This paper suggests an important role of religious discourses in the process of secularization and Nation-State Building in face to the English and French civil wars. This paper also compares the aspects of eschatology and demonology or providence in this discourses by discussing Junius Brutus' Vindiciae contra Tyrannos, Jean Bodin's Les Six Livres de la République and his De la démonomanie des sorciers, also Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan. In the early stage of the English Nation-State Building, the language of eschatology had a key function for secularization and detachment from the Catholic “universal” cosmology. Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan should be read in this context of the wide prevalence of millennialism and antinomianism, which the revolutionary agencies used for vindicating their regicide, and which Hobbes disproved for overcoming the Civil War. On the other hand, in the Catholic and Gallican French, finding any eschatological discourse even in the document of Monarchomachi is difficult; therefore, this paper suggests a dominance of terms of demonology and legalism in the religious discourses.
Charles Tilly (1929-2008) was a boundary-less scholar, who liked to think of his own approach as akin to Mozart. His works cover a wide range of topics, such as state-formation, revolution, collective violence, social movements, urban history, and sociological methods. However, as Sidney Tarrow posits, “even Tilly never completely integrated his work on war and state-building with his work on revolutions and contentious politics.” Did Tilly's two major topics, state-formation and contentious politics, remain disjunct ad finem? This article discusses the various aspects of his work, and ascertains whether his works on (de-)democratization and regime-contention interactions successfully integrate state-formation and contentious politics. The books Tilly wrote in his final years provide systematic accounts on how trust networks can be connected with public politics, and how low/high capacity regimes can be changed in interaction with contentious politics. Thus, to conclude, Tilly did not fail to integrate state and contention in his innovative historical political sociology. Moreover, his latest works are based on political opportunity structure theory and methodological nationalism, which make his arguments more innocuous than his arguments in his earliest work, The Vendée (1964) (this work drew a lively picture of state institutions and political actors, all in the making).
India has experienced a series of crisis after gaining its independence. Defining crisis as endogenous turning points, we can indentify at least three such crises: the economic crisis in the 1960's, the crisis of democracy in the 1970's emergency, and the crisis of secularism and the economy in the 1980's. Each crisis produced policy innovations and changed the power structure of the political system, which invited a new round of crisis. The history of contemporary Indian politics can be analyzed by focusing on the cycle of crises. India had two impending policy agendas at the time of independence, namely, national integration and economic development. On the economic front, India has gradually liberalized its socialistic import-substitution policies in the face of severe economic crises, which finally led to liberalization in 1991. Despite a widening income disparity, economic liberalization has, to some extent, reduced poverty. In terms of national integration, however, India still faces a serious probability of crisis. The carnage in Gujarat in 2002, which occured in the state known as the “Model of Liberalization”, posed a severe danger to “unity in diversity”. Identity politics and economic liberalization, which emerged after the crisis in the 1980's, are contributing factors to this carnage. The future of India depends on solving the problems created by identity politics and economic liberalization.
This article explores the causal relation between crisis and political change through a case study on the two financial crises in South Korea (Korea) and Thailand: the Asian financial crisis in 1997 (AFC) and the global financial crisis in 2008 (GFC). In the AFC, the two countries suffered great losses and political change was brought in their respective government-business relations. However, when the GFC or the Lehman shock hit their financial markets in 2008, its impact was quite different from the AFC. Almost no crisis happened in the two countries. We address this contrasting result, focusing on how the crisis affects the political change, and vice versa. This paper argues that political change in the government-business relations, or financial liberalization, in 1980s-1990s was inconsistent with institutional legacies that had persisted from the pre-liberalization period, thereby driving the two countries to the AFC. Subsequently, because of this endogeneity of the AFC, the Korean and Thai governments tackled the financial restructuring and changed their relation with business. In contrast, as the GFC was an exogenous crisis for both countries and their economies became more resilient after the financial restructuring, they could avoid the impact of the GFC.
The global economic crisis since 2008 Autumn, which led to the growing of unemployment and poverty and the people's protests against existing political system, makes communist ideas revive, in the fields of performing arts and social thoughts. However, in politics, especially in Japanese one, we haven't found political crises that caused successful political changes. Is the key to be explored the powers and forms of capitalist states ? At first, we review the classical work on the capitalist state and political struggles- Karl Marx's “December 18th :Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte” (1851) (Section 1). Then, we introduce two major Marxian state-theorists, Isamu Fujita in Japan and Bob Jessop in Britain, to collaborate an approach of contemporary capitalist state / political analysis (Section 2). Under the approach's guidance, we sketch political conjunctures in Japan since 2008 Autumn (Section 3), which saw the surge of anti-poverty movements, leading to the historical governmental change at the general election in 2009 Summer, founded fruitlessly to break down by 2012 Winter, in spite of the national wide anti-nuclear protests after the third Fukushima crisis (2011 March 11), with result in establishing the neo-conservative one-party-dominant political structure in 2013 Summer.
Conventional wisdom in comparative political economy literature has shown that such crises of capitalism as those in the 1930s or in the 1970s typically marked critical junctures followed by the emergence of new redistributive coalitions, institutional changes, and policy innovation. However, it seems, the very opposite has been witnessed in Britain since the Great Recession which began in late 2007. Colin Crouch has even named the circumstances as the strange non-death of neo-liberalism. It is true that under the coalition government which has been in power since May 2010, along with the unprecedented austerity budgets, radical workfare reforms have been implemented, which is generally considered to symbolise the thoroughness of neo-liberalism in British Politics. Are there any alternatives but this to deal with the crisis? By comparing the developments of the core policies of the previous Labour government and the coalition government before and after the crisis, this paper intends to show that the path to the current ‘non-death’ of neo-liberalism has never been linear and it is, at least in the context of Britain today, the political choice of the then government that defined the path.
The Cuban Missile Crisis, which happened in December, 1962, is generally regarded to have been avoided successfully. However, new information has come to light today, as a result of new fact finding missions and historical inspections, which shows that the Cuban Crisis was not resolved but prolonged and incorporated into the structure of global politics. That is to say, the crisis was not averted and the threat of conflict continues to exist even after the Cold War. Especially in Cuba, the crisis became embedded in the core of the political regime, and political transition has been blocked as a result of tensions with the US. After the Cuban Crisis, the US promised Cuba not to invade Cuba, but Cuba has faced severe provocation, as the US has continued to carry out military interventions (Dominican Republic, Grenada, and Panama) and covert actions (Cuba and Guatemala) in Central America and the Caribbean. In addition to Cuba, the Nicaraguan Revolution serves as another example of how crisis was not avoided but incorporated into the structure of global politics. The US had a hostile policy against Sandinista Revolution and intervened indirectly to reverse the revolutionary process. Ultimately, a conservative group assumed power in Nicaragua and the socialist revolution came to an end.
The purpose of this study is to understand welfare reduction in the United States. Previous studies have focused on the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, and treated the enactment as a primary factor that led welfare policy change. It is true that the reform is important for welfare policy because it started the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program which replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). However, little is known about welfare reduction programs implemented by State governments despite the fact that more than 48% of AFDC recipients were under those programs in 1995. Therefore, the objective of this article is to show the reason why State governments began to conduct their own welfare reduction programs. In addition, this study also attempts to explain why the number of such programs increased, and to demonstrate why the scale of such programs became larger and larger. This article focuses on the Section 1115 of the Social Security Act (Waiver Authority). Basically, State governments did not have flexibility in establishing eligibility requirements. Waiver Authority is the exception that gave States flexibility in establishing eligibility requirements. Using archival materials from presidential libraries, this study will explain critical juncture that determines state-level welfare policy change.
This article aims to explore the possibility of institutionalizing transnational deliberative democracy in the age of globalization, examining the social experiment of European Union, Europolis. The construction of this article is as follows. First, we take a critical look at James Bohman's ‘mini-demoi’ as a conception of institutionalizing transnational deliberation. Then, I argue that his conception of institutional pluralism is incoherent with his ideal of democracy as ‘self-rule’. Second, to illustrate my argument, I analyze the results and organization of Europolis. From this analysis, I make the following points. (1) Mini-publics that do not aim at achieving agreement are capable of institutionalizing deliberative space in a transnational context, therefore generating multi-perspectives among well-informed participants in mini-publics despite their language or culture. And also, (2) mini-publics are expected to be representative of ideal publics, a microcosm. However, it is uncertain whether they actually can foster deliberation and considered judgment within mass society, if we take account of the characteristics of mass media. In conclusion, I argue, if we hope to realize deliberative institutions congruous with the ideal of democracy as ‘self-rule’, we should explore further the relationship between representation and democracy. We should do so especially in contemporary circumstances, when it is urgent to envisage how we incorporate transnational and diverse opinion-formation processes into globalized political will-formation.
In contemporary Japan, it is the important issue whether political initiative is preferable or bureaucratic initiative is. When we think about this issue, it is essential to consider the relation between a minister and administrative vice-minister. This paper explores its historical relation, going back to the beginning, specifically focusing on the relation between Kyo (minister) and Taiyu (vice-minister) of Kobusyo (the ministry of public works and technology) under the Dajokan system in the early Meiji years. This paper clarifies the following three points: First, through the examination of the rules and the institution, it can be cleared that October 1873 was the beginning of the relation between a minister and administrative vice-minister. Second, the actual situation of minister and vice-minister of Kobusyo from 1874 to the early 1875 can be elucidated by the analysis of Tetsudoryo-jimubo (the approval document about the railroad policy in Kobusyo). It turns out that the minister Ito Hirobumi was able to cooperate with the vice minister, Yamao Youzou, while controlling the ministry and its policy well. Finally, it can be surveyed by a limited consideration that those relations in other ministries would be the same as Kobusyo's case.
In this article, I reconsider legitimacy of selective immigration policy from the standpoint of political philosophy. Today states have unilateral discretion over entry policy, therefore prospective immigrants have no voice in the policy making process. However, legitimacy of those policy practices partly depends on underlying normative reasons. By focusing on individual liberty, I indicate the policy practice is illegitimate. The issue of legitimacy of selective immigration is concerned with “democracy's boundary problem,” that is, of deciding who should be included in the democratic decision procedure. In this article, I take the lawful coercion approach to this problem among others. There is some disagreement within this approach: Thomas Nagel and David Miller argue that the current policy practices are legitimate and on the other hand, Arash Abizadeh argues that they are not. Their debates apparently focus on the conceptions of “coercion”. However, “liberty” is actually the key to their arguments. In this connection, the present article proceeds as follows: firstly I try to reconstruct their arguments by introducing two conceptions of liberty, freedom as option-availability and freedom as independence. Secondly, I critically examine these theorists and argue for Abizadeh. Finally, I briefly show the policy implications of Abizadeh's position.