Tsutsui W.M. A Companion to japanese histоry

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

the Japanese case make bridging the gap between comparative politics and Japanese

politics especially difficult.

Choice of Topics: Methodological Biases

A scholar’s selection of appropriate topics is affected not only by real world events and

their relevance to Japan, but also unconsciously by the dominant methodology for

scholarly investigation and the data that fits that dominant methodology. For ex-

ample, the early postwar period (along with the prewar period) was dominated by

what is pejoratively called ‘‘constitutionalism’’ as the methodology of comparative

politics at the time. These early studies focused on the formal structures of the state,

describing and analyzing in useful detail the formal organizations of state power,

including the constitution. This study seemed appropriate for two obvious reasons:

First, state structures do matter in understanding politics and especially in assessing

the viability of new democracies. Second, the data to study these state structures was

readily available. It is always easier to study the formal str uctures of a state, its

constitutions, its legislatures, and its bureaucracies because this infor mation is always

made public. It is an obvious starting place in studying the politics of a nation to

begin with the structures of the state.

With the 1960s, however, came a rejection of ‘‘sterile constitutionalism’’ and the

beginning of the behavioral revolution. The new methodological wave ushered in the

use of statistics, especially economic and public opinion data. W. C. Mitchell describes

this revolution as ‘‘a revolt against what some political scientists viewed as a very

sterile, legalistic political science that ignored individuals behaving in political

ways.’’

By the mid-1970s, some corrections of the excesses of the behavioralists

began to spring up. The importance of the state and its institutions re-emerged in

both the comparative politics and the Japanese politics literatures. In addition,

rational choice began to make sign ificant headway in establishing itself as the new,

dominant methodology in political science. Rational choice argues that individuals

maximize their self-interest. Thus, if we know or can posit the preferences of a person,

we can then predict their reactions to specific incentives. Because rational choice

emphasizes incentive structures, especially those created by institutions, rational

choice became a part of the effort to rebalance political analyses to include both

individual attitudes and state structures.

Rational choice was well positioned to mov e into the position of the dominant

methodology because it allowed for the analysis of both individual incentives and how

institutional structures affect those incentives. In addition, rational choice had a much

more powerful metho dology than its competitors, specifically borrowing more so-

phisticated quantitative methodologies and the abstract modeling of game theory

into political science. Mitchell goes so far as to claim that this higher sophistication of

rational choice methodologies inadvertently led an earlier generation of political

scientists to reject rational choice and choose behavioralism as their model for

political analysis.

Behavioralism gave these young scholars an analytical advantage

over their peers with only a modest investment in quantitative methodology. They

were less enticed by rational choice because of the higher investment in math

necessary for the modeling aspects of rational choice. Yet late r, the sophistication of

POSTWAR POLITICS 289

rational choice methods provided the analytical edge for another new generation of

political scientists, eager to supplant their predecessors.

Despite these advances, the current dominant methodology, rational choice, is still

limited in its choice of topics by me thodological assumptions and expectations about

data. Just as the behavioralists may have overemphasized cultural attitudes as meas-

ured in public opinion surveys in their analyses of democratic viability, the rational

choice scholars similarly emphasize explanatory factors that are easily quantified or fit

an incentives-based explanation of behavior. Thus, three of the very few articles

focusing on Japan published recently in top political science journals all address the

question of defections from the LDP in 1993.

These defections were an important

and crucial event in Japanese politics, but the attention given this one event over

other, equally important, events seems misplaced. This overemphas is can be

explained, in part, by the fact that a data set of defectors and non-defectors is easily

created for analysis. Similarly, the large number of electoral system articles in the same

journals also stems, in part, from the easy availability of excellent data on Japanese

elections.

The dominance of a particular methodology also appears prominently in publish-

ing patter ns. Thus, nearly all of the articles on Japanese politics published in top

political science journals in the past decade have used rational choice or quantitative

methodologies, as shown in cited examples on the topics of electoral incentives or

LDP defections. Other approaches to the study of Japane se politics find outlets as

books or in area studies journals. This bias in publishing outlets is so extreme that if

an archeologist 1,000 years in the future had access only to our mainstream political

science journals, she would be perplexed by our fetish-like fixation on only a few

topics of Japanese political science.

Japanese Scholarship on Japanese Politics

Japanese scholars of Japanese politics have moved in the same direction as their

American counterparts, but there are still fundamental differences and radically

different starting points which help explain differences between the two fields.

Although no less a prominent scholar than Inoguchi Takas hi can maintain that ‘‘it

is undeniable that American political science has led political science in the rest of the

world,’’

the Japanese still maintain much of their own indigenous approach to the

study of politics. This approach has some obvious deficienci es, but it also has some

little recognized strengths, strengths that are prominent in contrast to how political

science has developed in the United States.

Traditionally, the study of political science in Japan was about individuals. Whereas

political science in the United State s has been dominated by approaches or method-

ologies, in Japan political science has been dominated by specific individuals. Not

only was the field dominated by individual scholars – Masumi Junnosuke for example

– these scholars also emphasized the role of the individual in their works. To these

authors, Japanese politics is best explained by a chronology of events in which a

variety of factors play a role, but the decisions, relationships, and proclivities of

individuals emerge time and aga in as decisive explanatory factors. The important

source for these analyses of Japanese politics is the memoir of the important political

290 RAY CHRISTENSEN

actor. Because so much of Japanese politics occurs behind the scenes, these memoirs

provide the only evidence as to the actual factors and discussions that influenced

important political events.

This initial bias to the indiv idual in Japanese political science has declined with the

importation of American methods of political science analysis and their adoption by

some of the most prominent Japanese scholars of political science. These scholars and

their colleagues, some educated in the United States and others simply following

American trends, have transformed and heightened the levels of methodological

sophistication of Japanese political science. There is, however, an important differ-

ence in the work of the best political scientists in Japan in contrast to the work of the

best American political scientists. These Japanese scholars regularly contribute to

nationally rele vant policy and political discussions. Even the most methodologically

sophisticated Japanese scholar will also write regularly for the general audience in

Japan and serve on government commissions. In contrast, while there have always

been scholars in the United States that have made these linkages, bridging the chasm

between academic scholarship and public debate, their numbers have always been few.

In Japan, these scholars are the norm, and this tendency is a strength of Japanese

political science scholarship.

Problems of Methodological Biases: Circularity

Methodological advances in political science have brought many advantages to our

understanding of Japanese politics. Excellent data, specialization, statistical tech-

niques, and formal modeling allow a researcher to measure separately the influences

of different factors, and these methods increase our understanding of a variety of

political and societal phenomena in Japan. In addition, the expectations of each

methodological wave have opened new doors to collecting data and answering

questions about politics. The behavioralists gave us more rigorous scientific inquiry

in general and sophisticated public opinion analyses specifically. The ratio nal choice

school has advanced our quantitative methodologies and added the beneficial clarity

that formal modeling can bring to our understanding of compl ex causal relationships,

producing insights that would not be obvious from other methods. The net result of

these advances is better evidence, better methods, and a wider array of questions

being asked and answered in the field of Japanese politics.

These advantages are obvious, and perhaps they need not be mentioned. I mention

them, however, before I begin my criticism of some of the methodological excesses

and blind spots brought about by the dominance of one methodology in order to lay

the proper groundwork for these criticisms. Political science is the better for these

methodological advances, but the gains they brought do not excuse the problems

that accompanied them. The debate in the discipline is not about the worth of the

methodological advances; rather it is a debate between an eclecticism in which all

methodologies are held to the rigorous standa rd of the accuracy of explanations they

produce, and the dominance of a particular methodology in which that methodology

is assumed to produce better results because it uses superior methods. In the dom-

inant methodology paradigm, methodological competitors may exist, but they exist

only in subordination to the superior methodology.

POSTWAR POLITICS 291

Because one methodology dominates political science, there is a tendency to

ignore research done under previous and now marginalized paradigms for political

research. In contrast to the discipline of history, in which an overview of all previous

work on a specific topic is required, it is quite common in political science for entire

periods of scholarship to be ignored. Thus, all early work on Japanese politics can be

dismissed as ‘‘sterile constitutionalism.’’ Rational choice theorists can ignore the

work of the behavioralists, in part because the behavioral ists conceptualize problems

differently than rational choice theorists. Consequently, the literature reviews of

political science papers and books have a circular quality. Rational choice theorists

cite each other and rarely place their research in the context of what has been done

under previous methodological paradigms, even when that research is directly rele-

vant to their topic.

E. B. Keehn, for example, makes the same criticism of Ramseyer and Rosenbluth’s

rational choice analysis of Japanese politics: ‘‘Much of their discussion of LDP

electoral and organizational behavior is a rational choice rehashing of classic studies,

such as Nathaniel Thayer’s How the Conservatives Rule Japan, 1969.’’ J. A. A.

Stockwin responds similarly, ‘‘In fact [Ramseyer and Rosenbluth] also make a good

empirical case for marked LDP dominance over the ministries, but the theory adds

little (except jarg on) to the empirical evidenc e. It is hardly a new insight that the LDP

and the ministries used to work in cahoots with each other for mutual survival.’’

similar example is Harold Quigley’s 1932 book on Japanes e politics which is never

cited even though it identified and described the issues of electoral coordination that

has animated a whole series of political science articles in prominent journals in the

1990s. Not one of the authors in this series of articles (including myself) showed any

awareness of Quigley’s research on this topic. Our articles in the 1990s could ignore

past research because we knew that the analysis of past generations of researchers was

inferior to our superior methods. We were wrong. Repackaging the conventional

wisdom of a previous era in the jargon of a new methodology is not progress and is

not science.

Problems of Methodological Biases: Assumptions

Another potential problem that occurs when one methodology or paradigm domin-

ates a discipline is the tendency for the assumptions of that paradigm to inadvertently

limit the field of research inquiry. Theoretical assumptions block the consideration of

alternative explanations not recognized or discredited by the orthodox methodology.

The work of some researchers seems to reflect an unconscious bias to support the

orthodox methodology even when that task seems to conflict with the higher goal of

providing the best, unbiased explanations of political events.

Ramseyer and Rosenbluth’s 1993 study Japan’s Political Marketplace provides an

example of the uneasy fit between rational choice theorizing and the desire to explain

Japanese politics with accuracy. They deriv e their propositions deductively, based on

assumptions that actors behave rationally. They test those assumptions with copious

data gathering. In many ways the book is an exceptional and forceful analysis, and it

has received widespread attention in the broader political science field. In contrast, its

reception in the realm of Japanese politics has been more muted. Negative reactions

292 RAY CHRISTENSEN

to the book focus largely on dissatisfaction with the accuracy of the model of Japanese

politics that Ramseyer and Rosenbluth describe. For example, Steven Reed argues: ‘‘I

find much about the rational choice approach irritating, wherever applied. In par-

ticular, I am irritated by the tendency to impute intentionality to everything and the

propensity to prefer deduction over data.’’ Reed then gives an example of a claim

made by Ramseyer and Rosenbluth that he argues is ‘‘difficult to reconcile with the

historical record.’’

A similar disquiet shows up in comparing the impact of Ramseyer and Rosenbluth’s

work to that of Johnson’s MITI and the Ja panese Miracle. Johnson’s book was

equally u nsettling to some of the conventional wisdom of the time, but ther e was

little quibbling about the factual cor rectness of his work. Rather, critics have con-

tended that his model did not apply as well to different time periods, different issue

areas, or different ministries.

Johnson’s book also sparked a debate about the

relative power of politicians and bureauc rats that set the agenda for a decade of

academic research. In contrast, Ramseyer and Rosenbluth’s work has been largely

ignored by most scholars of Japanese politics. In the field of Japanese politics, only

rational choice scholars cite Ramseyer and Rosenbluth regularly. Citations by other

Japan specialists are typically only an acknowledgment of arguments that Ramseyer

and Rosenbluth have made.

Problems of Methodological Biases: Scientific Research

Another bias brought about by methodological paradigms is the discrediting of

alternative approaches because they are said to be neither scientific nor theoretical.

One of the greatest benefits of methodological advances in political science is the

enhancement of the research process in scientific terms. We have rejected anecdotal

evidence, biased case selection, and atheoretical studies from our repertoire of re-

search methodologies. However, the fear of weak or unscientific research occasionally

manifests itself in unwarranted attacks on perfectly valid and scientific methodologies

because they differ from the dominant methodology of the time.

This bias against marginalized methodologies shows up in the pejorative use of the

term ‘‘area studies’’ in political science. To some political scientists area studies means

the atheoretical, unscientific study of one particular country. Such studies are of

marginal worth, they claim, because the studies are not comparative. The studies

are said to be atheoretical and unscientific because there is no comparison of cases,

allowing for the testing of theoretically derived hypotheses. In addition, a single

country case study is unlikely to be generalizable beyond that specific country.

Thus, these critics would argue, area studies work does not advance our theoretical

knowledge of the world around us; it simply provides idiosy ncratic explanations of

specific events, precisely the ad hoc analysis and anecdotal evidence that methodo-

logical advances in political science had supposedly eliminated.

Chalmers Johnson objects to this critique of area studies, characterizing the de-

tractors of area studies as claiming that ‘‘the relationshi p between area specialists and

rational choice theorists is that of a hierarchy, with the area specialist in the role of a

gold miner digging away at the cliff face of a foreign culture, while the rational choice

POSTWAR POLITICS 293

theorist is the master goldsmith who can turn this raw ore into beautiful things.’’

Prominent comparativists seem guilty of this charge. Laitin assigns a role to narrative

research that essentially supplements the work done in statistical research .

David

Collier’s discussion of case studies similarly gives higher priority to multiple country

case studies, though he does cite favorably an extensive and growing literature that

recognizes the potential for single country case studies to be both theoretical and

scientific.

A subtle bias exists in political science that relegates single country studies to

inferior stat us and automatically elevates multi-country studies to a privileged status,

a distinction that is not justified inherently by the rigor or scientific orientation of one

approach over the other. This bias is inappropriate. Do we conduct research because

it best fits the dominant model of what scientific research should be? Or do we

conduct research to better explain the world around us? Under the second goal, a

methodologically rigorous and theoretical study that focused on just one country is

just as valid and useful as a multi-country study that explicitly separated cases into

control groups and test groups for hypothesis testing.

The Future of Political Research on Japan

Though this essay serves as a warning about potential biases that affect political

science research, political research on Japan has a bright future of continuing achieve-

ment. Though political science has been dominated at times by specific methodo-

logical approaches, the discipline has remained open to a variety of external

methodologies and approaches, giving hope that an eclectic approach will remain

well rooted in the discipline. The current state of political science is a healthy mix of

historical (path dependency), sociologi cal (behavioralism), economic (rational

choice), and humanities (postmodernism) approaches. Although the rational choice

school is ascendant and dominant in some parts of the discipline, a lively debate about

rational choice continues in the discipline. The subfield of comparative politics and

the specialization of Japanese politics similarly remain healthy with representatives of

all approaches making some contributions to our scholarship.

Political science and comparative politics run the danger of slipping into irrelevance

if their explanations of events become too subservient to the dominant methodology

and its assumptions rather than always serving the ultimate goal of better under-

standing the world around us. American political science could learn well from its

counterpart in Japan where the practical component of the study of polit ics has

remained healthy and respected. Indeed the more prominent a Japanese political

scientist is, the more prominent his or her contribution to public discussion is

expected to be. In the future, American political scientists must make sure that

their research still speaks to a broader audience and still answers rele vant questions

for that audience.

Despite these concerns, recent political science work has been of exceptional

quality and has vastly increased our understanding of Japan specifically and politics

generally. The methodological power and rigor brought by behavioralism and ra-

tional choice have transformed ou r study of politics and our understanding of politics

294 RAY CHRISTENSEN

for the better. Rational choice modeling has brought new insights and greater clarity

of complex causal phenomena. The adherence of political science research to the basic

assumptions of the scientific method and expectations of theory building and hy-

pothesis testing have helped steer political science away from unsubstantiated con-

clusions, and this progress must be continued. Joseph Gownder and Robert

Pekkanen’s admo nition seems especially appropriate given these dangers: ‘‘the future

of the study of Japanese politics will be best served by accept ing works applying a

variety of different approaches, as long as these works are done rigorously and stand

up to the criteria of good social science. Finally rational choice is one among many

competing explanations of political phenomena. It is not the end of political sci-

ence.’’

What will be studied in the next decades is difficult to predict; it will largely

be determined by events, but we can be confident that the study of Japane se politics

will remain an eclectic collection of topics and methodologies.

NOTES

1 Scalapino and Masumi, Parties and Politics.

2 Thayer, How the Conservatives Rule Japan.

3 Curtis, Election Campaigning Japanese Style.

4 Sato

and Matsuzaki, ‘‘Jiminto

cho

ki.’’

5 Curtis, The Japanese Way of Politics.

6 Kohno, Japan’s Postwar Party Politics.

7 Steiner, Krauss, and Flanagan, eds., Political Opposition and Local Politics.

8 Krauss, Rohlen, and Steinhoff, eds., Conflict in Japan.

9 Stockwin, Japan: Divided Politics.

10 Johnson, MITI and the Japanese Miracle.

11 Samuels, The Business of the Japanese State.

12 Muramatsu and Krauss, ‘‘The Conservative Policy Line.’’

13 Ramseyer and Rosenbluth, Japan’s Political Marketplace.

14 Pharr, Political Women in Japan; LeBlanc, Bicycle Citizens.

15 van Wolferen, The Enigma of Japanese Power.

16 Schlesinger, Shadow Shoguns.

17 Reed, ‘‘Structure and Behaviour.’’

18 For example, Cox and Rosenbluth, ‘‘The Anatomy of a Split’’; Cox and Rosenbluth,

‘‘Factional Competition for Party Endorsement’’; Cox, ‘‘Is the Single Non-Transferable

Vote Superproportional?’’

19 Lincoln, Arthritic Japan.

20 Pempel, Regime Shift.

21 Ward, Japan’s Political System.

22 Curtis, The Logic of Japanese Politics.

23 Rohlen, Japan’s High Schools.

24 Pharr, Losing Face.

25 Schwartz and Pharr, eds., The State of Civil Society.

26 Laitin, ‘‘Comparative Politics’’; Rogowski, ‘‘Comparative Politics.’’

27 Johnson, ‘‘Preconception vs. Observation.’’

28 For example, see Pempel, Regime Shift, and Samuels, Machiavelli’s Children.

29 Mitchell, ‘‘Political Science and Public Choice,’’ p. 244.

30 Ibid.

POSTWAR POLITICS 295

31 Cox and Rosenbluth, ‘‘The Anatomy of a Split’’; Kato, ‘‘When the Party Breaks Up’’;

Reed and Scheiner, ‘‘Electoral Incentives and Policy Preferences.’’

32 Inoguchi, ‘‘Political Science in Three Democracies,’’ p. 1.

33 Keehn, Review of Japan’s Political Marketplace, p. 250; Stockwin, Review of Japan’s

Political Marketplace, p. 393.

34 Reed, Review of Japan’s Political Marketplace.

35 Muramatsu and Krauss, ‘‘The Conservative Policy Line’’; Samuels, The Business of the

Japanese State.

36 Johnson, ‘‘Preconception vs. Observation,’’ p. 172.

37 Laitin, ‘‘Comparative Politics,’’ p. 631.

38 Collier, ‘‘The Comparative Method.’’

39 Gownder and Pekkanen, ‘‘The End of Political Science?’’, p. 384.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Collier, David. ‘‘The Comparative Method.’’ In Ada W. Finifter, ed., Political Science: The State

of the Discipline II. Washington DC: American Political Science Association, 1993.

Cox, Gary. ‘‘Is the Single Non-Transferable Vote Superproportional? Evidence from Japan and

Taiwan.’’ American Journal of Political Science 40 (Aug. 1996): 740–55.

Cox, Gary, and Rosenbluth, Frances. ‘‘The Anatomy of a Split: The Liberal Democrats in

Japan.’’ Electoral Studies 14:2 (1995): 355–76.

Cox, Gary, and Rosenbluth, Frances. ‘‘Factional Competition for the Party Endorsement: The

Case of Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party.’’ British Journal of Political Science 26 (1996):

259–69.

Curtis, Gerald. Election Campaigning Japanese Style. New York: Columbia University Press,

1971.

Curtis, Gerald. The Japanese Way of Politics. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988.

Curtis, Gerald. The Logic of Japanese Politics. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999.

Gownder, Joseph, and Pekkanen, Robert. ‘‘The End of Political Science? Rational Choice

Analyses in Studies of Japanese Politics.’’ Journal of Japanese Studies 22 (1996): 363–84.

Inoguchi, Takashi. ‘‘Political Science in Three Democracies, Disaffected (Japan), Third-Wave

(Korea) and Fledgling (China).’’ Paper presented at the RC33 Panel Session of the World

Congress of the International Political Science Association, Durban, South Africa, June 28–

July 4, 2003.

Johnson, Chalmers. MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925–

1975. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1982.

Johnson, Chalmers. ‘‘Preconception vs. Observation, or the Contributions of Rational Choice

Theory and Area Studies to Contemporary Political Science.’’ PS: Political Science and

Politics 30 (1997): 170–4.

Kato, Junko. ‘‘When the Party Breaks Up: Exit and Voice among Japanese Legislators.’’

American Political Science Review 92 (1998): 857–70.

Keehn, E. B. Review of Japan’s Political Marketplace, by J. Mark Ramseyer and Frances M.

Rosenbluth. Monumenta Nipponica 49 (1994): 249–51.

Kohno Masaru. Japan’s Postwar Party Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.

Krauss, Ellis, Rohlen, Thomas, and Steinhoff, Patricia, eds. Conflict in Japan. Honolulu:

University of Hawai i Press, 1984.

Laitin, David. ‘‘Comparative Politics: The State of the Subdiscipline.’’ In Ira Katznelson and

Helen Milner, eds., Political Science: The State of the Discipline. New York: Norton, 2002.

LeBlanc, Robin. Bicycle Citizens: The Political World of the Japanese Housewife. Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1999.

296 RAY CHRISTENSEN

Lincoln, Edward. Arthritic Japan: The Slow Pace of Economic Reform. Washington DC:

Brookings Institute Press, 2001.

Masumi Junnosuke. Contemporary Politics in Japan. Berkeley: University of California Press,

1985.

Mitchell, W. C. ‘‘Political Science and Public Choice: 1950–70.’’ Public Choice 98 (1999):

237–49.

Muramatsu Michio and Krauss, Ellis. ‘‘The Conservative Policy Line and the Development of

Patterned Pluralism.’’ In Kozo Yamamura and Yasuba Yasukichi, eds., The Political Economy

of Japan, vol. 1, The Domestic Transformation. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press,

1987.

Pempel, T. J. Regime Shift: Comparative Dynamics of the Japanese Political Economy. Ithaca,

NY: Cornell University Press, 1998.

Pharr, Susan. Political Women in Japan: The Search for a Place in Political Life. Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1981.

Pharr, Susan. Losing Face: Status Politics in Japan . Berkeley: University of California Press,

1990.

Quigley, Harold. Japanese Government and Politics. New York: Century Co., 1932.

Ramseyer, J. Mark, and Rosenbluth, Frances M. Japan’s Political Marketplace. Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993.

Reed, Steven. ‘‘Structure and Behaviour: Extending Duverger’s Law to the Japanese Case.’’

British Journal of Political Science 29 (1991): 335–56.

Reed, Steven. Making Common Sense of Japan. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press,

1994.

Reed, Steven. Review of Japan’s Political Marketplace, by J. Mark Ramseyer and Frances M.

Rosenbluth. American Journal of Sociology 99 (1994): 1654–6.

Reed, Steven, and Scheiner, E. ‘‘Electoral Incentives and Policy Preferences: Mixed Motives

behind Party Defections In Japan.’’ British Journal of Political Science 33 (2003): 469–90.

Rogowski, Ronald. ‘‘Comparative Politics.’’ In Ada W. Finifter, ed., Political Science: The State

of the Discipline II. Washington DC: American Political Science Association, 1993.

Rohlen, Thomas. Japan’s High Schools. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.

Samuels, Richard. The Business of the Japanese State: Energy Markets in Comparative and

Historical Perspective. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987.

Samuels, Richard. Machiavelli’s Children: Leaders and Their Legacies in Italy and Japan.

Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003.

Sato

Seizaburo

and Matsuzaki Tetsuhisa. ‘‘Jiminto

cho

ki seiken no kaibo

.’’ Chu

ron

99:11 (1984): 66–100.

Scalapino, Robert A., and Masumi Junnosuke. Parties and Politics in Contemporary Japan.

Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962.

Schlesinger, Jacob. Shadow Shoguns: The Rise and Fall of Japan’s Postwar Political Machine.

New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997.

Schwartz, Frank, and Pharr, Susan, eds.

The State of Civil Society in Japan. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Steiner, Kurt, Krauss, Ellis, and Flanagan, Scott, eds. Political Opposition and Local Politics in

Japan. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980.

Stockwin, J. A. A. Japan: Divided Politics in a Growth Economy, 2nd edn. New York: Norton,

1982.

Stockwin, J. A. A. Review of Japan’s Political Marketplace, by J. Mark Ramseyer and Frances

M. Rosenbluth. Inter national Affairs 70 (1994): 393.

Thayer, Nathaniel. How the Conservatives Rule Japan. Princeton: Princeton University Press,

1969.

POSTWAR POLITICS 297

van Wolferen, Karel. The Enigma of Japanese Power: People and Politics in a Stateless Nation.

New York: Knopf, 1989.

Vogel, Ezra. Japan as Number One: Lessons for America. New York: Harper and Row, 1979.

Ward, Robert E. Japan’s Political System, 2nd edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,

1967.