Japan's Dilemma: Nuclear Energy

Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda has a problem. Noda faces stiff opposition not only from anti-nuclear activists and a Japanese public still grappling with the effects of the Fukushima disaster, but even leaders within his own Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ).

This Asahi Shimbun article captures the dilemma of adopting a nuclear zero policy. It's a tough call. Japan clearly needs energy which nuclear reactors have provided for decades. Anti-nuclear activists claim Japan can achieve these goals without nuclear power. But what are the costs (economic, environmental, and social) of using alternative energy sources? Who seeks to gain/lose from a nuclear zero policy - and I don't mean the obvious vested interests in the energy sector, but in terms of your everyday Japanese citizen.

Historical Institutionalism and International Relations

I’m swinging as far as possible from social  movements in this post, but I just re-read Dan Nexon’s article responding to Orfeo Fiortes' IO review essay on historical institutionalism (HI) in international relations (IR). Fiortes and Nexon adopt two different approaches.

 Fiortes: Microfoundations and preference formation. The sunk costs, increasing returns, and framing effects generated by institutions shape actors’ preferences.

Nexon: Dynamic processes embedded in context. Nexon sees much more variation in institutional processes. HI “develops a toolkit for grappling with the dynamic nature of causal processes and their embeddednness within specific socio-historical contexts.”  Nexon emphasizes the “contingent nature of change processes.”

Both approaches highlight the importance of sequencing, timing, and path dependency. But Fiortes’ treatment of these mechanisms don’t differ that greatly from rational institutionalism. Preferences still dictate choices leading to outcomes. Nexon, alternatively moves from microfoundations to middle-range-theory where he believes HI provides the most promise and points to the “variable nature of change processes” [emphasis mine]. Network structures of institutions, relational mechanisms, practice and habitus, norm diffusion are also processes which may take on characteristics of HI. Nexon finds the emphasis on a “specific decision-theoretic framework to institutional choice” problematic because it limits what HI has to offer about change and transformation in IR. What we wind up with are “static models offering invariant explanations across time and space.” 

My own research on the evolution of East Asia’s regional architecture closely resembles the Fiortes version of HI, but my understanding of the social world is much more in line with Nexon (note to self: revisit APSA paper through Nexon’s framework).  There are affinities between constructivism, HI, and the connection between institutions, ideas and policy preferences which may link the Fiortes with the Nexon view.

One possible critique of Nexon’s approach though is that it dilutes the theoretical precision of HI. It becomes unclear exactly what HI is or does if we take the middle-range theory approach. I suspect Nexon sees HI as a tent which encompasses a wide variety or mechanisms and processes but some may still appreciate the narrower view of HI.

Chick-Fil-A

Chick-Fil-A has been receiving a lot of attention after President Dan Cathy's public support of traditional marriage (or anti-gay marriage stance - the framing depends on which side of the debate you're on).  It's odd that big city mayors from Boston to Chicago to Washington DC got so worked up about Chick-Fil-A. It's not as if the franchise discriminates serving gay customers. Calls for boycotting/banning the franchise triggered a response from Chick-Fil-A fans (re: the conservative base) who believed local governments and same-sex marriage supporters were infringing on Mr. Cathy's right to express his own views.

Anyway, David Meyer had two excellent posts on this debating the efficacy of boycotting Chick-Fil-A and the large turnout of Chick-Fil-A supporters in response. As Meyer notes, large corporations may support a variety of causes which we may or may not support. Does that warrant a boycott? Should supporters of traditional marriage boycott Amazon because Jeff Bezos is campaigning for same-sex marriage in the state of Washington. Should progressive activists boycott Apple because they haven't pushed for improved labor standards in China?

Brad Hirschfield had an interesting comment about the whole Chick-Fil-A fiasco which he claims may actually be one of the finer moments of collective action and social movements.

Without wasting time on fights about who the “real” victims of intolerance are, we can simply point out the hysterical and instructive irony that this is where those who support Chick-fil-A and those who most oppose it are actually quite alike. In each case, a group of aggrieved people who feel their rights and dignity being infringed upon embrace the notion of political and collective social action.