Suchergebnisse

Cover -- ONE WORLD OF WELFARE -- Title -- Copyright -- Dedication -- CONTENTS -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- 1. Anticipatory Modernization: A Comparative Overview of Welfare State Development -- 2. War and Welfare Policy -- 3. Developmental State or Welfare State? A Comparative Analysis of Postwar Welfare Expenditures -- 4. A "Unique Welfare Society"? A Comparative Analysis of Policy Substance -- 5. Area Studies and Policy Research: The Quest for an East Asian Welfare Model -- 6. An Anomaly in the Realm of Welfare Regimes? -- 7. Convergence or Diversity? The Case for International Diffusion -- Index

AbstractThe concept of late development is ubiquitous in political science. Scholars generally use the term to explain the state's role in the economy based upon the timing of a country's industrialization. Many consider Japan a quintessential example of state-driven late development. This article surveys the late development theories of Alexander Gerschenkron and Alice Amsden. It then appraises these theories based upon Japan's experience, demonstrating that neither accurately describes the state's role in Japan's industrialization.To be clear, the argument is not that the state played no part in Japan's economic development. The question is whether late development offers an effective conceptual tool for explaining the causes, content, and timing of state action. There are many possible explanations of Japan's industrialization. Late development is only one of them, and not a very good one.

The purpose of the present symposium was to evaluate Perestroika's impact. Since the American Political Science Review (APSR), the American Journal of Political Science (AJPS), and the Journal of Politics (JOP) were all targets of criticism in the movement, whereas other national and regional association journals such as Perspectives on Politics and Political Research Quarterly were not, I looked for change in the former. Comparable data on the past contents of the APSR and AJPS had already been published, so I focused my recent surveys on those two. This focus implies no judgment as to the relative prestige of these journals. They pretend to represent the discipline as a whole and are paid for by all association members, and these are sufficient reasons to address their editorial biases.

It is fitting to measure Perestroika's impact through the contents of the leading political science association journals. The original Perestroika manifesto railed at the American Political Science Review (APSR), and many subsequent Perestroika protests condemned the skewed contents of the APSR, the American Journal of Political Science (AJPS), and the Journal of Politics. Large national and regional associations publish and pay for these journals. The position of Perestroika has been that their contents should represent the many types of research that political scientists are doing, which was not the case when the movement began.

Political philosophy has a unique role to play in political science. It focuses attention on the big ontological, epistemological, and normative questions that constitute the foundation of the scholarly enterprise. Due to the reification of subfield boundaries, the assault from hard science, the inward-looking perspective of many political philosophers, and political wrangles within political philosophy, it has ceased to play its distinctive role very well in recent years. As illustrated by the recent debate over methodology, the result is that the rest of the discipline has lost political philosophy's vital contribution to our common intellectual life.