supply, which is limited under war conditions, can be allocated where most needed and the railroad situation surveyed from a national standpoint rather than from that of the individual systems and lines. A uniform system of purchases has been instituted, leading to economy; the Pullman Company has been placed under the jurisdiction of a separate Federal Manager, and thus made an integral part of the Railroad Administration.

Effective coöperation has been built up between the Railroad Administration and other governmental agencies with an interest in transportation matters, with the result that efficiency has been increased in the transportation of troops and supplies needed, not only for our own army and the armies of our allies, but by the civilian population as well. The Railroad Administration has a traffic representative with the War Industries Board, the War Department, the Navy Department, the Shipping Board, the Food Administration, and the Fuel Administration. Traffic questions having to do with these organizations are handled by these Railroad Administration representatives. Another example of coöperation has been the creation and operation of the Exports Control Committee, of which a representative of the Railroad Administration is Chairman, and on which serve representatives of other government agencies interested in export problems. The duty of this committee is to so control traffic as to avoid congestion at export points.

In addition to the railroads under the control of the Director General there are a number of coastwise steamship lines including the vessels of the Clyde Steamship Company, the Mallory Steamship Company, the Merchants and Miners Transportation Company, and the Southern Steamship Company. Successful efforts have been made to synchronize the operation of these lines with the operation of the railroads of the nation in the carrying of freight and passengers.

On September 3 the Director General of Railroads made a report to the President on the work of the United States Railroad Administration for the first seven months of its existence, and in that report details were given of the way the

multiplex problems which have arisen have been solved. In general, a conservative view at the present time is that the primary work of changing from many railroad systems into one system has already been accomplished. As time goes on, improvements and changes may be expected. The organization for carrying forward this vitally important part of the war endeavor of America is now at hand. For it to forge forward only needs intensive work on the part of all members of the great organization from top to bottom, and a constant study of the possibility of reforms as well as the execution of plans already made.

WASHINGTON, D.C.

BRICE CLAGETT.

THE BEHAVIORISTIC MAN

A NEW kind of an economic man has been, or is in process of being, constructed by what is known as the behavioristic school of economists. He is the result of an over-emphasis upon the non-pecuniary and the neglect or under-emphasis upon the pecuniary motives, as the old economic man was the result of the opposite tendencies.

There can be no doubt that men have many instincts and impulses which ally them with the bower bird who contrives, the beavers who construct, the bees and squirrels who accumulate, and all gregarious creatures who work together without thought of pecuniary gains and losses, and without calculating and balancing costs and advantages of any kind. We must all acknowledge the importance of a study of the instinctive and impulsive reactions in economic life, and admit the charge that too little attention has been given to them by economists. On the other hand, a counter charge can be made with equal effect and with equal justice against the so-called behaviorists. There are three counts in this charge.

1. They fail to see that the so-called orthodox economists have made ample allowance for these instincts, impulses and

emotions, even tho they have not analyzed, described and catalogued them as fully as was desirable.

For example, in most recent theories of interest, allowance is made for instinctive saving, accumulation, storing, holding on to desirable possessions, etc. In addition to all these things, however, these theorists have claimed that the influence of calculated self-interest shows itself. A great deal of saving would take place, it is claimed,1 even if there were no prospect of receiving interest on accumulations; but, nevertheless, some people are induced to save more when interest is added as another inducement than they would save because of these instinctive motives alone, when there was no prospect of interest. The added savings of these people who look forward to interest make up an appreciable part of the total supply of capital in any economically advancing community. Patriotism, also, and other non-pecuniary motives play a part, but it seems probable that more would be subscribed for government bonds which paid interest than for those which did not.

2. The second count in the charge is that the Behaviorists have gone as much too far in one direction as the orthodox economists have ever gone in the other direction, in that they have ignored, or at least slurred over, calculated self-interest as a factor in human behavior. If the so-called economic man of the classical school, whom, by the way, I have found described by the opponents of the classical school more specifically than by any member of that school, was too much of a calculating machine, so is the "behavioristic man" of this recent school too much of an impulsive, unreasoning," eternal feminine" sort of a man. It seems to me that we need a balancing up of motives before we arrive at any true concept of human reactions in a modern economic society.

3. The third count in the charge is that the behaviorists, like some of the older economists, lay too much stress on the

1 Cf. the chapters on Interest in the present writer's Distribution of Wealth; also the chapter on Self-Centered Appreciation in his Essays in Social Justice; Marshall, Principles of Economics, Bk. VI, chap. 6; Landry, L'Interet du Capital, chaps. 2 and 3; Cassel, The Nature and Necessity of Interest, chaps. 2-4; Fisher, The Rate of Interest, chaps. 12-14; Mixter, Theory of Savers' Rent, Quarterly Journal of Economics for April, 1899, pp. 245–269.

question as to what men are really like and, relatively at least, too little upon the great selective principles of economy. The question is not simply what are men actually like, but what kind of men fit best into the cosmos. What are the earmarks of a "good" man, that is, of a man who adds strength to the community or the nation? The same charge may be brought against the behaviorists that is brought against the anthropological school of moralists. It is not enough that we study the variations of human institutions, habits, morals, etc. We also want to know what institutions, habits, and moral systems work well. What kind of a nation or social organization fits in the cosmos and grows strong under the conditions of the universe. Similarly, as to individual motives, it is not simply a question as to what motives actually govern human behavior, tho it is important that we know that. It is of equal importance that we know what motives or combinations of motives work well. If we permit ourselves to use the word "ought," we want to know what motives ought to dominate. What happens, to take an extreme case, to farmers who do not save seed or accumulate capital? Is a thriftless man as strong a man, or a thriftless nation as strong a nation, as a thrifty one?

There is variability here as elsewhere. Individuals are not all exactly alike. Some are governed more largely than others by a given group of motives, others by a different group. This gives the variability which is the opportunity for selection. Which combination of motives makes the best citizen, that is, the one most useful to the group or the nation?

It is my present belief that observers and students of human behavior reach different conclusions according to the kind of people whose behavior they are studying. He who studies mainly the failures, that is, those persons who have not succeeded in fitting themselves very well into the great industrial and social organization, will reach one conclusion as to the motives which dominate in human behavior. He who studies the more favorable variations, that is, those persons who have succeeded somewhat better in fitting themselves into the whole, reaches another conclusion.

A parallel line of division is found among students of the question of the relative influence of heredity and environment as determining factors in individual success. By analogy, if one were studying jellyfish, one might find them to be the sport of circumstances, the winds, the waves, the tides and the currents. Environment seems to be everything until one asks, why were they jellyfish; then heredity comes in. A human weakling likewise seems to be the sport of circumstances. If they are favorable, he turns out well; if unfavorable, he turns out badly. Again, environment seems to be everything, until one asks, why is he so weak as to be the sport of circumstances. Then heredity has at least to be considered. If one studies sharks, however, one does not find them to be the sport of circumstances, at least not of the same circumstances as those which control the jellyfish. What is the difference? It is partly that one was born a shark and the other a jellyfish. Two men go into a shower bath. One comes out with a glow and the other with a chill. To the one a cold shower bath was favorable, to the other it was unfavorable. The difference is in the men. Two men grow up in a slum environment. One comes out sound, strong and virile; the other diseased, weak and parasitic. Why did they turn out differently?

As to the relative importance of the so-called rational and non-rational factors in human behavior, there is no reason to believe that all men are alike in this or any other particular. It may be that successful men are influenced somewhat more by the rational factors than are unsuccessful men. At any rate, the classical school with its so-called economic man was as truly a behavioristic school as any group of recent students. They were studying a different class of men in the industrial system. Perhaps both schools develop a one-sided theory of human nature because of the fact that each is studying a different class - one the successful, the other the unsuccessful class.

This has an important bearing on the question before us. There is no a priori reason for concluding that one kind of man is better than another, certainly not for concluding that a