Dave Kang's posting of 19 Jun 1995 still raises interesting questions (I hope) concerning P-A theory and comparative studies.

But I'm not sure what Dave meant when he wrote "isn't it true that comparative cases won't necessarily prove or disprove the Japanese case, because their situations may be different?"

Because in order to discuss the conditions in Japan that lead to Political or Bureaucratic dominance (which I agree with Dave as the important question) don't we have to have an idea of the "amount" of slack the Agent could gain from the Principal? And I cannot see how that can be done without comparison. Indeed, it seems to me, Dave does exactly that by comparing the Park Chung-hee regime of Korea and the pre-Marcos Philippines. I can understand that we don't have to compare the conditions that determine "slack" but what about slack itself?

Another question is; how dynamic is P-A theory? As many know, one of the claims made in the 1980s was that power shifted from the "bureaucrats" to "politicians." If P-A theory can do a cross-temporal analysis then I agree with Dave completely that we don't need cross-national comparisons?

And or course, if that is the case, what contributions can P-A theory make in testing the alleged power shift?

To be honest, I'm not sure if I am asking the right questions to P-A theorists but I hope somebody (not only Dave) would take the time to tell me whether I got it right.

Nobuhiro Hiwatari