Category Archives: 个人研究

Back to Work (D3)-DPJ presidential election 2015

The result of 2012 party presidential election and the later revisions of the selection rules in 2013 revealed that a national favorite candidate from the party’s base in the prefectural branches is more likely to capture a final victory in the LDP. Now, we are observing the same trend in the biggest opposition party of Japan, the DPJ.

On Jan 18th, the DPJ will select its party leader among three candidates, Nagatuma, Hosono and Okada. All of them had served in the cabinet during the DPJ regime, and Okada was the Party leader in 2004~2005. What make this campaign interesting to watch are not just the tense competitions among three key players, but also more of how the selection rules work, who decide the leader. According to the party laws, DPJ applies an electoral-college way of involving local members and Diet members simultaneously in voting. The rank and file members, local supporters and the party’s local assembly members hold 495 points, almost 65% of the total 760 votes. It is the first presidential election that local votes exceed those lawmakers in the Diet. Similar to the LDP, a nationwide popular candidate would be more competitive to become the winner of this leadership contest. It is significant to notice that both parties(LDP & DPJ) are applying a broader inclusiveness to decide their leader.

The following link is a press conference of three candidates at JNPC.

 

Curtains fall: Japanese General election (2)

Curtains fall:  Japanese General election

还有几个小时, 最后的开票结果就将宣布自民党的前所未有的压倒性胜利了(或许,等着开票结果)。笔者,这里仅仅就4个方面来妄论本次众议院的选举,谈谈自己的看法。首先是何谓“师走选举”;其次为什么安倍偏偏要在这个时候提前解散国会? 再次,本次大选有何有趣之处?最后,日本政党政治今后何处去?
~~~~ 本文仅代表个人观点,若有不同意见,可以讨论,转载请署名。

2年前的“师走选举”,在民主党的总部,选举结果揭示版前稀稀落落的名字,那场冬夜的凄凉和寂寥之境,如今又再次上演。3年零3个月的民主党政权,除去那场大地震灾难,以及与中国交恶,3年3个首相的走马观花,前后不一的政策的印象,在如今看来似乎都没有发生过。而作为55年以来,第一个挑战成功自民党政权的第二大党来说,今后的戏也见不得多少可以有期待之处。那么先来看看什么是“师走选举”?

1,“师走选举”;
“师走”(しわす、shiwasu)是日语对于12月的称呼,而发生在12月的大选,也往往被媒体冠以“师走选举”的名号。而本次大选也是战后第六次“师走选举”。之前分别是1969年佐藤;1972年田中;1976年三木;1983年中曾根任内,2012年野田(民主党)
参考这里(http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/election/shugiin/2014/news2/20141213-OYT1T50085.html)
若“戏读”历史的话,会发现安倍的叔叔,佐藤荣作,以及安倍任内(2012/2014),自民党的选情是最好的,都是大胜。 这也不难理解当2006年安倍第一次当选自民党总裁的时候, 党内是大张旗鼓的宣传,把安倍家祖宗三代都给捧了一遍(详细参考2006年自民党党刊《自由民主》10月号)。这样的宣传态势,可谓前所未见。可惜安倍2007年因为各种原因撒手而去,直到2012年9月,卷土重来,在自民党总裁选举全国初选明显劣势,仅仅赢的6个选区的情况下,居然能够在决胜投票中逆转取胜对手。(这是自民党建党以来的第二次逆转)参考这里(http://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXNASFK2601D_W2A920C1000000/)
安倍的光环还不止于此,他更是1955年自民党建党以来,第一位两度通过党内选举出任总裁的。(注,从78年以来,自民党开始采取党内投票的方式来选举党主席。)
说了这么多,是为了帮助理解安倍的强大气势,以及在选举中打出的对于安倍经济学的信心,以及那句“this is the only path” “この道しかない”背后的底气。

2, 为什么一定要这个时候大选?
既然安倍这么强势,安倍经济学如此炙热,为什么偏偏要提前2年大选呢?为什么不继续的稳定执政下去呢?(自民和公明联合政权,有295+31的议席)

这里原因很多,学界也有很多不同的声音和看法。

仅仅谈点个人的愚见。所谓全国投票,明在安倍经济学求民心,暗里志在修宪;借解散国会,明里继续削弱在野党,暗里也是为党内斗争付笔,总之,一切皆是为了谋求一个长期稳定的安倍政权。

10月31日日本央行关于继续金融放缓的消息出台, 而这里非常的蹊跷的在于政府方面的出席者甚至意外的提前退场。有人分析说,这表明安倍政府对于日银的举动事前不知情,事后也来不及调整,于是出现了解散大调整的步骤。最早“解散国会”的声音出现在电视台采访中。11月2日,第二次安倍内阁官房参与的饭岛熏(Ijima Isao)在电视体台节目里面提及此事。而就在此前,10月底,2名安倍内阁女性成员因涉嫌违反政治资金管理法以及选举法,相继辞职。而后任命的法相,继续被媒体曝出新闻,一时间,安倍内阁受到来自党内党外的压力和批评。但是,出现解散国会声音最强烈的时候,恰好是安倍外游,APEC首脑会谈,继而访问澳大利亚等国。一直到GDP的经济数据公布,安倍才正式就大选的事宜第一次表态。
那为什么说“暗藏”呢?安倍在宣布解散后,接受采访,明确表示倘若自民党拿不到一半议席,自己就下台。这个表示了他的强烈获胜的信心以及党内对于选举的准备。而在野党来说,完全是措手不及,所以才会出现批评安倍政府“无义”的声音。自公联合政权完全有可能获得3分之2左右的议席。而内阁成员相继出现丑闻,这让安倍于党内有任命责任,与其新一轮的党内权力斗争决定内阁成员,或者改组,不如推倒了重来,这对于安倍个人是一石二鸟(外游期间放出消息,旨在测水温)。 哪怕拿不到3分之2,安倍也将会再次披着领导自民党选举获胜的”政绩外衣”,党内无出其左右,这也都是在为他2015年9月再次初选总裁,铺平道路。

3,本次大选的看点
既然都在说自民党极有可能压倒性胜利,那还看什么呢?笔者认为,看点如下:
(1)大都市内,小党派的胜利;(2)政治家的世代交替以及一些新闻人物的选战;(3)94年选举制度变革的再考察。
第一点,主要是看维新和日共的表现。从2年前的众议院到去年的参院,这两党在大都市都有不错的表现。而这个也将会是今后日本政党政治的长期看点。
第二点,世代交替。安倍以及自民目前的有力议员们,大多是1993年期生,也就是在选举制度变革之际,进入到永田町的。而之前挑战成功的民主党的元老们,诸如小泽,海江田,菅直人等等,都在各自的选区面临种种问题;而本次也有若干的自民党元老宣布引退。他们之后的接班,将会非常有意思。
新闻人物,包括小渊优子,以及渡边喜美等人的选举情况。
第三点,如何评价94年的改革成果。今年10月的日本政治学会上, 94年的改革到底带来了哪些变化,尤其是与既有的理论预期相悖的现实,学者些曾有激烈的讨论。本次大选结束,从投票率,各地支持情况,到底是政党支持在上升,或者是否推动了政策导向的选举,都将会有一系列有趣的数据。而去近年来, 有研究指出过去的大家默认的自民党在农村部分支持稳定,而都市部分的支持弱的看法,已经过时,需要有所纠正。这些种种的疑惑,都有待本次开票结果。

4,将来会怎么样?

既然大选几乎没什么悬念了,那么思考下今后会怎样?
最大的担心莫过于,日本继续进一步保守化,走上修宪的道路。海内外媒体已经有各种叙述,这里不再累赘。笔者想强调一点,那就是3分之2是门槛,跨过去了确实非常非常的危险,但是如今的经济不景气,何时修,很大部分上,市场说了算。
笔者这里想说的是,日本政党政治,今后何处去? 小泽一郎先生那本“blueprint for a new japan ”《日本改造计划》(1993)里面提出了3个重要政策, 其一强化首相的权力,内阁与执政党一体化,弱化官僚;其二,引入小选举区制度,实现两党轮替,实现两党制;其三,国家正常化。
目前来看,第一点在民主党的任期进行了尝试,诸如国家战略局乃至于去官僚化,但是等到的结果却是大相径庭。值得庆幸的是,这个或许可以在安倍任期内有所期待。而所谓两党制,目前来看,还有很长的路要走。第三点,目前或许也会有突破。但是明显,目前的东亚局势,与此政策目标还相差甚远。
但是,20年过去了,哪怕是93年出生的那代人都有了投票权了,日本的政党政治还未有多少变化。今天是投票日,京都的一些大学生们特意准备了一个视频。内容很有趣,是与他们年纪相仿的香港学生们,呼吁日本年轻一代要踊跃起来,vote for the future。

拭目以待,到底今后的日本政治如何去呢?

(有待选举结果公布,会有进一步的分析)

negotiate your academic job_by chris blattman

http://chrisblattman.com/2014/02/21/negotiating-your-academic-job/

You’re finishing a PhD and you’ve just gotten a phone call with a verbal job offer. Congratulations! And welcome to the bottom of a whole new pyramid.

But before you get to the new pyramid, you need to do something you’ve probably never done before in your life: negotiate a real job offer.

What follows is basically the distillation of advice given to me when I worked in management consulting, when I first graduated from my PhD, and again when I deliberated over my move to Columbia. Plus what I’ve seen watching friends go through the market, or coached students through. I think it applies both to research and many teaching universities, at least in my experience. Most of the good ideas come from others.

The process

You’ll often get a verbal offer first, with few details other than enthusiasm.

Most of the key details come shortly afterwards, in a formal offer letter. This will probably have most of the important parameters spelled out (salary, research funding, teaching load, path for promotion, etc). Others are standard and will be listed in the faculty handbook or other administrative materials that they will give you or you can find online (like faculty benefits, restrictions on outside income sources, etc.). A few last parameters are unwritten, and governed by needs or norms in the department (e.g. specific teaching needs, administrative load, and so forth).

Ideally you also get a “victory lap” visit, so you can learn more about your colleagues and the job, figure out the unwritten rules and norms, and get to know the neighborhood. This is a really important thing to do, and I encourage you to ask for a visit if they don’t offer. Or do it yourself if need be.

Towards the end of this post I try to give a pretty comprehensive list of all the parameters, most of which you’ll want to figure out before you sign. Only a few are negotiable and important, though.

Neogotiating

  1. Whenever you negotiate, don’t feel nervous or ashamed or worried about it. Be mature, open, reasonable, and somewhat firm. Also, don’t be greedy or a jerk, or get full of yourself. You have to walk a line between the two–i.e. you’ll have to be a professional–and it’s not that hard, especially if you are polite and seek advice.
  2. If you don’t have competing offers (or if one offer is clearly better than all the others) you don’t have much negotiating power but you do have a little. Think about the two or three things that would make you happy and successful at the school. This might be start-up research funds, or maybe you need a higher salary because of loans or kids. Be frank with the department and ask if they have any room to move on one or two of those margins. To the extent you can frame them as in everyone’s interest, it helps. For example: “My research can be expensive and extra research funds would really let me seed new projects in my first couple of years, meaning I’ll have a better tenure packet”. Often they want you to be successful and have some room to move.
  3. If you’re among the lucky few with several good opportunities, then narrow it down to the 2 or 3 real contenders and quickly decline the other offers. This way they can go to the next person on their list. Decline not only politely, but also thank them profusely and emphasize how much you liked the department, hope for future interaction, and so forth, but you think that either school X or Y will be the best fit for where you want to be personally and professionally.
  4. My sense is that many universities have a boilerplate letter and set of terms that you get right away, and if you have a credible competing offer, they can often match those competing terms.
  5. If you have competing offers, consider playing with an open hand. That is, if the best offer is from X, then share that offer with Y and Z and see if they can match at all. For my own use I made a small spreadsheet with the different terms of the package as rows (see below) and columns with schools, and shared with my advisors. Their advice, which worked well, was to share that spreadsheet with the schools. I also offered to share the actual offer letters, and sometimes did. It worked well. Basically, department chairs want you and need something hard they can take to their Dean.
  6. Once you know where you want to be, then you can choose to say to one school, “If you do A, B and C then I will sign immediately”. There’s a good chance that they’ll do A, B and C. Again, it comes down to something very firm that a chair can take to the Dean. If you’ve already gone through process 3 above, and wrung things out of the school, maybe you should just ask for A and not B-C (let alone D). It’s hard to generalize.
  7. For things A to D that you want, to the extent these are things that will make you professionally successful rather than simply enrich you, this is probably easier to negotiate. Framing a request in terms of “this will help me succeed in the position and get tenure or take on more students” articulates a shared interest and doesn’t come off as greedy.
  8. You can always ask universities—either the chair or the faculty you’ve met there—what the flexible and inflexible margins are at that particular school. For instance, some institutions won’t yield on teaching load, while others are more budget constrained but can provide non-financial relief with more ease.
  9. Don’t draw out the process, and don’t string schools along if you’re not serious about their offer. You can do this for a very short while for leverage, but I don’t recommend it beyond that.
  10. If you receive an exploding offer, things get tricky. This can be a bargaining move to make you choose quickly. When they need the offer to go to another, it’s a legitimate if unfortunate move and you may only be able to negotiate for a little more time. If they aren’t waiting to give the offer to someone else, I suspect you can call their bluff. Every case is different. But as the deadline approaches, a sincere ” I could very likely say yes in X days but I can’t say yes by your deadline” is a “no” that puts the onus on them to take the offer away rather than have you decline it, and I think it will buy you some time.
  11. Anything you really care about, get written in the offer letter. As a rule of thumb, I assume that anything not in the offer letter will be reneged on. Of course, there are always things that can’t go in the letter because they’re difficult, unusual, or not allowed to be contracted on. Just discount them in your mind.
  12. Do not parade your offers or discussion around other students or colleagues on the job market. You never push yourself up by pushing others down.

Parameters of an offer

I’m the kind of person who makes detailed spreadsheets and lists around important decisions. Here, essentially, are the rows in my spreadsheet when I’m thinking about an offer.

  1. Remuneration
    1. Salary amount (and is it a 9 or 12 month salary?)
    2. Summer salary (summer ninths)?
    3. Other, slightly minor things: Moving allowance, consulting/outside income restrictions, housing purchase assistance/rent subsidies (in large or expensive cities), benefits program (and cost/contributions), retirement plan/matching contributions
  2. Research funding
    1. Research funding per year and/or start-up account?
    2. Other: Responsible for own computer/office equipment purchase from research account?
  3. Teaching and other duties
    1. Annual course load in equilibrium
    2. Course expectations (level, type)
    3. Course forgiveness in first 1-2 years?
    4. Expectations in terms of administrative duties
    5. Note that basic parameters of an academic job might be quite different outside the US (e.g. many French positions are formally civil service positions)
  4. Your clock
    1. Path for promotion (i.e. Length of tenure clock/Expected years for reviews)
    2. Expectations for promotion/tenure in the department, and record
    3. Sabbatical/leave policy
    4. Post-docs: Would they let you do one elsewhere for a year, so you can get a head start on publishing the dissertation?
  5. Colleagues and students
    1. Think about who you’ll be working and collaborating with, and where you fit in and get along best.
  6. Things outside the university you might care about
    1. Cost of living of the area (i.e. salary in real terms).
    2. Amenities that are important to you (crime, schools, etc)
    3. Tax implications of the place (can vary a lot)
    4. There are generally websites that will actually do city-to-city comparisons of cost and amenities for most of these.

Some notes:

  • Salary and research funding are generally negotiable and vary a lot from person to person in a department.
  • Other things are sometimes negotiable, sometimes not, depending on university policy and practice: Summer salary, teaching load, course forgiveness. They may not exist at every school.
  • There are unwritten, informal practices that you’ll want to get some information on, but you want to do this delicately, and not too early in the discussions. Administrative load and promotion expectations and record are important to understand. They are seldom flexible, so ask mainly to understand not to negotiate.
  • All the “other” items are important, but you can figure them out after initial parameters are set. For instance, summer ninths plus outside income plus retirement contributions could end up being large chunk of your remuneration, and is often overlooked by people at this stage.
  • Overall, treat this as a checklist for things you should know before you sign up for 3-4 years in a place. But they’re not all things you ask of the department chair.

Advice from colleagues and other experiences welcome in comments.

Measure
Measure

contending theories of political party systems

typology of parties and party systems:

  1. Elite party
  2. mass party, 1960s, by Duverger
  3. cadre party
  4. catch-all party, 1960s, by Kirchherimer; revisited by Wolinetz, 1991;
  5. electoral professional party, by Panebianco
  6. New politics party, by Poguntke
  7. Cartel Party, by Katz and Mair 1995; restatement in 2009;
  8. business firm party, by Hopkin and Paolucci

Mainly, there exists four models of party: elite party, mass party, catch-all party, cartel party.

Katz and Mair: Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy: the emergence of the Cartel Party. Party politics. 1995;1;5.

Still, I have found parties in Asian countries, hardly fit in this typology. About this “exceptionalism“, Alan Ware writes,

Despite some developments noted earlier, the study of party organizations remains largely’regionalized‘. One of the adverse consequences over the last four decades of this ‘regionalization‘ of research on organizational change has been that it has tended to lead to regional differences in organizational responses by parties being exaggerated or misconceived.

The utility of returning to the kind of comparative framework Epstein, following Duverger, was developing four decades ago is that it enables us to look at how parties operating under different rules of the game respond to changes in their environments that are common to all of them. This is not to argue against the continuation of ‘regionalist‘ studies, for they will surely remain an important source of our knowledge of party organizations.  Rather, it is to argue for supplementing such work by the development of analytic frameworks that recognize the significance of all factors that shape how all parties go about organizing their business in democracies. It is time to weaken the grip that ‘exceptionalism‘ and ‘regionalism’ have had on research into party structures.

*Alan Ware: Exceptionalism, Political Science and the Comparative Analysis of Political Parties. Government and Opposition. Vol. 46, no.4, pp.411-435,2011.

Further reading

the comparative study of political parties has been primarily a West European venture in which the other parties which researchers knew most about those in the United States-were sufficiently different for them to be walled off into a separate literature.

http://www.estuaries.olemiss.edu/courses/pol628/wolinetz02.pdf

(Here it comes to the unexplored Asia! )

 

 

論文ー政党研究理論

Exceptionalism political science and the comparative analysis of political parties. 

*Alan Ware

University of Oxford

Happy to see other scholars look into the same problem as I pointed out in my paper… But obviously he did a better job than me.

 In Europe a way of thinking about parties has developed that, while not truly ‘excetpionalist’, is certainly ‘regionalist’ in that it focuses on party change largely with respect to the operation of parties within just the European content.  Neither side- Americanist nor Europeanist- believes that it has that much to learn from the other. 

Conclusion

Despite some developments noted earlier, the study of party organizations remains largely ‘regionalized’. One of the adverse consequences over the last four decades of this ‘regionalization‘ of research on organizational change has been that it has been tended to lead to regional differences in organizational responses by parties being exaggerated or misconceived. For example, it is sometimes said European parties are ‘team sport’ whereas American parties are an ‘individual sport’, as if we were thereby dealing with very different kinds of entity. Some analytic frameworks, such as ‘ambition theory’, had specifically emphasized this aspect of American party politics, of course. Two points may be made about this. First, American party politics, like party politics elsewhere, is ”team sport’, and one cannot make sense of American politics over the last two decades if one sees it purely as a conflict involving individuals. … Secondly, the real point about team sport is that the individual players, and correspondingly limit the ability of a coach or manager to dictate precisely what happens in play.The utility of returning to the kind of comparative framework Epstein, following Duverger, was developing four decades ago is that it enables us to look at how parties operating under different rules of the game respond to changes in their environments that are common to all of them. This is not to argue against the continuation of ‘regionalist’ studies, fort they will surely remain an important source of our knowledge of party organizations. Rather, it is to argue for supplementing such work by the development of analytic frameworks that recognize the significance of all factors that shape how all parties go about organizing their business in democratic. It is time to weaken the grip that ‘exceptionalism’ and ‘regionalism’ have had on research into the party structure.   

* Government and Opposition, Vol.46, No.4, pp.411-435, 2011.

 

on the gap of institutional design and outcomes/effects

By Paul Pierson

Political In Time:History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. 2004. Princeton University Press.

Chapter 4, page 120.

Limitation 6: The Problem of actor discontinuity

 

Even absent major environmental change, “gaps” may emerge because the actors who inherit institutional arrangements are not the same as those who designed them. Indeed, a major ambiguity in theories of rational institutional design concerns institutional inheritors. What does actor-centered functionalism imply about the benefits of institutions to those who inherit them? Political institutions are typically long lived. Given that institutions will usually outlive the people who create them, we wish to know whether the originally “functional” aspects should be expected to remain in the interests of following generations (e.g., because those followers are much the same sort of those as the creators).

 

Typically, actor-centered functionalism seems to rest (although usually only implicitly) on strong assumptions about actor continuity. In the study of international relations, for instance, where there has been a great deal of actor-centered functionalist work, this assumption of actor continuity is common. Indeed, it may not be unreasonable since “states” are taken to be the main designers of international institutions—and many international relations scholars argue that the interests of states are quite sharply defined by the structure of the international system.

 

What, however, if there are reasons to question this premise of actor continuity—that is, to consider the possibilities that actors making initial institutional choices may well have quite distinctive preferences from those of their inheritors? This problem is only unimportant if we think that designers’ choices will be inherited by actors much like themselves. With the passage of time, however, this assumption becomes more problematic. This will be so especially in setting where the assumption of some stable overarching context that generates a stable pattern of preferences seems implausible. In the context of long—term institutional development the language of “actors” elides a huge amount—who the actors are is often ambiguous. Who, we might ask, are the “inheritors” of the American constitution’s framers? Are they “the same” in some clear analytical sense? It is not clear to me that these are answerable questions.

When ABE talks in the Diet question time

When Abe talks about Constitution revision
キレる安倍総理「責任者は私だ」 集団的自衛権巡り
テレビ朝日系(ANN) 2月12日(水)16時22分配信
安倍総理大臣がムキになる一幕がありました。

安倍総理大臣:「最高責任者は私です。私が責任者であって、政府の答弁に対しても私が責任を持って、その上で、私たちは選挙で国民から審判を受けるんです。審判を受けるのは法制局長官ではない。私なんですよ」
安倍総理がいら立ったのは、集団的自衛権の行使を憲法解釈の変更だけで認めて良いのかと、内閣法制局や公明党の太田国土交通大臣にばかり質問が飛んだためです。安倍総理は「これまでの国会答弁を積み上げたままなら、そもそも安保法制懇を作る必要はない」と述べ、改めて憲法解釈の見直しに意欲を示しました。

source: ANN

安倍首相に批判相次ぐ=解釈改憲めぐる答弁―自民総務会
時事通信 2月13日(木)12時58分配信
13日の自民党総務会で、集団的自衛権行使を可能にする憲法解釈変更をめぐる安倍晋三首相の国会答弁に批判が相次いだ。
問題視されたのは12日の衆院予算委員会での発言で、首相は解釈変更について「政府の最高責任者は私だ。政府の答弁について私が責任を持って、その上で選挙で審判を受ける」と強調した。
総務会で村上誠一郎元行革担当相は「首相の発言は選挙で勝てば憲法を拡大解釈できると理解できる。その時々の政権が解釈を変更できることになる」と非難。村上氏の主張を、野田毅党税調会長が「正面から受け止めるべきだ」と支持し、船田元・憲法改正推進本部長も「拡大解釈を自由にやるなら憲法改正は必要ないと言われてしまう」と指摘した。
野田聖子総務会長はこの後の記者会見で「誤解を招くことがないよう(首相に)提案したい」と述べ、総務会の意見を首相に伝える考えを示した。

source: 時事通信