Japan is a small, homogeneous, unitary state. The United States is a large, diverse, federal state. One would expect that diffusion among Japanese prefectures would be (1) faster, 2) more complete, and (3) more influenced by the central government than is diffusion among the American states. These three hypotheses are tested with mixed results. In some respects diffusion may follow a dynamic of its own, producing similar results in vastly different contexts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ASHFORD, D. E. (1975) “Theories of local government: some comparative considerations.”Comparative Pol. Studies8(April): 90-107.
2.
CAMPBELL, J. C. (1979) “The old people boom and Japanese policy making”J. of Japanese Studies5 (Summer).
3.
DAVIES, D. (1970) “The concentration process and the growing importance of non-central governments in federal states.”Public Policy18 (Fall): 649-657.
4.
DOWNS, G. W., Jr. and L. B. MOHR (1978) Toward a theory of innovation. Institute of Public Policy Studies Discussion Paper. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
5.
EYESTONE, R. (1977) “Confusion, diffusion, and innovation.”Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.71 (June): 441-447.
6.
GRAY, V. (1973) “Innovation in the states: a diffusion study.”Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.67 (December): 1174-1193.
7.
HOFFERBERT, R. I. (1975) “Social change, intergovernmental relations, and education finance in the Swiss and American federations,” in W. B. Gwyn and G. C. Edwards (eds.) Perspectives on Public Policy-Making. New Orleans: Tulane Studies in Political Science.
8.
KESSELMAN, M. and D. ROSENTHAL (1974) Local Power and Comparative Politics. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
9.
MILCH, J. E. (1974) “Influence as power: French local government reconsidered.”British J. of Pol. Sci.4 (April): 139-161.
10.
NEWTON, K. (1980) Balancing the Books: The Financial Problems of Local Governments in Western Europe. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
11.
PERRY, J. L and K. L. KRAEMER (1977) Innovation Attributes, Policy, and the Diffusion of Computer Applications Among Local Governments. Irvine: The University of California, Public Policy Research Organization.
12.
RANDALL, R. (1976) “The consequences of centralization for welfare policy.”Western Pol. Q.29 (September): 351-363.
13.
REED, S. R. (1979) “Local policy making in a unitary state: the case of Japanese prefectures.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.
14.
SBRAGIA, A. M. (1974) “Urban autonomy within the unitary state: a case study of public housing policies in Milan, Italy.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
15.
SHERWOOD, F. P. (1969) “Devolution as a problem of organizational strategy,” in R. Daland (ed.) Comparative Urban Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
16.
STEINER, K. , E. KRAUSS, and S. FLANAGAN [eds.] (1980) Political Opposition and Local Politics in Japan. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
17.
TARROW, S. (1977) Between Center and Periphery: Grassroots Politicians in Italy and France. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
18.
WALKER, J. (1969) “The diffusion of innovations among the American states.”Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.63 (September): 880-899.
19.
WEBMAN, J. A. (1981) “Centralization and implementation: urban renewal in Great Britain and France.”Comparative Politics13 (January): 127-148.
20.
WELCH, S. and K. THOMPSON (1980) “The impact of federal incentives on state policy innovation.”Amer. J. of Pol. Sci.24 (November): 715-729.
21.
WILENSKY, H. L. (1975) The Welfare State and Equality. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
