INTELLECTUAL ODYSSEY

NOTE: These recollections focus on my intellectual development and how the different strands in my life's work relate to each other. They are being written while I'm in a hospital bed recuperating from a broken leg. That means I cannot consult documents to verify dates and facts, but ultimately I will fill in the gaps. Moreover, I have promised my family a real autobiography which, I hope, will be an elaboration of materials offered below, including more personal and anecdotal information. As an intellectual rather than a personal history, however, this first draft will take up the following themes:

Chapter headings include:

• 1. Childhood in China -- a multi-cultural context
• 2. University Years -- intellectual foundations
• 3. Comparative Public Administration -- the CAG experience
• 4. Conceptual and Terminological Problems -- the COCTA experience
• 5. Focus on Ethnicity -- the emergence of ETHNIC-L
• 6. Presidentialism and Parliamentarism -- the COVICO Experience and the lessons of impeachment
• 7. Globalization, Development, Social Science and Information

Note that underlined words and phrases link to related texts, but underlined numbers in brackets permit jumps to the citation for a text -- use the BACK button to return to this text.

Chapter 7 of Riggs Autobiographical Odyssey

A CLOSING MISCELLANY:

1. GLOBALIZATION PROJECT

My most recent interest focuses on globalization. However, work I had done earlier on development, social science and information paved the way for this current emphasis. My earlier chapters all followed a chronological sequence from early to late. Here, however, I will retrace my steps from late to early.

The work on globalization is both conceptual and substantive. There is not much of substance to report, but during the past year I wrote four different papers concerning the implications of modernization [1998a]. [1998b], [1998c], & [1998d ]. However, these were a fruit of my conceptual work on the different meanings of globalization, which, I feel, may well be a more important project.

It began at the Seoul Congress of IPSA (1997) when Henry Teune and I were discussing the future of COCTA -- see Chapter 4. We agreed that we should launch a major project to study the different meanings of a word that has become a pervasive buzzword in contemporary social science discourse and Henry suggested that globalization is such a word. He also volunteered to chair a roundtable on Globalization at the 1988 Congress of the International Sociological Association (ISA-Soc.) in Montreal. We also agreed to present a paper on our findings at a panel on Globalization during the 1999 Conference of the International Studies Association (ISA-IR) and we intend to repeat this exercise at the next world Congress of IPSA during 2000 in Quebec.

To implement this idea, we prepared a questionnaire that was sent to all members of the ISA(Soc) via their e-mail list. It invited those who have been writing or doing research about "globalization" to submit a short text that would indicate what they were thinking about. The survey generated a substantial response and I collected the texts, all of which provided contexts for determining what the different authors meant by globalization. They are presented alphabetically, by author, in: texts

Using this corpus of information, I sorted the concepts into several major categories, and listed the individual items systematically, as presented in concepts No doubt many of these concepts overlap, as I tried to show visually in a slide using Venn circles: thus, although A, B, and C might be viewed as independent concepts, each could overlap with the others, producing more complex concepts that might be called AB, AC, BC, and ABC. Since I identified a score of different concepts, it would be too complicated to try to represent all the possible combinations, but any user could determine which conceptual overlaps might be relevant to h/er interests.

Another important point involves the notion of shelter concepts. I use this term to refer to any word that has acquired a multiplicity of overlapping meanings. Each of these concepts can be represented unambiguously by the shelter term provided the context of use clearly shows what is intended. However, in many contexts the author's intent may not be apparent and, to facilitate, discourse, it would be useful to have a more precise synonym. For example, globalization may refer to the market structures which now support planetary trade, currency and credit movements, or it may represent cultural influences reflected in the world-wide distribution of music, art, information and the mass media. These are all sheltered concepts. Phrases like "economic globalization" and "cultural globalization" could help improve communication when someone has these more specific concepts in mind. For more thoughts about shelter concepts see: draft .

Let me mention the major categories identified by our analysis. First, we found that the time/space context is important and changes the meanings of globalization. Historically minded sociologists see globalization as a process that has been going on for many centuries, whereas those focusing on the world today view globalization as a contemporary phenomenon. Both perspectives are important and can easily be disambiguated by referring to historical globalization or contemporary globalization. A second major category involves identifying cause-effect relationships, both unilinear and circular, and recognizing the difference between vicious and benign circles.

The third category hinges on the different perspectives of academic disciplines. Each discipline tends to concentrate attention on selected aspects of globalization, as mentioned above -- distinguishing economic and cultural from political, psychological, communicational, and various other points of view. Although all of them are surely interdependent, one cannot view all at once and so it is necessary for individual observers to focus on manageable problems and existing disciplines provide some tools for these perspectives.

A final group of concepts involve different attitudes, values and theoretical paradigms as they affect how one looks at globalization. For example, some are pessimistic and point to the many terrible and tragic consequences of globalization; others are more optimistic and emphasize the many positive and desirable effects of globalization. At the theoretical level, there are some who think that globalization reflects evolutionary processes that explain what has happened, while others focus on the ecological implications of globalization and how it has undermined the planet's ecosystem or provides resources for conserving our environment. Anyhow who would like to see a summary of these findings with a dozen color slides to illustrate them visually, can go to: Notes

I prepared the slides for presentation at a multi-disciplinary seminar on Globalization sponsored by the College of Social Sciences at the University of Hawaii, in which I was a participant. I am grateful for the contributions its faculty and student participants made to my own thinking about problems of globalization. This seminar grew out of a cross-disciplinary group of faculty members using an e-mail list that I manage at U. H. Our starting point was the report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the future of the Social Sciences -- see below (link??) for further information about this activity.

Substantive Propositions

Most of my ideas about globalization involve the way we think about it, especially in the social sciences and area studies programs. Early in 1998, Mattei Dogan asked me to prepare a paper called "Beyond Area Studies" [1998a] for a panel at the International Sociological Association congress in Montreal in July that year. At first I was perplexed to know how to deal with this topic because I had not thought much about area studies for many years. However, as I began to think about it, it struck me that the world has changed profoundly since area studies were first pushed seriously half a century ago by the U.S. Government and some foundations, especially the Ford Foundation. This effort was stimulated by the collapse of the industrial empires following World War II, and the sudden need of policy makers and scholars to learn about the host of countries that were suddenly becoming independent states. My grant from the Social Science Research Council to spend a research year in Thailand was a direct result of this impetus.

Two premises underlying area studies are relevant here. The first involves its emphasis on multi-disciplinary cooperation, and the second, its non-comparative (idiographic) emphasis. I applauded the first because, as readers of Chapter 3 will have seen, I felt that our mono-disciplinary mode of study stood in the way of understanding the realities prevailing in third world countries, which is why I developed the prismatic model and the various concepts associated with it.

However, I deplored the second because, as I came to believe in Thailand and the Philippines, comparable phenomena were occurring in all the countries where traditional societies experienced the wrenching impact of modernity [1999a] Admittedly these societies could not easily be compared in terms of the institutional rubrics familiar in the West, but once one grasped the essential dynamics of change inflicted by the outside world on the victims of industrial imperialism, one could and should, I thought, make significant comparisons between them -- they would result in the development of explanatory theories and, hopefully, of better strategies for handling resultant problems. I believe, for example, that parliamentary regimes are more likely to deal effectively with industrialization than presidentialist [1999b] regimes. My first thought in response to Dogan's request was just to write about the need for better theorizing on the basis of comparisons between third world countries.

However, when I began to consider how contemporary globalization has affected area studies, I realized that the world today differs in many ways from the world of the 1950s and 1960s when area studies became established. One such difference involved migration, the accelerated movement of peoples between countries, something I talked about in Chapter 5. One result was that the sense of identity presupposed by the area studies image had eroded. Almost all countries now have important foreign populations and many of their citizens have moved abroad. This led me to think about diasporas as a part of any country: the Philippines, for example, is not just a place on the world's map, but a socio-cultural entity that exists globally, wherever Filipinos have moved, especially when they remain in touch with their homeland.

Moreover, the movement of ideas and goods has radically changed every country. Many of the most important things about any country are no longer purely local, but they have been imported from abroad -- they include not only the artifacts, automobiles, computers, cellular phones, television sets, but also the outpouring of ideas, attitudes and problems that these imports have created. Increasingly, moreover, every country has an influence on the world. One cannot think about Japan, China, or Thailand as a localized culture but rather as a force in the world. My first draft of a paper for Montreal, which can be found at draft included diasporas and globalism in the title.

As I thought further about the question, however, I began to see that it had far-reaching implications for all the social sciences [1998c]. The original premise of area studies was that to understand any country one needed only to bring together the relevant concepts and theories that could be found in established social science disciplines. Now, however, going beyond area studies also calls for basic transformations in all the social sciences. In a global context, we can now see that our established social sciences are indeed parochial, in fact they have their own area bias based on their Eurocentrism. They presuppose the fundamental institutions and norms of Western societies with their highly differentiated social structures. It is these structures that ground the disciplines and make them relevant in the West. If we recognize that they are Western and lack universal applicability, we can continue to use them at home, but they need far-reaching transformations to be applicable globally.

We can, however, make them more nearly universal if we recognize this fact and understand that generalizations about, say, the "family," may well apply to Western families, but need radical re-thinking when we talk about families elsewhere. Put differently, we need theories that analyze and explain different kinds of families as they exist everywhere, and in that context we can explain the distinctive features of families in America, Europe, or Thailand. Going beyond area studies, therefore, involves applying the area studies paradigm to ourselves. >

We already have American studies programs but we rarely think of them as a kind of area studies project. Instead of trying to explain why families in America may differ from families elsewhere, my sense is that we start from an implicit premise that the American model of a family has universal relevance, and it is the peculiarities of family systems elsewhere that should be explained. Historically, American Studies were started during the pre-War years to legitimize the study of American Literature and History as worthy of independent recognition in a context where Literature and History always had a European flavor. After the War they were promoted overseas on the premise that learning about American democracy would help other countries become democratic! Now, I think, in a global setting, American studies should resemble Brazilian, Chinese, Indian, Nigerian, or Philippine studies in the sense that each would promote an in-depth analysis of an area as both a global presence and a local entity to be understand in a comparativist context. Globalization requires us to look at ourselves in a comparative framework. I have discussed the need for this in Chapter 3 and will not repeat the argument here. The basic point is that going beyond area studies can mean looking at ourselves as an area, and reassessing our disciplines as context-bound rather than universally applicable. My conclusions about globalization, area studies, and the social sciences are elaborated in [1998a] Area Studies and [1998c] Social Science.

My only essay linking globalization with a concrete problem was [1998d]. This was actually a short note prepared for a Roundtable at the annual conference of the American Society for Public Administration. In it I argued that globalization had radically re-structured the dynamics of public administration in the United States as well as in other countries. Rather than paraphrase what I wrote, let me just quote a paragraph:

How can the officers (military and civil) who are working in a host of trans-state, sub-state, and state organizations understand and master the tasks they need to perform? In the past, each of them has accepted a set of prescribed duties based on the policies of whatever organization, at each of these levels, provides the context for their employment. Rarely, however, will it be possible during the coming years for these "glocal" bureaucrats (the office holders of a wide range of global and local organizations -- including states, as residual if battered strongholds of power) to focus on the tasks prescribed for them by formal political authorities. Instead, we need to recognize that office holders (bureaucrats) are themselves the bearers of a kind of personal sovereignty that compels them to take stock of their own actions in terms of a higher morality anchored in global accountability, and at the same time to become increasingly aware of the competing sensitivities and obligations of the officers of other organizations with which they must interact. [See the text ]

Earlier Work

Prior to 1998, I did not use the word, globalization, in the title of my research projects, but under other headings, I think I had global forces in mind. In [1997b], for example, I talked about a subvisible archipelago of power that would increasingly rule the world from the back, while much of the visible world in front would be manipulated from behind the stage like actors in a play. The startling basis for this scenario can be found in a report by Jeffrey Winters about the rapid increase in the number of a new type of industrial estates in Indonesia and other third world countries. See price indeterminacy.

These estates carve out enclaves for themselves in which underpaid workers must commute to work so that they cannot organize unions, where environmental pollution goes unchecked, and taxes are not paid. These estates bribe officials to safeguard their immunity, and enable international corporations to manufacture products that can be sold on the world market at cut rate prices. The owners and managers of industrial estates like to live in resort cities outside the major industrialized countries, often on islands that are tax havens and provide gambling casinos where very wealthy people can launder tainted money.

While these estates enrich their owners, they contribute to the impoverishment of ordinary people living everywhere -- great differences between richer and poorer countries will continue, but the most notable gap will be between the front and the back throughout the world. Although writers on globalization often bemoan the power of transnational corporations, it strikes me that they have not fully grasped the dynamics of the subvisible archipelago of power that they have created. Although I did not speak of globalization in this paper, that is what I was actually talking about.

Long before globalization had become a buzzword, I wrote a piece reflecting on the prismatic characteristics of the world system. By this I meant that while the facade of world politics presupposed the primacy of states in a global inter-state system, many underlying trans-state forces limited and complicated the ability of states to work their will. At that time, of course, I was just beginning to elaborate my ideas about the prismatic model in the context of a single country, as explained in Chapter 3. George Modelski recently reminded me that he was responsible for my invitation to the Princeton conference where trans-state relations were being discussed and the papers in [1961a] were first presented. It was the only time during those years when I had an occasion to return to my original interest in international relations and link it with the work on comparative public administration I had been doing in Thailand and the Philippines.

I also touched on these matters later, in [1968c], [1982], and [1994]. The latest of these was in response to a discussion at the ISA(IR) on neorealism vs. idealism in international relations theory. It struck me that, as I noted earlier, we often trap ourselves in artificial dichotomies created by treating contraries as contradictories. It struck me that there were important elements of truth in both the neorealist and idealist paradigms, and that the prismatic model provides a framework in which to see them as complementary ways of trying to understand the world. In another early essay, I argued that feudalism and bureaucracy should not be seen as contradictory modes of organization, but as contraries or complementaries on a single scale of variation, producing a kind of proto-prismatic context in pre-modern societies [1966a]. Had I known what I learned about globalization a few years later, I would have said, "aha -- that explains the paradoxical context in which I had been using the prismatic model." More recently, I have attempted to put the problems of bureaucracy in the context of modernity [1997c].

The documents relating to globalization mentioned above are: [1998a, b, c, d, , 1997b, 1994, 1982. 1968c, 1966a, b, 1961a]

The theories of development with which many of us were wrestling during the 1960s and later paved the way for the current interest in globalization. Indeed, the two notions are closely linked and one might argue that globalization has simply replaced development as a popular theme. The terminological problems of development theory may well have paved the way for the rise of globalization as a replacement.

Development, as a term, has positive connotations but the reality to which it was applied had many negative consequences. Curiously, it is difficult to talk about them and those who started to do so, after the euphoria had passed, resorted to terms like undeveloped or underdeveloped to refer to the negative consequences of capitalism, industrialization, and imperialism that fueled development. projects. Unfortunately, these terms normally refer to conditions that prevailed before development started so they tend to be anachronistic.

Normally, one can use an antonym to suggest the opposite of something, as unjust is to just, or unequal is to equal. But how can we refer to a process which reverses development, which causes negative growth and worsening of conditions. The lexical antonym of develop is envelop, a word that retains its original meaning of enclosing by contrast with develop as a process of disclosing or unfolding. Etymologically, develop shifted its meaning on the assumption that inherent potentialities can be revealed or matured, as when a person develops by cultivating abilities that were always present in the genes.

As applied to a society, development came to mean economic growth, rising levels of income, education, and growing political sophistication. We ordinarily use de- as a prefix to represent a process that reverses something, like destabilize or deconstruct as antonyms for stabilize, construct, etc. However, it seemed ludicrous and clumsy to talk about de-developing, although this would have been a logical construct. Had the critics who wanted to point to the adverse consequences of development been more adventurous, they might have coined a word like retrodevelop to talk about what happens when a society become less developed than it previously was. Development is not necessarily a one-way street, and it seems clear that we need to be able to talk about the causes and consequences of retrodevelopment.

One of the consequences of modern development is globalization -- it is clearly a result of the main forces of modernity, a complex process that links industrialization, democratization and nationalism, all of which are interdependent forces. Unlike development, globalization is a neutral word which can have both negative and positive connotations, as is circle, which can be seen as vicious or benign: I have discussed this in a recent paper [1999a]. This means that anyone talking about what is happening in the world today can speak of globalization as both a positive and negative phenomenon.

The result has been a rhetorical transformation -- those who used to talk about development and underdevelopment can now ignore these words and speak about globalization instead. The program for the 1999 conference of the International Studies Association includes at least 100 paper or panel titles in which global or globalization occurs. By contrast, the word development occurs 24 times. A decade or two ago, there would have been many more titles using development, and very few referring to globalization. No doubt the themes are different, but I also think the former leads into the latter, both for substantive and terminological reasons.

Having said that, let me say (admit?) that over the years I have often written about development. Here is a list of references in the attached check-list which include this word, retreating chronologically: [1997c, 1996, 1994, 1990, 1984, 1981a, 1978a, 1978b, 1975, 1974a, 1973, 1970a, 1968a, b, 1967, 1966c, 1965] -- it seems rather pointless to insert links for all these dates when they are readily available on the check-list.

I will not discuss them now, but later on I plan to insert a few pages to talk about how my own ideas about development developed. Let me just mention the fact that in [1984] I published a chapter in Sartori's book on social science concepts devoted to the wealth of meanings of development that I encountered in a survey of the literature. Most of these concepts, not surprisingly, focused on the economic aspects, growth in per capita income, as gross domestic product, as a measure of personal welfare, in terms of the distribution of wealth, etc.

However, as a Political Scientist, I looked particularly closely at concepts of development related to government. Let me just mention two, development administration, and political development. Concerning the former, I explained in Chapter 3 how the Comparative Administration Group felt obliged, under the terms of its grant from the Ford Foundation, to focus on development administration, which we understood to have three possible meanings: how third world countries could either (1) manage development projects, (2) improve their capacity to administer anything, or (3) do both. This focus remains alive and has been elaborated by SICA (The Section for International and Comparative Administration, of ASPA) although they now prefer to use the term, development management which focuses on the first of these concepts.

As for political development, it became a focus of attention in the SSRC's Committee on Comparative Politics after it received financial support from the Ford Foundation. Previously, its focus on comparative politics had largely ignored development but the Foundation's emphasis on development projects led it to favor research that would, they hoped, help it achieve its developmental goals. Remarkably, after the grant, the Committee's output contained a large number of studies with political development in their titles, but covering an array of different concepts in their texts. Some were interested in democratization, others in political stability, or institutionalization.

There was a good deal of concern about the lack of agreement about the term and, when the Foundation's support for this program was terminated, the phrase rapidly fell out of favor and was rarely used -- see [1981a]. In its place, a more general and neutral term like political change, or a more specific one, like democratization, became popular. In my own work, I have argued that it is misleading to think of "political development" as something that can occur by itself -- instead, I wrote about the "political aspects of development" [1968a]. Moreover, institutional differences like those reflected in different constitutional systems can influence social and economic development, something I have discussed in [1999b].

My own efforts to clarify what I meant by development led me into a multi-disciplinary morass. As indicated above, I found that most scholars tended to use development in the context of one discipline. Thus Psychologists were thinking about individual development, Sociologists about social development, Economists, Political Scientists, and Public Administrationists about changes that they could identify within their discipline. Readers of Chapter 3 will recall that when I tried to understand what I saw in Thailand and the Philippines, I discovered that several disciplines needed to be linked in order to understand anything as simple as why villagers paid different rates of interest -- or no interest -- when borrowing money. As a result, I not only became interested in the phenomena identifiable through the prismatic model, but I also began to look at how interdisciplinary cooperation could be enhanced. The area studies focus of my research in Thailand would have reinforced this interest even if I had not developed(!) the prismatic theory.

Although I was not able to do much about it, I did write several pieces about the social sciences [1959, 1961b, 1966b, 1970b, 1971, 1981c, 1998c]. In 1996 I read the Gulbenkian Commission Report which had been prepared under the leadership of Immanuel Wallerstein -- I remember discussing the problems posed by disciplinary boundaries with him in 1971. We both agreed on their artificiality as artifacts of Western institutional structure, and that for any real understanding of the conditions prevailing in non-Western societies, one would need a "social science" approach that cut across these barriers -- plus, I should say, a terminology emancipated from the parochial connotations of much of our vocabulary [1997a].

However, I failed to formulate my thoughts on this matter in a coherent way until Mattei Dogan's request for a paper on "Beyond Area Studies" -- text [1998a] -- led me to see how globalization could put both area studies and the social science disciplines in a fresh and more relevant context. Eventually, I hope to insert a discussion of more of these papers, but let me now talk about:

My interest in information systems for the social sciences arose in the UNESCO context. I had been working with UNESCO through the ISSC and our COCTA committee. In this context, Ali Kazancigil and others whom I knew at UNESCO also knew of my interests, including my background in library work. Consequently, when preparing for their Conference on Social Science Information that was held in Valescure, France, June 1974, they invited me to prepare a paper on Social Science Information Systems in the U.S. [1974b].

This inquiry put me in touch with several American centers and organizations promoting social science information: I joined the American Society for Information Science and attended some of their conferences; I joined an American delegation sponsored by the American Academy of Sciences to visit the USSR and establish working relations with INION, the Institute for Social Science Information attached to the Soviet Academy of Sciences; I co-organized, with Ingetraut Dahlberg, the North American Roundtable on Cooperation in Social Science Information, Minneapolis, 1979, to establish closer relations between U.S. and Canadian social science information centers; and I joined both the Dictionary Society of North America and its European counterpart, EURALEX.

While active in DSNA, I organized COLT, a Committee on Lexicographic Terminology, that studied the technical terminology used by lexicographers. My hope was that by joining forces with lexicographers, I could not only secure valuable technical assistance for my terminological work, but also recruit them as allies in promoting improved social science information. An impressive lexicographer whom I met at the CONTA conference in 1982 (see Chapter 4 ) was Henry Burger. His useful, conceptually organized dictionary of verbs The Wordtree is a pioneering work that overlaps with many of my concerns.

Among all those whom I met in this context, I owe special thanks to Ingetraut Dahlberg, a specialist on classification and the organization of knowledge, who not only helped our terminology group (COCTA) by publishing a newsletter for us for several years in her journal, International Classification (now called Knowledge Organization). In all these contexts, I tried to persuade information specialists that their interests would be well served by a program designed to reduce the ambiguity and proliferation of synonyms which hamper indexing and the distribution of social science information. At the same time, social scientists would benefit because they would be enabled to write more clearly and benefit from improved access to the relevant information they could secure through various indexing and retrieval services.

A practical test of these ideas came during 1969-73 when I organized and chaired a Committee on Research Materials on Southeast Asia, under the auspices of the Association for Asian Studies. There had previously been two groups in the AAA concerned with information problems -- one composed of the scholars writing about that region, and the other consisting of librarians and documentalists. Both were in a mood to re-organize and I suggested that they join forces so that authors could tell librarians about their problems, and the information people could get help from specialists on the area. CORMOSEA became a thriving organization and has carried out many excellent projects, although it never paid as much attention to terminological problems as I thought it should. You can get more information about its work by going to its Web Site at: CORMOSEA

On the basis of these various experiences, I have written several papers dealing with social science information: see: [89, 87, 81b, 78c, 76a, b, 74b, 58]. Looking back now, I see that my first publication relating to information problems was [1958]. It related to the difficulties faced by a special library in the Philippines in its effort to acquire government documents. I have discussed the reasons for this project in Chapter 3.

When time permits, I intend to add some comments about more of these papers. Here, however, let me close this chapter on miscellaneous themes. The careful reader will understand that they are all linked and flow out of my early experiences doing research in Thailand. I understood the need for a holistic framework that could draw on the resources of all the social sciences in order to create new concepts required if we are to understand the major transformations taking place throughout the world. For information about the new pespectives and resources that will increasingly become available, especially as global utilization of the INTERNET increases, we will need to re-conceptualize our information systems for the social sciences. All of this can be seen as part of a long-term developmental process in which we have been engrossed for the past half century, a process that has now led, for better or worse, to planetary globalization. As early as [1978c] I proposed the development of integrated information systems oriented to selected areas in which bibliographic and archival data, current research, reviews and abstracts, as well as terminological information needed for retrieval purposes, would be brought together. The subsequent rise of the INTERNET and its globally available facilities now makes such systems possible.

A small anecdote might illustrate this problem. Some years ago I happened to be in Paris working with a colleague from the Soviet Institute for Ethnographic Research. She told me she wanted to find a bookstore specializing on Russian materials -- I thought it was a silly idea because she would surely have access to much larger stores with such materials in Moscow. However, she persevered and we eventually found a large bookstore managed by the YMCA. She was right, of course, because she found many works written by Russians in diaspora that, she said, could not be found in Moscow nor would they be listed in Soviet information services. I thought at first they might all be anti-Soviet tracts, but it turned out most of the material had no ideological slant -- they were simply works published outside the Soviet Union that had not been reported by Russian information services.

I had a related experience some years ago when, working with Hesung Koh, a leading Sociologist on the staff of the Human Resources Area Files at Yale University, I attempted to establish an information service that would link research done in Korea with studies done in other countries, including research on the Koreans in diaspora. We were actually funded for a couple of years and had, I think, made good progress, but our inability to get our funding renewed led us to drop the project. It was not viewed as important because of the cleavage that existed between area specialists who wanted to look only at materials about Korea, and the ethnic studies community which viewed Koreans in America as a minority detached from their nation. The notion that Korean studies could link both of these domains, Koreans in and outside of Korea, apparently seemed preposterou because they had two different audiences. We failed in our effort to link these audiences.

Better integration of social science information will, I think, help us deal with all the themes covered in earlier chapters of this autobiographical narrative: comparative public administration and the prismatic model; ethnicity and ethnonational movements; constitutionalism and the important differences between presidentialist and parliamentarist regimes; and, most emphatically, an improved capacity to identify and represent relevant concepts. These themes are all linked in my own mind by interactive causal chains that form a seamless web, going back to my early childhood in China, and my subsequent years as a university student in America. Anyone interested in learning more about my work is invited to write me at: /mailto:fredr@hawaii.edu/

Links to Home Pages containing information relevant to Globalization can be found at Sites Other segments of this Page filed under ASSOC, LIBRARY, and ORG are also relevant to the topics discussed in this chapter -- go to the top or end of the Sites page to use the index.

CHECK-LIST of works by Riggs:

1999a. "The Malady of Modernity: Some Remedies" Toda Institute Policy Paper (in press). See Draft: draft

1999b. "Coping with Modernity: Constitutional Implications": UNESCO/MOST Discussion Paper. (In press) See original draft: Industrialism and and Nationalism

1998a.. "Beyond Area Studies." Paper for the International Sociological Congress, Montreal, July, 1998 draft

1998b. "Globalism, Diasporas and Area Studies." An earlier and different version of (1998a) draft: draft

1998c. "The Globalization of Social Science." The original text and a substantially revised version

1998d. "The Globalization of Governance, " A "postcard" for use at a Symposium of the American Society for Public Administration conference, 1998, Minneapolis, Minn..

1997a. "Coming to Terms with 'SOCIAL SCIENCE'": A Conceptual Scenario" Presented at IPSA/Seoul Congress, Aug. 1997. text

1997b. "Price Indeterminacy in a Meta-Prismatic (capitalist) Context" Presented at IPSA/Seoul Congress, Aug. 1997. text. An earlier draft was called: "Will it be Neo-Feudal? A Futurist Scenario"

1997c. "Modernity and Bureaucracy." Public Administration Review, Vol.57:4, pp. 347-353. This is an abridged version of a paper presented at a symposium honoring Dwight Waldo, the Maxwell School, Syracuse University, July 1996. The original draft was entitled "Para-Modernism and Bureau Power":

1996. "Korean Economic Growth in a Global Context: Cultural, Political and Administrative Aspects." Chung-hyun Ro, ed., Korea in the Era of Post-Development and Globalization. Seoul: Korea Institute of Public Administration. pp.153-220. Prepared for a conference at the Korea Institute for Public Administration, March 1995.

1994. "Thoughts about Neoidealism vs. Realism: Reflections on Charles Kegley's ISA Presidential Address, March 25, 1993." International Studies Notes, vol.19:1, pp. 1-6.

1990. "A Neoinstitutional Typology of Third World Politics." Contemporary Political Systems: Classifications and Typologies. Anton Bebler and James Seroka, eds. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

1989. "Information and Social Science: The Need for Onomantics." International Forum for Information and Documentation. Moscow: VINITI. 14:1, pp. 12-21. A later version was published in 1991 as "Delphic Language: A Problem for Authors and Indexers." Library Science: With a Slant to Documentation and Information Studies. Bangalore, India: Sarada Ranganathan Endowment for Library Science. 28:1. Pp. 18-30. The original paper was presented in New Delhi, Aug. 1986, at a lecture sponsored by the Ranganathan Endowment and the Indian Library Association.

1987. "Indigenous Concepts: A Problem for Social and Information Science." International Social Science Journal. 114. Pp. 607-617. Published later (1991) in Library Science: With a Slant to Documentation and Information Studies. Bangalore, India: Sarada Ranganathan Endowment for Library Science. 28:2. Pp. 43-57. The original paper was presented in New Delhi, Aug. 1986, at a lecture sponsored by the Ranganathan Endowment and the Indian Library Association.

1984. "Development" in Giovanni Sartori, ed. Social Science Concepts: A Systematic Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE. pp. 125-203. Translated into Italian and published as a monograph, as Sviluppo, Biblioteca di Cultura 286. Rome: Bulzone Editore, 1986.

1982. "Political Ecology, World System and Integration." Administrative Change. 8:1 (July-Dec. "1980") pp. 1-40.

1981a.. "The Rise and Fall of 'Political Development'," in Samuel Long, ed. The Handbook of Political Behavior. New York: Plenum Press. Vol.4. pp. 289-348.

1981b. "The Non-Politics of Social Science Information." P.S. American Political Science Association. 14:2. Pp. 264-267.

1981c. "On Reviewing International Studies: Some Comments." Journal of Higher Education. 52:2. Pp. 143-154.

1978a. Applied Prismatics. Kathmandu, Nepal: Center for Economic Development and Administration, Tribhuvan University. 181 pages. Based on lectures given in Nepal, 1973.

1978b. "Technology and Development." S. K. Sharma, ed. Dynamics of Development--An International Perspective. Delhi: Concept Pub. Co. Vol.II. pp. 1-16.

1978c. "INTARIS: The Need for Integrated Area-Oriented Information Systems." Bulletin of the International Association of Orientalist Librarians. 13. Pp. 25-28.

1976a. "Information Needs of Social Scientists: A Review Article." Library Quarterly. 46:3. Pp. 299-303.

1976b. With Erik Vajda and Pal Vasarhelyi. INTERCONCEPT : The Establishment of an Information System for Social Science Concepts and Terminology. Paris: UNESCO. [ISS/CONF.601/2 DEC. 1976. (26 pages). This report was prepared under a contract with UNESCO to provide background documentation for the "Meeting of Experts on INTERCONCEPT: Principles and Strategies" held in Paris form 9-11 May, 1977.

1975. Legislative Origins: A Comparative and Contextual Approach. Pittsburgh, PA: International Studies Association, Occasional Paper no.7. 79 pages.

1974a. Salience and Durability: On the Origins of National Elected Assemblies. Paper for a conference on legislative origins at the University of Hawaii, with the sponsorship of the University Consortium for Comparative Legislative Studies. April 1974.

1974b. "Social Science Information Systems: U. S. A." Paper for a meeting of experts on social science information sponsored by the Social Science Department of UNESCO, Valescure, France. June 1974. 15 pages.

1973. "Legislative Structures: Some Thoughts on Elected National Assemblies." in Allan Kornberg, ed. Legislatures in Comparative Perspective. NY: McKay. Based on a paper presented at a conference on legislatures, Duke University, Feb. 1970.

1971. Ed. International Studies. Report of a conference sponsored by the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Philadelphia: the Academy. Monograph 12. 271 pages.

1970a. "The Ecology of Development." Indian Administrative and Management Review. 22 (Sept.-Oct.) pp. 1-13. Originally distributed as CAG Occasional Paper, Sept. 1964. Reprinted in Development Debate, 1987. pp. 1-29.

1970b. "Systems Theory: Structural Analysis." Michael Haas and Henry Kariel, eds. Approaches to the Study of Political Science. Scranton, PA: Chandler Publishing Co. pp. 194-235.

1968a. "The Dialectics of Developmental Conflict," Comparative Political Studies. 1:2 (July). pp. 197-226. Reprinted in Robert Jackson and Michael Stein, eds. Issues in Comparative Politics. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1971.

1968b. "Political Aspects of Developmental Change.." Art Gallaher, Jr. ed. Perspectives in Developmental Change. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press. Pp. 130-171

1968c. "Administration and a Changing World Environment." Public Administration Review. 28"4. Pp. 348-361.

1967. "The Theory of Political Development," James C. Charlesworth, ed. Contemporary Political Analysis. New York: Free Press, 1967. pp. 317-349.

1966a. The Ambivalence of Feudalism and Bureaucracy in Traditional Societies. Bloomington, Ind. CAG Occasional Paper. 48 pages. First presented at the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Sept. 1964. Reprinted in The Chinese Journal of Administration. 8 (Jan. 1967). pp. 1-14, and (July 1967). pp. 1-19.

1966b. The Comparison of Whole Political Systems. Bloomington, Ind. CAG Occasional Paper. 43 pages. Prepared for a Seminar at the University of Minnesota, Center for Comparative Political Analysis. (Published in 1970 in Robert Holt and John Turner, eds. The Methodology of Comparative Research. New York: Free Press.).

1966c. Modernization and Political Problems: Some Developmental Prerequisites, Report of the International Conference on the Problems of Modernization in Asia, June 28-July 7, 1965. Seoul, Korea: Korea University, Asiatic Research Center. pp. 473-487. Reprinted in George O. Totten, ed. Developing Nations: The Quest for Models. New York: Van Nostrand, 1970. pp. 60-82.

1965. The Ecology of Development. Bloomington, Ind. CAG Occasional Paper. 38 pages.

1961a. "International Relations as a Prismatic System," World Politics. 14 (Oct.). pp. 144-181. Reprinted in Klaus Knorr and Sidney Verba, eds. The International System: Theoretical Essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp. 144-181.

1961b. A Model for the Study of Philippine Social Structure. Philippine Sociological Review. 8. Pp. 1-32.

1959. The Social Sciences and Public Administration. Philippine Journal of Public Administration. 3. Pp. 219-250.

1958. "A New Look at Government Documents." Bulletin of the Association of Special Libraries of the Philippines. Pp. 6-16.

Return to top of this page or click here for Home Page links:

Personal Autobio

Prism GRD

Globalization Concepts

Ethnicity ETHNIC-L

COCTA Onoma.

COVICO Choices

Impeach SITES

Search Engines

Updated: 18 July 1999