suspecting that it was only large-scale firms that could fully absorb advanced foreign technology. A paper by Richard Barrett argued that the role of the Nationalist state in Taiwan's economy has increased as a concommitant of industrial deepening and infrastructure construction. James Kurth agreed that such changes might be significant but argued that under the rational-bureaucratic influence of late-developing Japan, late-late developing Taiwan and South Korea were "born" bureaucratic-authoritarian and have largely remained so. One paper by Edwin Winckler sketched the gradual convergence of the factional political struggle within the Natiomi.list state and the economic conflict within the Taiwanese elite, while another outlined the controlled incorporation of successive classes of Taiwan society into the authoritarian Nationalist political system. A paper by Bruce Jacobs, La Trobe University (Australia), and commentary by James Seymour, New York University, traced the historical roots of political opposition to the ruling Nationalist party, culminating in the upsurge and suppression of opposition activity in the late 1970s. James Kurth emphasized the mutually reinforcing combination on Taiwan of Chinese ideology, Japanese administration, and Leninist party organization. On the future potential for transition from authoritarianism to democracy, Juan Linz, Yale University, urged more attention to the formal structure of the Nationalist state and to its political rather than economic problems. Emily Ahern, the Johns Hopkins University, underlined the need for ethnographic studies of how power, democracy, and development are conceptualized in Chinese political culture. In addition, a problematique by Edwin Winckler surveyed the dimensions of the world-system and authoritarian-regime paradigms highlighted by the East Asian cases, recommending independent elaboration of political-military, socioeconomic, and historical-cultural logics and linkages. Comparative commentary by Theda Skocpol, Harvard University, argued that East Asian cases could contribute to existing theory either by exposing previously implicit assumptions or-more interestingly-by modifying old and adding new hypotheses. A wideranging paper by Susan Greenhalgh argued that East Asian cases should not be explained away as minor exceptions to existing theories, but r~ther should force
16
examination of such additional dimensions as regional geopolitical relations, the spatial distance between countries, and the temporal stage of development of the world system itself. The workshop revealed three areas that need additional research. First, synthesis of the world-system and authoritarian-rel"rime paradigms requires the integration of external events and internal developments. The concomitant of raising such broad issues is the problem of how to -encompass so many phenomena within manageable research prqjects. The one paper on South Korea, by Bruce Cumings, was the only one fully to integrate actual research on supranational institutions, national actors, and subnational forces. Some of the papers on Taiwan, although stressing the relevance of external events, stuck with the task of opening a discussion of neglected aspects of domestic development. Others tackled research on extranational inputs (mostly on the basis of recently declassified papers on U.S. AI D in the late 1940s), but in the process abandoned research on their intranational cou nterparts. Second, elaboration of the worldsystem and authoritarian-regime paradigms also requires more detailed modeling of the middle levels of both global and national society. Japan was underrepresented at the workshop; evidently American scholars have written little about the role of either Taiwan or South Korea in the Japanese economy, either before or after 1945. Even the sometimes excellent accounts of Japanese policy on Taiwan do not follow either politics or economy into the late 1930s and early 1940s. Also missing were the middle levels of Taiwan itself-systematic confrontation of (often externally induced) regional variation and systematic analysis of (often externally recruited) regional elites. Third, specification of the worldsystem and authoritarian-regime paradigms for the postwar period requires more attention to its formative years in the I 940s. Whatever economic and political foundation the Japanese had laid in the 1930s, presumably World War II caused significant changes in both economic and political policy and significant changes in both social and geographic mobility-among both elites and masses, in both Taiwan and Korea. Whatever the situation as of 1945, Taiwan evolved in response to rapidly changing external parameters (decolonization from . Japan,
reintegration with the mainland, disruption by civil war, and adaptation to evolving East Asian international relations) in the mid-I 940s. Whatever the baseline as of 1949, Taiwan was then swamped under a wave of mainlanders with their own different experience of the 1940s. Whatever the structural parameters of development over the next 30 years, arguably they were laid by the mid-1950s. Aside from its substantive content, the workshop was of interest for some of its organizational features. Focus on the world-system and authoritarian-regime paradigms enabled a mixed group to bypass disciplinary boundaries and address issues of common interest. Advance distribution of commissioned papers on workshop themes obviated author presentations, enabling the workshop to begin from critiques by comparativists and proceed to general discussion. An even balance between Taiwan, Asian, and global researchers stimulated genuinely comparative debate, unlike what occurs at conferences where nonsinologists are outnumbered twenty-to-one. The discussants were those proposed by the Taiwan paper writers themselves, who remain grateful for the comparativists' participation and were encouraged by their lively interest in the Taiwan case. The sinologists present work as much on the People's Republic and on comparative analysis as they do on Taiwan; all of them regret the continuing inexcusable compartmentalization between studies of Taiwan and the rest of China, and between studies of China and the rest of the world.
Bibliography Alfred Bergeson, editor, Studies of the Modern World-System. New York: Academic Press, 1980. David Collier, editor, The New Authoritarianism in Latin America. Princeton University Press, 1979. Peter Evans, Dependent Development: The Alliance of Multinational, State, and Local Capital in Brazil. Princeton University Press, 1979. Juan Linz, "Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes," in Political VOLUME
35,
NUMBERS
1/2