LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
"DIPLOMACY AND ECONOMICS" SIR,—The particular aspect of Foreign Office reform with which the two articles in The Spectator of February 6th were concerned, the need for the Foreign Service to" have its own economic secretariat, is bound up largely with the question of the sort of academic training best suited for aspirants to a career in the diplomatic profession. The examination scheme and syllabus for candidates for the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service, which had been in force for a con- siderable period before the war, was as follows: There were two sections, A and B. The former comprised three test papers, in English Essay, English and either Elementary Economics or Present Day, and an oral examination, which was a personality test rather than a test of factual knowledge. The numerical value of each written test in this section was too marks and the viva voce was weighted. at 400. In section B, the subjects were classified into four groups: History ; Law, Philosophy, Politics and Economics ; Mathematics and Science ; Languages and Civilisations. All subjects in section A were obligatory ; in section B, candidates were required to take
subjects up to a maximum total of 1,300 marks •(or 1,350 if Russian language was selected). Candidates' freedom of choice in this sec- tion, too, was limited. In the History group, Modem European History (zoo marks) was obligatory ; so, also, were French and German (250 marks each), the regulations stipulating that candidates must reach a high standard of qualification in French language ; lastly, candidates who did not select the Elementary Economics paper in section A had to take two papers in General Economics (zoo marks).
In each of the subjects comprised in section B, the examination standard corresponded to that for an honours degree at London or one of the ancient universities. Without such a degree, indeed, a candidate's chances were negligible. Out of 74 men recruited to the Foreign Service by competitive ,examination during the period 1930-1939, 71 were honours graduates of Oxford or Cambridge. The distribution of the academic disc:plines in which they had specialised was:
History 23 Modern Languages 21
Classics 13
Modern Greats ii
Economics Law English It will be noticed that though eleven recruits to the Foreign Service dur.ng the period in question had graduated in Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford, only one had specialised in Economics at Cambridge, where, certainly until quite recently, the standard both of teaching and examination in Economics was higher. To say that from 1930-1939 only one entrant to the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service was by academic training an economist is not far wide off the mark. If the claim of the eleven Modern Greats men to be regarded as economists is dubious, still more so, of course, is that of the other recruits who had simply taken the Elementary Economics paper in section A; for the standard of that test was no more than the equiva- lent of an intermediate examination in Economics at a University. A knowledge of the basic principles of economic theory and some acquaintance with the general mechanism and organisation of indus- trial and financial markets is, clearly, essential to anyone who seeks to enter the diplomatic profession today ; and a test in this subject, along the lines of the Elementary Economics Paper, combining ques- tions on elementary theory and descriptive economics, should continue to be obligatory for all candidates for the Foreign Service. But an amateurish knowledge of economics is not the sort of equipment that will enable one to offer competent advice on intricate questions of policy or, even, to report reliably on business trends and social and labour conditions in other countries. These are tasks for the economic specialist.
What, then, is to be done? Is a specialised training in economics, such as is obtained in a university honours degree course, to be prescribed for all candidates for the Diplomatic Service in future? To do so would entail a radical recasting of the whole examination syllabus, involving a shift of emphasis from foreign languages and history of economics. It is at least open to question whether such 'a change is desirable. Diplomatists, more than any other State officials, must begood linguists and possess a sound knowledge of world his- tory. In exceptional cases, these accomplishments may be found com- bined with a specialist's knowledge of economics in one individual. But such are only the exceptions. The analytical bent of mind required for economics is not often found in the historian, and is still more rarely found in men who have specialised in the study el foreign languages. On the other hand, the good economist may lad all the qualities that combine to make an able diplomatist. Indeett when one reflects on the intolerance of "lay opinion", on econorni questions which some of our most distinguished economists have ds. played in the past, the result of entrusting diplomatic negotiations le economic experts—unless their opposites in foreign countries weft also economists—would be anything but happy.
The solution of the problem .lies in the creation of a special depart.
ment of the Foreign Service, staffed by expert economists and stasis.
• .
ucians. Recruitment to this department should be separate from thst
to the Foreign Service itself. If selection of candidates by com- petitive examination were adopted, the emphasis in the examinatics syllabus should be on economic science. But, in the case of recruit. merit to a specialised section like an economic secretariat, there it much to be said in favour of the method of co-option, junior members being chosen on special recommendation by. their professors from among the men who each year pass out of the universities with a flit
Previous page
