Comparative Historiography: Problems and Perspectives

Just like history, historiography is usually written and analyzed within one spatio-temporal setting, traditionally that of a particular nation-state. As a consequence, historiography tends to localize explanations for historiographical developments within national contexts and to neglect international dimensions. As long as that is the case, it is impossible to assess the general and specific aspects of historiographical case studies. This forum, therefore, represents a sustained argument for comparative approaches to historiography. First, my introduction takes a recent study in Canadian historiography as a point of departure in order to illustrate the problems of non-comparative historiography. These problems point to strong arguments in favor of comparative approaches. Second, I place comparative historiography as a genre in relation to a typology that orders theories of historiography on a continuum ranging from general and philosophical to particular and empirical. Third, I put recent debates on the “fragmentation” of historiography in a comparative perspective. Worries among historians about this fragmentation—usually associated with the fragmentation of the nation and the advent of multiculturalism and/or postmodernism—are legitimate when they concern the epistemological foundations of history as a discipline. As soon as the “fragmentation” of historiography leads to—and is legitimated by—epistemological skepticism, a healthy pluralism has given way to an unhealthy relativism. As comparison puts relativism in perspective by revealing its socio-historical foundations, at the same time it creates its rational antidote. Fourth, I summarize the contributions to this forum; all deal—directly or indirectly—with the historiography of the Second World War. Jürgen Kocka's “Asymmetrical Historical Comparison: The Case of the German Sonderweg” examines the so-called “special path” of Germany's history. Daniel Levy's “The Future of the Past: Historiographical Disputes and Competing Memories in Germany and Israel” offers a comparative analysis of recent historiographical debates in Germany and Israel. Sebastian Conrad's “What Time is Japan? Problems of Comparative (Intercultural) Historiography” analyzes the conceptual linkage between Japanese historiography and specific interpretations of European history. Richard Bosworth's “Explaining ‘Auschwitz’ after the End of History: The Case of Italy” charts in a comparative perspective the changes since 1989 in Italian historiography concerning fascism. All four articles support the conclusion that next to the method of historical comparison is the politics of comparison, which is hidden in the choice of the parameters. Analyses of both method and politics are essential for an understanding of (comparative) historiography.     

State Political Culture and Welfare Reform

I investigate the link between the general features of state governments and their ability to reform welfare. The best indicator of governments' characteristics is Elazar's political cultures. I define what successful welfare reform means, drawing on implementation research and experience. My criteria stress process, the avoidance of political and administrative problems. I then test the link between the Elazar cultures and successful reform using recent case studies of state implementation of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Elazar's "moralistic" states perform best, and the association holds, even controlling for other influences. Results depend, however, on how welfare reform is defined.     

Gender and Language in Ethnographic and Evolutionary Perspectives

Much research in the field of language and gender has been hampered by unquestioned a priori dualistic assumptions about contrasting gender roles for men and women. The works reviewed here all demonstrate that simplistic dualistic beliefs about what are typical male or female ways of speaking do not hold water. The variables that determine speech styles are complex and mutually interactive: place of residence, class, formality, age, and gender, and others. Women are just as capable of directive speech as men, and men, of hedged speech. Dualistic thinking about gender serves only to reinforce current hegemonies.     

Changing Welfare Cultures in Region and State

The article takes a regional case study of three northern counties—Durham,Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire—to examinehow the hardships of communities, devastated by long-term structuralunemployment, exposed the inadequacy of a locally based welfaresystem, where poverty was itself expected to relieve destitution.Local welfare administrators put up a sustained challenge tomany of the preconceptions and practices of central governmentin their administration of a hierarchy of relief, assistanceand benefits in public welfare. In doing so, these northernadministrators precipitated draconian central action in an exemplarytakeover of administration in three out of the five local administrationsthat suffered this strategic intervention nationally, whileseveral others were threatened. This crucible of confrontationprovided a regional catalyst for the traditional concept ofconditional benefits, and a stigmatized welfare dependency tobegin to be superseded by a more egalitarian, democratic viewof entitlements as a citizen's right within a mixed economyof welfare. The article ends with a brief reflection on thewider and longer-term significance of this changing culture.     

Transforming the Developmental Welfare State in East Asia

This article attempts to explain changes and continuity in the developmental welfare states in Korea and Taiwan within the East Asian context. It first elaborates two strands of welfare developmentalism (selective vs. inclusive), and establishes that the welfare state in both countries fell into the selective category of developmental welfare states before the Asian economic crisis of 1997. The key principles of the selective strand of welfare developmentalism are productivism, selective social investment and authoritarianism; inclusive welfare development is based on productivism, universal social investment and democratic governance. The article then argues that the policy reform toward an inclusive welfare state in Korea and Taiwan was triggered by the need for structural reform in the economy. The need for economic reform, together with democratization, created institutional space in policy‐making for advocacy coalitions, which made successful advances towards greater social rights. Finally, the article argues that the experiences of Korea and Taiwan counter the neo‐liberal assertion that the role of social policy in economic development is minor, and emphasizes that the idea of an inclusive developmental welfare state should be explored in the wider context of economic and social development.