. Lilliefelt, permanent resident, Technical Assistance Bureau, Beirut, 20 December 1961, NS 801/226(40).

65. These comments are contained in “Commentaires de l'UNESCO scr l'avant-projet de loi portant création d'un 'Conseil National de la Recherche Scientifique' redige en novembre 1961 pare la Commission Scientifique National du Liban,” (Comments by UNESCO on the proposedlegislation concerning the creation of a “National Council for Scientific Research” drafted in November 1961 by the National Scientific Commission of Lebanon), 8 February 1962, NS/ROU/9, UNESCO Archives, Paris.

66. “Avant-projet de loi portant création d'un conseil national de la recherche scientifique auLiban: Synthèse des avant projets de loi établis par M. Y. de Hemptinne, Chef du Groupe d'organisation de la recherche scientifique de l'UNESCO et par la Commission Scientifique Nationale du Liban” (Proposed legislation concerning the creation of a National Council for Scientific Research for Lebanon: synthesis of proposed legislation drawn up by M. Y. de Hemptinne, group leader of UNESCO's Research Organization Unit, and by the National Scientific Commission of Lebanon), 8 February 1962, NS/ROU/10, UNESCO Archives, Paris.

67. Letter from de Hemptinne to Joseph Najjar, National Scientific Commission President, 20 February 1962. De Hemptinne was then head of the new Research Organization Unit at UNESCO's Natural Sciences Department.

68. Letter from Chafic Moharram, technical counselor to the President of Lebanon, to de Hemptinne, 3 October 1962. De Hemptinne's enabling legislation specified that the council's budget was not to be less than 1 percent of the state's budget.

69. See, for example, Blount, B. K., “Report to the National Research Council of Lebanon,” compiled 10 March–7 04 1964Google Scholar, Lebanon file, Secretariat Registry Files, UNESCO Archives, Paris. Blount was deputy director of the British Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and was a temporary consultant to UNESCO.

70. See, for example, Piganiol, P., “Organisation de la politique scientifique au Liban” (Organization of science policy in Lebanon), 1967–1968Google Scholar; and Steyaert, M., “Liban: politique scientifique national et organisation des recherches oceanographiques (Lebanon: national science policy and the organization of oceanographic research), 1968Google Scholar, Lebanon file, Secretariat Registry Files, UNESCO Archives, Paris.

71. It should be noted that even where enabling legislation originated in the countries themselves, UNESCO still provided some of the impetus for creating the new bureaucracy. Virtually all locally drafted enabling documents cite UNESCO regional science policy conferences (for example, the 1964 Lagos conference among African countries) as prompting local activity, and most follow conference recommendations to a large extent.

72. Memorandum from I. C. Koupalov-Yaropolk to A. Matveyev, 13 April 1967, science policy memo 541, Secretariat Registry Files, UNESCO Archives, Paris. Koupalov-Yaropolk was a UNESCO policy consultant and Matveyev, UNESCO Assistant Director-General. In particular, see confidential annex I, “Ethiopia.”

73. Ibid., annex V, “Tanzania.”

74. Ibid., annex VIII, “Zambia.”

75. Ibid., confidential annex I, “Ethiopia.”

76. Ibid., annex VII, “Sudan.”

77. UNESCO consultant Koupalov-Yaropolk described the situation as follows: “The draft Constitution of the National Research Council has been lying for some 14 months in the Ministry of Agriculture. [This] indicates that there are few people really interested in the establishment of N.R.C. or that they do not have influence enough to push this matter forward.” See ibid., annex V, “Tanzania.”

78. See discussion of two key features of UNESCO's preferred form of a science policymaking body, above.

79. “Ethiopia,” confidential annex I to science policy memo 541.

80. Kenya is the only exception, since it did not create its own national science policy bureaucracy until 1977. The Kenyan rationale for not creating such a bureaucracy earlier was that the nation could derive the necessary benefits from an existing East African regional science policy bureaucracy.

81. In their analysis of the spread of municipal reforms across U.S. cities at the turn of the century, Tolbert and Zucker provide a similar explanation of a diffusion process. Their interpretation is as follows: “As an increasing number of organizations adopt a program or policy, it becomes progressively institutionalized, or widely understood to be a necessary component of rational organizational structure. The legitimacy of the procedures themselves serves as the impetus for the later adopters.” See Tolbert, Pamela and Zucker, Lynne, “Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal Structure of Organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 1880–1935,” Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (03 1983), p. 35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82. For an alternative perspective on socialization of states in which hegemons rather than international organizations are the socializing force, see Ikenberry, G. John and Kupchan, Charles A., “Socialization and Hegemonic Power,” International Organization 44 (Summer 1990), pp. 283–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

83. Keohane, Robert, “International Institutions: Two Approaches,” International Studies Quarterly 32 (12 1988), pp. 379–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

84. Krasner, Stephen D., ed., International Regimes (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983)Google Scholar.

85. Krasner, in the conclusion of International Regimes, raised this issue as did Keohane in his more recent address to the International Studies Association. Implications of the structure-actor relationship have been explored by Ashley and by Kratchowil and Ruggie, among others. See rasner, International Regimes; Keohane, “International Institutions: Two Approaches”; Ashley, Richard, “The Poverty of Neorealism,” in Keohane, Robert, ed., Neorealism and Its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), pp. 255–300Google Scholar; and Kratchowil, Friedrich and Ruggie, John Gerard, “International Organization: A State of the Art on an Art of the State,” International Organization 40 (Autumn 1986), pp. 753–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

86. UNESCO, World Directory of National Science Policy-making Bodies, Science Policy Studies and Documents Series, vol. 59 (Paris: UNESCO, 1984)Google Scholar; p. viii. See also the definitions in the earlier directories, listed in the textual notes above.

87. See UNESCO, World Directory of National Science Policy-making Bodies, 3 vols. (Paris: UNESCO, 1966–1968)Google Scholar.

88. UNESCO, Statistical Yearbook (Paris: UNESCOGoogle Scholar, various years).

89. International Monetary Fund (IMF), International Financial Statistics Yearbook (City of publication: IMF, various years).

90. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992)Google Scholar.

91. U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, World Expenditures and Arms Trade, 1963–1973 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975)Google Scholar.

92 U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, World Military Expenditures and Arms Trade, 1963–1973 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975)Google Scholar.