The Rise of the Agricultural Welfare State: Institutions and Interest Group Power in the United States, France, and Japan
The Rise of the Agricultural Welfare State: Institutions and Interest Group Power in the United States, France, and Japan
复制标题
农业福利国家的崛起：美国、法国和日本的机构和利益集团权力
DOI：
10.2307/20050176
复制
发表时间：
2001
影响因子：
4.2
通讯作者：
Adam Sheingate
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Adam Sheingate
长期以来，对美国政治的主流阅读认为，美国的公共政策很容易被特殊利益集团所控制。与这种观点相反，亚当·辛盖特（Adam Sheingate）追溯了政府对农业的干预，从19世纪的起源到当代围绕农业补贴的斗争。他深思熟虑后得出的结论是，美国的机构在政策制定过程中没有给予农业利益集团任何特殊的优势，部分原因是反对派游说团体也可以接触到政策制定者。事实上，美国制度所维持的高度冲突和多元主义，使得农业福利国家在20世纪80年代和90年代得以大幅缩减。在日本和法国这两个与美国有着明显不同的制度特征的国家，强大的农业利益集团以及农民、官僚和政治家之间历史上的密切关系继续阻止农业补贴的减少。这项精心设计的研究不仅对农业政策提出了新的见解，而且还为更广泛的主张提供了强有力的理由，即相对分散的美国政治体系实际上比法国和日本的中央集权政治体系更不容易被地方政府控制和统治。Sheingate的历史比较方法也以一种广泛有用的方式展示了过去的制度发展如何塑造当前的政策和选择。
A long-dominant reading of American politics holds that public policy in the United States is easily captured by special interest groups. Countering this view, Adam Sheingate traces the development of government intervention in agriculture from its nineteenth-century origins to contemporary struggles over farm subsidies. His considered conclusion is that American institutions have not given agricultural interest groups any particular advantages in the policy process, in part because opposing lobbies also enjoy access to policymakers. In fact, the high degree of conflict and pluralism maintained by American institutions made possible substantial retrenchment of the agricultural welfare state during the 1980s and 1990s. In Japan and France--two countries with markedly different institutional characters than the United States--powerful agricultural interests and a historically close relationship between farmers, bureaucrats, and politicians continue to preclude a roll-back of farm subsidies. This well-crafted study not only puts a new spin on agricultural policy, but also makes a strong case for the broader claim that the relatively decentralized American political system is actually less prone to capture and rule by subgovernments than the more centralized political systems found in France and Japan. Sheingate's historical, comparative approach also demonstrates, in a widely useful way, how past institutional developments shape current policies and options.