Ya-Chung Chuang, Democracy on Trial: Social Movements and Cultural Politics in Postauthoritarian Taiwan (Sha Tin: Chinese University Press, 2013).
J. Bruce Jacobs, Democratizing Taiwan (Leiden: Brill Publishers, 2012).
HeeMin Kim, Korean Democracy in Transition (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2011).
The rich country-specific inquiries of Asian studies built a large stock of information that magnifies the exceptionalism of Asia’s experiences (see also Acharya Reference Acharya2001). This contrasts against systematic treatments of the large- and medium-N varieties associated with disciplinary emphasis on theory-building and empirical predictions in comparative studies. Of course, theory-building is not fundamentally at odds with information-gathering and vice versa. Consider, for instance, that one driver of the interest in Asian countries is their apparent divergent experiences in economic performance, sourced from years of information-gathering, which led to a (re)thinking of Asian countries as critical cases in comparative theory-building or empirical testing. Thus, in the 1970s and 1980s, countries in Asia moved from critical counter-examples challenging extant neoclassical theories to become archetypes of a political-economy model – the state-led export-oriented model – that showcased successful dynamics between state-dominated policymaking and developmental growth policies. Although disagreements and debate remain – such as the extent to which the state dominated policymaking in the Asian countries (Haggard and Moon Reference Haggard and Moon1990; Johnson Reference Johnson1982; Lee Reference Lee2002; Yap Reference Yap2005; Zhang Reference Zhang2010) – they do not overshadow the significant feat of Asian scholarship forging a theoretical frontier with predictive capacity in its own right.
Yet, such a successful mediation between theory-building of comparative studies on the one hand and focused small-n or country-specific Asian scholarship on the other remains the exception rather than the rule. Instead, tensions dog Asian studies regarding what and how to front scholarship – as part of theory-building exercises versus underlining and differentiating Asian studies – to the latter’s detriment as its ‘noticeable inhospitable’-ness to theory-building increasingly sidelines its scholarship (Acharya Reference Acharya2001; Moody Reference Moody2008). Fundamental to the tension is the unease that theory-building means sacrificing contextual richness, reducing Asian countries to ‘raw data’ for testing theories mostly developed from Western societies (Acharya Reference Acharya2001).
Importantly, this does not have to be, and in this enterprise to weave context with theory-building, Asian studies may find an unlikely and unsuspecting ally in rational-choice theory, or, more accurately, the rational-choice approach.Footnote 2 The rational-choice approach comes from the other end of the theory-building spectrum. Indeed, just 20 years ago, it was fending off charges of having no real-world relevance, a dogged focus on universal-theory development and excessive economic abstraction (Bates et al. Reference Bates, Greif, Rosenthal, Levi and Weingast1998; Friedman Reference Friedman1996; Green and Shapiro Reference Green and Shapiro1994). The current – if grudging – acknowledgement that the rational-choice approach has carved a place in comparative and international scholarship follows from three tacks developed to counteract the charges: (1) empirical evaluation; (2) explaining and describing; and (3) contextualizing the model in society, history or politics. Notably, in the move to temper universal theory development, the rational-choice approach has taken the route of country-specific examinations rather than large- or medium-N systematic studies (see, for instance, Bates et al. Reference Bates, Greif, Rosenthal, Levi and Weingast1998; Mahoney Reference Mahoney2000; Mason and Clements Reference Mason and Clements2002; Pollack Reference Pollack2007; Yap 2012).
With apologies to Rudyard Kipling (Reference Kipling1889), can the twain meet? Does the rational-choice approach provide the promise of theory-building for Asian studies without sacrificing the latter’s rich contextual details? This review examines three recent books on Asia that draw on different approaches – the rational-choice approach, thick area-centric description and imagination from anthropology-sociology – to illuminate a path for theory-building that reconciles the rational-choice approach with Asian studies. The books are: HeeMin Kim’s Korean Democracy in Transition (2011), which adopts the rational-choice approach to discuss political change and democratization in Korea as a ‘blueprint’ for other emergent democracies; J. Bruce Jacobs’ Democratizing Taiwan (2012), which provides a thick chronology of Taiwan’s democratization process that is firmly in the tradition of information gathering associated with Asian studies; and Ya-Chung Chuang’s Democracy on Trial (2013), which uses the imagination perspective drawn from anthropology and sociology to examine how politics, groups and policies structure democratization in Taiwan.
This review proceeds as follows: the next section provides synopses of each of the books and their findings. Subsequently, I discuss areas of contention between the rational-choice approach and Asian studies and show the severity of these differences as revealed in the books before highlighting the complementarities or commonalities between the two fields, also as seen in the books. I conclude with a discussion of the prospects for reconciling the rational-choice approach with Asian studies for theory-building.
Democratization in Taiwan and South Korea
Each of the three books offers clear contributions to the study of democratization in its own right. Briefly, Chuang’s (Reference Chuang2013) ethnography of political participation and social movements in Taiwan’s democratization showcases the evolution of demands, protests and social groups as encompassed by and also encompassing the changes of the larger political life and society – such as the evolution of 1980s student protestors who demanded political reforms into the 1990s social activists who demanded government responsiveness – to provide a lens into a web of space and time that influences behaviours and interactions. From this perspective, the groups or movements cannot be conceptualized as ‘self-contained, discrete, or isolated’ (Alvarez, quoted in Chuang Reference Chuang2013); instead, they work with each other despite representing different organizations and different approaches to social connectivity to ensure continuity and relevance. Jacobs (Reference Jacobs2012) uses interviews, field research and archival work to provide a thick chronology of exchanges, actions and events – in some cases, a turn-by-turn account of proceedings, such as the two weeks of meetings in January 1992 between then-President Lee Teng-hui and his general-turned-premier Hau Pei-tsun that preceded the latter’s formal resignation (ousting) on 30 January 1992 – prior to and following Taiwan’s democratization, to underline 10 conditions that facilitate but do not determine that process. Kim (Reference Kim2011) makes sense of several perplexing political events that bear on institution-building in general, and party development in particular, since Korea’s democratization, including the head-scratching efforts by the opposition majority to impeach President Roh Moo-hyun (2003–8) over the triviality of his ‘public expression of support’ for the Woori (Uri) Party.
Chuang’s Democracy on Trial (2013) is an ‘anthropology of democracy’Footnote 3 in Taiwan that considers ‘social movements as an arbiter in the regime of new governmentability which the democratization has brought about’ to counteract the ‘mainstream political amnesia’ that the author claims has afflicted the two major parties in the nation as they stay ‘entrapped’ in the ‘manufactured images of the past’ (Chuang Reference Chuang2013: 13). The ‘trial’ in the title, Democracy on Trial, then, refers to the stagnation and challenge to democratization from the failure of the parties and political leaders to acknowledge or engage with new political and social demands that have emerged following democratization; it is symbolized by the presidential-recall efforts against then-President Chen Shui-bian in 2006 and the corruption trial at the end of his second term as executive. Chuang’s ethnography represents an effort to address, if not reverse, the ‘long process of (mis)representation and (mis)recognition’ of democracy in Taiwan, through three concepts – sovereignty, identity and locality – from the perspective of political participation and social movements using the imagination approach of anthropology and sociology (Chuang Reference Chuang2013: 2, 17, 69).Footnote 4
Towards these tasks, Chuang dedicates the first three chapters to the state and civil society to showcase the concept of sovereignty, Chapters 4 and 5 to identity and ethnicity to discuss identity, and Chapters 6 and 7 to place and policies for locality. Chuang draws not just on his field research but also observations of individuals and social groups from when he worked with them as employee, consultant or paid researcher; these include his time as a graduate student, while working with the Labour Front group and his stints with the Council of Indigenous Peoples or the Hakka Affairs Council (Chuang Reference Chuang2013: 101, 113, 121). The book, then, provides a rich tapestry that captures the interplay between past events, actions and engagements with current participation and social involvement.
Thus, for instance, Chuang’s description and narrative of social activism in Chapter 2 is based on: (i) interviews with ‘old’ participants who were student-activists prior to political liberalization in 1986, who went on to commit to full-time social activism as adults; (ii) interviews and fieldwork with a ‘new’ social movement, the Humanistic Education Foundation (Renben), founded after 1986 liberalization in the nation; and (iii) fieldwork and archival work of the May 1997 demonstration in Taiwan when 50,000 protestors marched against spiralling crime and social disorder in the nation epitomized by the kidnap-murder of Pai Hsiao-yen, an actress’s daughter (Reuters 1997). The deliberate composition of the chapter is informative: in his work on (i), Chuang describes social activist Kuo Kuo-wen’s experience – from student activist in the anti-Kuomintang wave in the 1980s to full-time union-activist in the 1990s with the Labour Front, a labour group that rose in standing with the labour movement in 1992 – to highlight the development and maturation of old political and social demands. Through his narrative in (ii), Chuang shows how new social groups such as Renben that represent middle-class social activism are able to identify broad-based issues such as social order, crime or equity to mobilize participation and, in turn, seize on expansive media coverage. In his work on (iii), Chuang brings attention to the ‘strategic outcome’ (Chuang Reference Chuang2013: 51) of the May 1997 demonstration, where (i) and (ii) synergized to bring about a ‘collective-grief-turned-action’ mass turnout (Chuang Reference Chuang2013: 48), using the organizational skill-sets of the old activists of (i) with the ‘carnival-like’ media-dexterous approach of the new activists of (ii) to parlay into a deeper and larger social movement of (iii) (Chuang Reference Chuang2013: 50). Chuang also underlines the challenges that ‘state-building’, ‘globalization’ and ‘NGOization’ bring to demands and capacities of social and political groups, through descriptions of women’s groups in Taiwan, to highlight the tensions and conflicts between ‘nativism’ and ‘transnational’ trajectories of relevance and development (Chuang Reference Chuang2013: 58–67). Throughout the narratives and description, then, one thing is clear: the groups or movements cannot be conceptualized as ‘self-contained, discrete, or isolated’ (Alvarez, quoted in Chuang Reference Chuang2013: 46).
Chuang’s strength is clearest in narratives such as these, where the description of actions, objectives, engagements and conflicts that raged in a previous period is capably juxtaposed with those of a subsequent period to showcase developments or assimilations into a ‘social movement web’ that weaves time with space to influence individual and social participation. His weakness may lie with a significantly lesser treatment of democracy, whether as a concept or in terms of its processes, principles, values or objectives.Footnote 5 This reduced attention detracts from Chuang’s stated objective of showcasing Taiwan’s democratization and the challenges posed by the failures of leadership or the system to engage with social groups or movements: Chuang’s ethnography showcases the evolution of groups, actions and their demands, and it certainly describes public dissatisfaction with outcomes under the emergent democracy, but these do not correspondingly translate into the failure of leaders or the system to engage with the civil society, much less depict a ‘long process of (mis)representation and (mis)recognition’ (Chuang Reference Chuang2013: 2). Indeed, in some instances – for example, Chuang’s description of the conflicts faced by social groups as they wrestle with ‘state-building’, ‘globalization’ and ‘NGOization’ in ongoing engagements with political leaders and organizations – the picture may contradict the contention of lifeless or soulless political parties or democracy on trial in Taiwan. Perhaps more importantly, Chuang’s neglect of democracy and its elements leads to a conflation of the processes of Taiwan’s democracy – which political scientists have pronounced as consolidated but Chuang (Reference Chuang2013: 44) notes as ‘perhaps too hastily’ – with the delivery of outputs under democracy, specifically, ‘security, health, and livelihood’ (Chuang Reference Chuang2013: 44), about which Chuang documents social groups’ dissatisfaction in Taiwan. Given Chuang’s emphasis and the corresponding reduced attention on democracy, a reversal of the title and subtitle of the book may capture the book more aptly: ‘Social Movements and Cultural Politics in Postauthoritarian Taiwan: Trials of Democracy’.
Jacobs’ (Reference Jacobs2012) thick description of the process of democratization in Taiwan is a rich work firmly in the tradition of information-gathering that, in turn, fosters conceptual clarity or analysis in Asian studies. The author’s disclaimer in the opening introduction of Democratizing Taiwan makes clear that the book offers no arguments on the prerequisites or necessary conditions of democratization, although he lays out 10 conditions as conducive to Taiwan’s democratization. Instead, he asserts:
Clearly, no simple theory can explain democratization. India demonstrates that a democracy does not require great wealth. It also demonstrates that a multi-ethnic society can be democratic and it demonstrates that democracy can occur with substantial illiteracy. In this book, I will argue that increasing economic prosperity with increasing equality can facilitate democracy, but it is not necessary. Similarly, higher levels of education can also assist, but are not a precondition. (Jacobs Reference Jacobs2012: 1)
The book and chapters are organized chronologically, with a primary focus on the democratization period, which Jacobs (Reference Jacobs2012: 68, 270) pegs as occurring ‘only with the accession of Lee Teng-hui as president’. Jacobs distinguishes liberalization from democratization at the outset in Chapter 1: under liberalization, an authoritarian regime may loosen restrictions on opposition, groups or the media and even permit electoral contest but the authorities do not ‘relinquish’ control (Jacobs Reference Jacobs2012: 5); democratization encompasses civil rights and liberties, political choice and ‘equality before the law’ but is captured primarily by the ‘right and ability to make the opposition the new government’ (Jacobs Reference Jacobs2012: 5). With this distinction, Jacobs chronologically lays out events prior to and following democratization in the book and chapters: Chapter 2 briefly describes the history of the Japanese and Kuomintang (KMT) colonial periods before turning to the liberalization period in the 1970s and 1980s under President Chiang Ching Kuo; Chapters 3 to 5 focus on democratization under President Lee Teng-hui, while Chapters 6 and 7 round up the consolidation of democratization in Taiwan under presidents Chen Shui-bian (2000–8) and Ma Jing-yeou (2008–present).
Jacobs brings rich detail to exchanges, interactions, processes, actions and battles pursued for and during Taiwan’s democratization, with a methodical and in-depth chronicle of events, such as the fallout between President Chen Shui-bian and the Kuomintang opposition party over the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant between May and October 2000; the Kuomintang’s attempt to impeach the president as a consequence, just six months into his presidency; the Council of Grand Justices’ series of 80 meetings to render a constitutional interpretation on the executive’s power to terminate the plant that led up to ‘six concurring decisions’ with ‘three dissenting’ on 15 January 2001; and the follow-up efforts by the president to mend fences with the Kuomintang opposition (including hosting a Chinese New Year dinner that included Kuomintang leaders in late January 2001). While the author does not make the point, the deliberate documentation of the wealth of information makes clear the gradual, piecemeal modifications and even stalled or reversed changes that typify the democratization process. This is useful: often, transformative changes – such as the Council of Grand Justices’ Constitutional Interpretation No. 261 that stated that all national legislators elected during 1947 and 1948 had to retire by 31 December 1991 (Jacobs Reference Jacobs2012: 77) which paved the way for popular elections for the entire legislature in 1992 – capture milestones in democratization and frequently also distract attention from the progression and build-up to those achievements. The detailed chronology, then, provides important documentation and reminder of the starts and stops of the democratization process that sometimes lead to such transformations.
However, the chronological layout of the book and chapters does not lend itself to an examination of the 10 conditions that Jacobs cites as conducing Taiwan’s democratization: how these conditions matter – or even if they do matter – is not explicitly addressed but takes a backseat to the chronology. The 10 conditions are: (1) administrative, economic and educational development under the Japanese; (2) relatively high educational levels under Japan and the Kuomintang; (3) electoral experience under Japanese and Kuomintang colonial rule; (4) increasing economic prosperity with increasing equality; (5) some ‘liberals’ among top Kuomintang leadership; (6) a non-violent democratic opposition; (7) links between government and opposition; (8) popular associations and interest group activity; (9) US political pressure; and (10) the fall of President Marcos in the Philippines. Jacobs (Reference Jacobs2012: 6–18) also underlines a non-factor: Presbyterianism. Thus, for instance, Chapter 2 describes the Japanese and Kuomintang colonial rule, which, presumably, underpins the first three conditions that Jacobs pinpoints as facilitating Taiwan’s democratization. Yet, in that chapter, Jacobs (Reference Jacobs2012: 27–8) notes that Japanese rule was ‘brutal’ and despotic, severely limiting representation and governance by or for the Taiwanese, with the effect of ‘radicalizing’ Taiwan opposition and social movements. Even though Jacobs (Reference Jacobs2012: 29) makes the point that the seeds of Taiwan opposition movements were laid during Japanese rule through these difficulties and hardships, the record suggests that they grew in spite, rather than because, of Japanese colonial rule. Notwithstanding the detailed chronology, the process by which Japanese colonial rule facilitated or conduced Taiwan’s democratization is unelaborated. Although Jacobs had made clear that the book offers no arguments about preconditions, insofar as the author presents the 10 conditions as conducing Taiwan’s democratization, the failure to delineate how they do so detracts from a thorough and well-documented book.
Kim (Reference Kim2011) applies rational-choice approach to a series of cases in Korea since democratization in Korean Democracy in Transition to address at least two considerations: first, to counter the criticism that the rational-choice approach cannot apply to non-Western societies because it fails to consider culture in characterizing participants’ choices and preferences; second, to show the real-world bearings of the rational-choice approach through Korea and, hence, contribute to the debate that the approach is devoid of empirical relevance. At the outset, Kim (Reference Kim2011: 1) lays out the rational-choice approach’s assumptions: it assumes methodological individualism and purposeful action. This is useful in two ways: First, it clears the misapprehension of the rational-choice approach as encumbered by assumptions which would, consequently and also not surprisingly, hinder its empirical applicability so that the approach offers ‘few theoretical insights’ that may be ‘subjected to serious empirical scrutiny’, much less survive those tests (Green and Shapiro Reference Green and Shapiro1994: 9–10; Hay Reference Hay2004). Second, it distinguishes the rational-choice approach’s assumptions from the methodology of game theory often adopted to solve strategic outcomes (Cox Reference Cox1999),Footnote 6 a conflation that may diminish the rational-choice approach’s accessibility and, correspondingly, its appeal. With the approach’s assumptions distinguished from the methodology, Kim shows how culture, society, politics or history drive his narrative of the strategies and preferences of the players, before using formal game theory to explain specific outcomes from the strategic interactions between the players – such as the three-party merger of the ruling party and two opposition parties in 1990 – that ran counter to popular expectations or appeared unsound.
Thus, Kim provides a brief discussion of criticisms of the rational-choice approach and the debate over its applicability beyond Western societies in Chapter 1, before proceeding to analyse events and puzzles in a chronological order. Chapter 2 unravels the first of these events: the enigma of the first direct popular election of the president following the ratification of the democratic constitution in October 1987, where two opposition leaders not only failed to unite to challenge the ruling party but also persisted in contesting the elections against each other to facilitate the electoral victory of the ruling party’s candidate. Chapter 3 extends the analysis to the befuddling three-party merger in 1990, when the opposition party led by Kim Young-sam – who was persecuted under the previous authoritarian regime – merged with parties from the previous authoritarian governing party. Chapter 4 tracks democratization under President Kim Young-sam (1993–8) to show why constitutional change of the presidential system to a parliamentary system was not pursued, while Chapter 5 explains how it came to pass that President Kim Dae-jung (1998–2003) – who, as opposition leader, pushed for political and electoral reforms before and after democratization – settled for political reorganization instead when he became the executive. Chapter 6 clarifies how the North Korea–South Korea–US relationship – in particular, reconciliation efforts – affect policy positions and party-building in South Korea, and Chapter 7 describes the seemingly illogical impeachment efforts of the opposition majority against then-President Roh Moo-hyun.
Importantly, Kim’s work parallels the efforts of comparativists who use the rational-choice approach to enrich explanation and description and avoid excessive economic abstraction or dogged universal theory development. Thus, for instance, in Chapter 7 where Kim analyses how tensions between then-President Roh Moo-hyun and the legislature in 2004 culminated with the National Assembly’s impeachment of the executive, Kim lays out the background to the tensions. They include a generational split in the public regarding South Korea’s relations with the US and South Korea (old favouring stronger relations with the US and more caution towards North Korea, young favouring independence from the US and continued cooperation with the North (Kim Reference Kim2011: 89–90)), which builds on the discussion in Chapter 6 regarding US–South Korea–North Korea relations; a tight electoral margin between Roh and runner-up Lee Hoi-chang (then-leader of the largest opposition party in the legislature, the Grand National Party); and the weak support for Roh within his own Millennium Party that led to a breakaway faction and foundation of the Woori (Uri) Party. The rich information in the background is then used as the basis to clarify the strategies and preferences for each of the players – Roh Moo-hyun, the Grand National Party in the legislature, the Millennium Party of the legislature – as they work through the tensions in the context of the Constitutional Court’s decision and impending legislative elections. The formalization of the outcomes from the choices that the players make is kept to a minimum, so that the emphasis remains with the narrative delineating the players, their motivations and their choices given what they expect other players to do.
Notwithstanding Kim’s careful calibration of outcomes to society, history or politics, one puzzle that the book does not address – and which critics underline as a critical flaw of the rational-choice approach (Hay Reference Hay2004; Johnson Reference Johnson1997) – is this: Why are the preferences over outcomes as they are? Thus, for instance, in Chapter 2’s discussion of the two opposition leaders, the author tells us what the preferences of the opposition leaders are (resign from contest, stay in contest), and even the bases of those preferences: personal rivalry between the two opposition leaders, pressures of regionalism, benefits of winning office and miscalculation of the odds of their win. However, Kim does not explain why the opposition leaders’ assessments did not include the possibility of losing to the ruling party candidate so that their choices extended to three: resign from contest, stay in contest, split opposition support and allow ruling candidate to win. This failure to account for the split in the opposition vote is particularly disappointing since the author points out that ruling party candidate Roh Tae-woo may have been motivated to grant Kim Dae-jung amnesty and facilitate the latter’s participation in the race to bring about this split vote.
That said, this neglect does not eclipse the illumination from Kim’s work over how the rational-choice approach explains outcomes in South Korea’s path of democratization. In particular, Kim contextualizes the models of the events or puzzles or cases that he analyses in society, history or politics to explain and describe the choices of the players as they contemplate their choices, given what they expect the other players to do. The chronological organization of the chapters helps maintain simplicity of the discussion and models: events of a later time often build on motivations or preferences specified previously to provide continuity while also facilitating a focus on new or additional information that contextualizes the later events. In doing so, the author navigates the arguably difficult task of bridging Asian studies work with theory-building without reducing the Asian cases to ‘raw data’ for testing theories mostly developed from Western societies (Acharya Reference Acharya2001).
Fundamental Incompatibilities? The Rational-Choice Approach and Asian Studies on Democratization
The three books with their disparate approaches, methodologies, focus and objectives highlight the different usages of the rational-choice approach and Asian studies in the study of democratization. Before engaging in the possibility of a bridge between the rational-choice approach and Asian studies towards theory-building, I consider the oft-cited areas of contention between the rational-choice approach and Asian studies – methodological individualism versus collectivism; social values versus individual preferences (Hay Reference Hay2004; Johnson Reference Johnson1997; Little Reference Little1991; Moody Reference Moody2008; Pollack 2007) – that purportedly reveal fundamental contradictions and incompatibilities in their inferences. In the following, I examine the reviewed books to evaluate the extent to which these are at play and, importantly, if the books betray the entrenched conflict portrayed by the fields. Briefly, the examination shows that the cutting divisions portrayed are not carried through to the books. Instead, as intimated in the individual reviews and elaborated further below, the discussions in each of the books move fluidly between individual actors and groups, just as easily as they draw on social values to inform preferences while touching on individuals asserting choices that affect outcomes for society and community. The following details the areas of conflict and the findings of reconcilable differences.
Methodological Individualism versus Collectivism
A critical division between the rational-choice approach and Asian studies lies with the tenet of methodological individualism that underpins the rational-choice approach and the collectivist treatment in Asian studies. Methodological individualism refers to the assumption that group actions may be reduced to and understood in terms of individual goal-seeking behaviour (Kim Reference Kim2011; Moody Reference Moody2008); in contrast, collectivist treatment assumes that the collective is more than the sum of individuals, so that social causation – based on certain types of organizations or groups – must be taken into account (Chuang Reference Chuang2013; Little Reference Little2013).Footnote 7 It is useful to note that the tussle between methodological individualism and collectivism rages well beyond the rational-choice approach and Asian studies, with no sign of abating (Little Reference Little2012). Given this, it may be helpful to raise an alternative but instructive consideration: how different are the outcomes from the methodological individualism versus the collectivism that underpin the rational-choice approach versus Asian studies? Perhaps surprisingly, notwithstanding the contrasting approaches used in the reviewed books, the outcomes are not dissimilar.
To illustrate, consider Chuang’s (Reference Chuang2013: 43–50) discussion of the conflicted collaboration between ‘old’ and ‘new’ social groups to lead the May 1997 mass protest over the kidnap-murder of teenager Pai Hsiao-yen in Taiwan. Despite significant distrust between the two sets of social groups and incompatibilities and disagreements over the modus operandi from their collaboration, the May demonstrations captured an alliance, even a ‘new organizing model’, to reach ‘deeper into society’ (Chuang Reference Chuang2013: 51) and ensure continuity and relevance. This is not incongruent with Kim’s (Reference Kim2011: 25–39) explanation of the 1990 three-party merger in South Korea. In particular, despite significant distrust between the parties and differences over the type of government (presidential, parliamentary, hybrid), the party merger speaks to the effort to ensure continuity and relevance of the parties and party leadership. Neither are these incongruent with Jacobs’ (Reference Jacobs2012) discussion of then-President Lee Teng-hui’s appointment of General Hau Pei-tsun as premier in 1990. Hau’s appointment was a controversial one and widely opposed, as evident in a number of demonstrations against the appointment (Jacobs Reference Jacobs2012: 71, 75). Yet, the appointment was critical to buttress Lee’s leadership in the ruling Kuomintang, particularly among the ‘various groups of Mainlanders’ within the party (Jacobs Reference Jacobs2012: 70–2).
Thus, despite contrasting approaches – collectivism versus methodological individualism – the congruity among the participants to pursue mergers or alliances in order to ensure their continuity and relevance is remarkable. In particular, across Chuang’s focus on social groups and their varying demands, Kim’s attention to specific leaders and their goals/ambitions, and Jacobs’ mix incorporating the considerations of leaders and groups, the efforts of the participants are similarly directed towards outcomes of preservation and achievement. Does this congruity of outcomes suggest reconcilable differences between the two approaches? At a minimum, the similarity suggests that the chasm between the rational-choice approach and Asian studies is overstated.
Social Values versus Individual Preferences
Related to the individualism versus collectivism debate is the role of social values versus individual preferences. Social values refer to the community standards, practices and rules that structure and bear on the individual’s actions or behaviours, while individual preferences refer to the personal motivations – framed as self-interest – that drive actions and behaviours (Johnson Reference Johnson1997: 171; Little Reference Little1991). It is useful to note that the chief objection to the rational-choice approach lies not in the (perhaps) chilling portrayal of individuals as primarily driven by self-interest but, rather, that these self-interested preferences are ‘abstracted’ out of the context of the ‘social environment’ of their actions (Little Reference Little1991: 42). As Johnson (Reference Johnson1997: 172) puts it, research must be ‘immersed’ in the ‘subject, learning the language, living with the people, and getting to understand the society . . . There is no alternative or rational-choice shortcut.’
However, here, again, the schism is overstated. In particular, even as critics maintain that the lack of exposition of why preferences are exposes a critical flaw in the rational-choice approach, a resort to social values does not remedy the flaw. Indeed, as Little (Reference Little1991: 44) points out – and this is supported below in the evidence drawn from the reviewed books – community values frequently do not constrain the individual’s behaviour, so it behoves researchers to extend beyond consideration of social values. At the same time, the charge of reliance on individual preferences based only on abstract economic self-interests is exaggerated.
Thus, consider, for instance, Chuang’s (Reference Chuang2013: 144–90) depiction of the falling-out between housewife activists and the community organizations that helped pave the former’s passage into elective offices, specifically, Fushao (Aunt Fu) and the Yongkang Community Development Association (YCDA), a formal ‘park preservation’ community organization founded in 1996 by residents to influence community construction projects. Chuang notes that community organizations such as the Yongkang Community Development Association found housewives – due to their frequent use of streets, parks, markets and shops – brought a gendered relational aspect to their engagement that ‘crisscrosses’ the private and the public, the personal and the collective, and the home and society (Chuang Reference Chuang2013: 153). In the case of Fushao, the Yongkang Community Development Association campaigned successfully for her election as lizang (head of the lowest administrative unit in Taiwan); however, following her attainment of office, Fushao turned against the Yongkang Community Development Association’s preservation plans. Chuang attributes Fushao’s change of heart to several considerations, including the ascendancy of the li as an administrative unit, the corresponding decline of the Yongkang Community Development Association, and the rise of new neighbourhood associations; however, these considerations are clearly limited in applicability, given that the associations are ‘just-met’ constituencies and that Fushao was newly sworn in (Chuang Reference Chuang2013: 187–8). The case, then, illustrates that explanations that rely primarily on community values are not adequate: in this instance, the social values that led to Fushao’s electoral office do not constrain her choices or behaviours after her election. Similarly, Jacobs’ (Reference Jacobs2012) account of the tensions between then-President Chen Shui-bian and the Kuomintang opposition over the on-again-off-again construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in 2000 underscores a limited attention to social values which have remained firmly against the construction of the power plant to this day.Footnote 8 Instead, in contravention of a ‘long-standing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) policy of opposing nuclear energy’ and his own election promises, President Chen eventually backed the construction, with his cabinet agreeing to the resumption of construction in 2001 (Jacobs Reference Jacobs2012: 176–80). Indeed, in the course of President Chen’s tenure, the president ‘made appointments on the basis of who could help him electorally rather than who had competence’, ‘closed itself off from outsiders’ and ‘frequently changed premiers and their cabinets’ for fear that these would eclipse the president (Jacobs Reference Jacobs2012: 227–8).
Concomittantly, the depiction of the rational-choice approach as overly reliant on economic reasoning abstracted out of social, political or historical context is also exaggerated. Thus, Kim’s (Reference Kim2011: 15–24) depiction of why two opposition leaders contested the first direct democratic presidential elections in 1987 to effectively split the popular vote and facilitate the electoral win of an erstwhile military general for the presidency is based on several factors, including personal ambition, a long-standing rivalry between the two opposition candidates, regionalism tensions from economic disparities and political bias. The discussion of regionalist tensions is particularly notable, given that Korean studies often cite regionalism as an important factor underlying voters’ electoral choices (Heo and Stockton 2005; Koo 2002). Here, then, social values and conditions have not been abstracted out of the rational-choice approach but, rather, flesh it out.
The Road Less Travelled: Complementarities and Consistencies in the Rational-Choice Approach and Asian Studies
The foregoing highlights that the incompatibilities often cited between the rational-choice approach and Asian studies – methodological individualism versus collectivism, social values versus individual preferences – overstate the divisions between the two. Instead, there are cross-usages and cross-pollination of concepts and methods in the interests of more thorough research and comprehensive research. In this section, I go further: there are significant consistencies and complementarities between the two fields regarding core elements of democratization in Asia – specifically, in terms of institution-building and party development, participatory politics and corruption – that lend to bringing the fields together to forge new research agenda for theory-building.
Institution-Building and Party Development: What Not to Do
How may the rational-choice approach and Asian studies forge an agenda for theory-building? Importantly, the books are consistent in the disappointments and failures from reliance on two features: political leaders to spearhead institution-building reforms, and electoral reforms to undergird political stability and government accountability. In doing so, they highlight how the rational-choice approach and Asian studies may be brought together to refine theory-building and empirical study on what not to do for institution-building and party development; that is, how they may not be achieved.
Thus, the books consistently report that political leaders compromise institution-building and party development: once elected into office, leaders are difficult to constrain; this, correspondingly, affects their efforts and commitment to strengthen institutions – as Jacobs (Reference Jacobs2012) shows in his account of President Chen’s diminution of the office of premier in the semi-presidential system – or parties, as Kim (Reference Kim2011) highlights in this discussion of the party mergers, party splits and reforms in Korea, even among progressive reform-minded leaders such as Nobel Peace Prize winner Kim Dae-jung. The books also reveal the compromised electoral accountability in the Asian democracies, due to the periodicity of elections, embryonic party systems and voter volatility (Berry and Howell Reference Berry and Howell2007; Dressel 2011; Guinier Reference Guinier2008; O’Donnell 1998). This is relevant: South Korea has resurrected the possibility of electoral reform – including a constitutional reform to change from a single five-year term to term-limited four-year terms (Kim Reference Kim2011) – that has periodically dotted political discussion since democratization. Yet, Jacobs’ (Reference Jacobs2012) description of Taiwan’s experience with the two-term limits for the presidency lay bare that it did not work to constrain either President Chen or President Ma.
Equally important, the lessons of what not to do are not just empirically based but also theoretically derived on the rational-choice approach and Asian studies. Thus, Kim (Reference Kim2011: 104) notes that the rational-choice approach’s self-interest assumption means that political leaders will look for compromise solutions in the face of popular demands for representative government rather than adopt solutions that will drastically reduce their control or compromise their office tenure. Chuang’s (Reference Chuang2013: 207) ethnography of Taiwan draws on the collectivist perspective to point out that Taiwan’s democratization has seen ‘five presidential races . . . [with] three presidents . . . [and their] different possible notions of community and statehood’, emphasizing that the ‘incumbent political forces, be it the DPP, Kuomintang, or even CCP . . . monopolize exchanges and enjoy the most gains, either politically or economically, under the current structure of managed and, often censored contact’.
The theoretically based and empirically observed lessons from the rational-choice approach and Asian studies, then, are likely to be useful in contributing to theory-building on institution and party development, adding refinement to the large literatures on horizontal accountability, executive–legislature relations, system survival, electoral performance, political performance or party cohesiveness and stability (see, for instance, Elgie Reference Elgie2011; Inácio and Amaral Reference Inácio and Amaral2013; Mainwaring and Zoco Reference Mainwaring and Zoco2007; O’Donnell 1998). In addition, the coherence between the rational-choice approach and Asian studies delivers practical insights on developments in Thailand, where an interim government led by National Council for Peace and Order chief Prayuth Chan-ocha as prime minister took over on 9 September 2014 – following the military coup in May 2014 (Bangkok Post 2014; Wall Street Journal 2014); Malaysia, where the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition delivered its worst-ever performance in the 2013 elections; and, of course, Taiwan, where President Ma changed the Kuomintang charter in November 2013 to ensure that an elected Kuomintang-president will automatically assume the position of chair of the party; and South Korea, where President Park Geun-hye backtracked on an election promise to ban party nominations for the 2014 local elections.
Participatory Politics and Corruption
Another area where the rational-choice approach may synergize with Asian studies to forge a new research agenda lies in participatory politics and corruption. Studies of participatory innovations in Latin America show that participatory politics promote citizens’ efficacy, mobilize engagement and improve satisfaction with the political system by broadening access (Fung Reference Fung2011; Peruzzotti Reference Peruzzotti2012). In Indonesia, experiments of participatory politics with the provision of public goods reveal positive responses (Olken 2010). Among the books reviewed, Chuang (Reference Chuang2013) notes that, notwithstanding political alienation, the public are willing participants in local community projects. Also, the books reviewed underline a commonality: across South Korea and Taiwan, the public identify corruption as a major political problem for political leaders to tackle. These findings are useful; taken together, they suggest local communities – rather than national governments – may be a useful alternative to public goods provision of battling corruption.
Studies show that corruption decisively compromises state-building: it erodes citizens’ trust of government and institutions to affect political development and stability in emerging democracies, even in countries with norms of gift-giving such as the democratizing states of East and South-East Asia (Anderson and Tverdova 2003; Chang and Chu Reference Chang and Chu2006; Kang Reference Kang2002). This is echoed across all three books, where corruption undermines political trust and contributes to political alienation of the electorate. Kim (Reference Kim2011) reports that former President Roh Moo-hyun was felled by charges of corruption in 2009 – the former president jumped to his death at the height of investigations into the charges – while both Jacobs (Reference Jacobs2012) and Chuang (Reference Chuang2013) point out that former President Chen Shui-bian’s trial and imprisonment for corruption has been a personal and national setback.
Thus far, anticorruption policies and efforts have been seen as public goods, and this carries two implications: first, it means that the public wants something but likely lacks the resolve to form a collective political will to tackle the problem (McMillan and Zoldo Reference McMillan and Zoido2004; Rothstein and Teorell Reference Rothstein and Teorell2008). Second, and relatedly, as with most public goods issues, governments are deemed responsible for tackling corruption. Yet, studies of corruption in Asia show that various administrations that come into office promising to tackle corruption also leave office without significantly denting the problem. More recently, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of Indonesia – who was swept into office on a platform of anticorruption, social justice and economic performance in 2009 – saw his political party battered in the 2014 polls as a result of corruption charges, while President Aquino III in the Philippines – who also came into office on an anticorruption platform – has been caught in a constitutional tussle with the Supreme Court over the latter’s ruling of unconstitutionality in the president’s expending of funds to senators for local development through the Disbursement Acceleration Programme (DAP) (ABC News 2014; Philippines Daily Inquirer 2014). Kim (Reference Kim2011: 104) notes that the concentration of power in the president may leave the office particularly vulnerable to corruption.
Importantly, recent experimental evidence indicates that citizens are willing and ready to participate in battling this public goods issue (Yap Reference Yap2013): from a rational-choice perspective, citizens may be motivated by incentivizing their participation; from an Asian studies perspective, citizens may be motivated through an appeal of community-building to improve quality of life and life-satisfaction (Bjørnskov et al. Reference Bjornskov, Dreher and Fischer2010; Helliwell and Huang 2008; Ott Reference Ott2010; Yap Reference Yap2013). Thus, a synergy of the rational-choice approach and Asian studies promises to infuse participatory politics against corruption that is robust to different conceptions of why people participate to ‘thicken’ legitimacy and access in systems and politics (Peruzotti Reference Peruzzotti2012: 638). Some possibilities include devolution of local development plans to citizen councils; or using citizen monitors to help prevent fraud, including electoral fraud (Bjorkman and Svensson 2010). As an example, in the contested Indonesian presidential elections held in July 2014, many witnessed the vote-counting process at their respective polling stations, took snapshots of the official tally – pictures of the C1 form (the piece of paper summarizing the vote count at each polling station) – and posted these on social media to ward off electoral fraud (Yap Reference Yap2014).
Conclusion
‘Never the twain shall meet’Footnote 9 – or so many may presume when considering Asian studies and the rational-choice approach. This review examines three books on democratization in Asia that use widely diverse approaches – imagination from anthropology or sociology; political chronology and documentation in the tradition of information-gathering in Asian studies; game theory in the rational-choice approach – to assess whether the books betray the entrenched conflict portrayed by the fields. Each of the books provides insights into the democratization process; taken together, they highlight at least one reason for optimism: the schism between the rational-choice approach and Asian studies in terms of the treatment of social values versus individual preferences is overstated. Indeed, despite their contrasting approaches, the books do not fundamentally controvert each other’s findings. Instead, outcomes highlighted in the books – such as unions between social groups, mergers between political parties or alliances between party factions – emphasize a congruity among participants to ensure their continuity and relevance. Indeed, the books show that these are broadly assimilated into their narratives and analyses to provide more complete and thorough discussions.
Perhaps more importantly, the books suggest how the rational-choice approach and Asian studies may be synergized to forge new research agenda. In particular, the books here highlight consistencies regarding what underpins weaknesses in the democratization across the countries examined: reliance on political leaders and reliance on electoral reforms to improve institution-building and party development. Democratization advocates will do well to pay heed to what not to do in the blueprints for democratization. Also important, the rational-choice approach and Asian studies illuminate a promising research direction on participatory politics and corruption. These promises underline the need to rethink or – to borrow from anthropology-sociology studies – reimagine how the rational-choice approach and Asian studies may work together.
