Jonathan H. Adler of William and Mary Law School reviews “The Chevron Doctrine: Its Rise and Fall, and the Future of the Administrative State” by Thomas W. Merrill. The Econlit abstract of this book begins: “Explores the standard that courts apply in determining whether an administrative agency has correctly interpreted the statute under which it operates, delving into where this standard – the Chevron doctrine – came from, how it spread, and arguments over its adequacy.”

JHEN PUBLISHERS receive copies of reviews of their books, they quickly scan them for possible quotes for use in promotional materials. They are often frustrated to discover that a reviewer really liked the book, yet never managed to say so in a clear, unequivocal way. The people at Harvard University Press will experience no such frustration with this essay on James Coleman's application of rational choice theory to the classical issues of sociology. Professor Coleman's Foundations of Social Theory is a masterwork. Epic in scope, it is clear, engaging, and forcefully argued. Traditional sociologists will be unable to ignore its bold new agenda for their discipline. And the book will have a lasting impact on economics, political science, psychology, and other disciplines concerned with human behavior. Having issued this ringing endorsement of the work as a whole, I hasten to add that there are many points on which I find myself in substantial disagreement with Coleman. On some occasions, he pushes the rational choice theory too far; on others, not nearly far enough. But one of his great virtues is his remarkable willingness to articulate clear theories and commit himself to their predictions. In the process, he leaves himself open to being proved wrong, and indeed he sometimes is wrong. Yet how much more satisfying is his approach than the familiar alternative of constructing vague ad hoc explanations to fit known fact patterns. Foundations of Social Theory is organized into five parts. Part I, Elementary Actions and Relations, introduces the basic building blocks of the theory-actors, resources, interests, individual rights, and relatonships involving authority and trust. Part II's focus is the micro-tomacro transition; it applies the theory of rational individual behavior to the units developed in Part I to deduce how systems of actors will behave. Here, Coleman is concerned with social exchange, crowd behavior, and the emergence of social norms. In Part III, Coleman constructs a theory in which the principal actor is not the individual but the corporation. His aim is to explain how and why individuals empower formal organizations to act on their behalf, and the means whereby such authority can be revoked. Part IV, entitled Modern Society, employs the theories developed earlier to shed light on developments in contemporary social and economic life. Coleman devotes Part * James S. Coleman. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 1990. Pp. xvi, 993. ISBN 0-674-312250-2.

Private Truths, Public Lies is a splendid book. It tackles a long list of interesting and important questions that have been discussed at length, and largely unsuccessfully, by scholars from each of the social sciences. Kuran blends the insights of economics, psychology, sociology, and political science into a behavioral model that moves the discussion forward on many fronts. His may not be the model that many traditional economists might have chosen, but it is one that most can live with.

Research on the standard of living now emphasizes alternatives or supplements to the national income accounts. This paper reviews the results of two decades of research using stature as a measure of health aspects of human welfare. After comparing and contrasting stature with per capita income, I consider height patterns discovered by economic historians that challenge traditional beliefs about the past, including long-term trends, cycles in heights, and the dreadfully small stature of slave children that was followed by catch-up growth. The paper concludes with comparisons to work in development economics and suggestions for research.

Iam grateful to Alice Amsden, Martin Bronfenbrenner, Christopher Clague, David Felix, Joseph Reid, Kazuo Sato, and referees of this Journal for insightful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. I also thank the Faculty Research Program of the Columbia Business Schoolfor financial support, andjohn Millarfor able research assistance. I bear sole responsibility for any deficiencies in the paper.