Network Structures: Working Differently and Changing Expectations

There is a growing need for innovative methods of dealing with complex, social problems. New types of collaborative efforts have emerged as a result of the inability of more traditional bureaucratic hierarchical arrangements such as departmental programs to resolve these problems. Network structures are one such arrangement that is at the forefront of this movement. Although collaboration through network structures establishes an innovative response to dealing with social issues, there remains an expectation that outcomes and processes are based on traditional ways of working. It is necessary for practitioners and policy makers alike to begin to understand the realities of what can be expected from network structures in order to maximize the benefits of these unique mechanisms.     

United States Public Response to Terrorism: Fault Lines or Bedrock?1

We test traditional assumptions about the volatility of mass opinion in times of national crises using data about views of terrorism from national surveys of the United States general public in 1995 and 1997, findings from a national survey immediately following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), and panel data from a follow‐up survey in 2002. We compare public assessments of the threat of terrorism, willingness to restrict speech to prevent terrorism, support for employing conventional military force against countries that support terrorism, and levels of certainty about culpability required prior to using military force. Results show stable and measured public views prior to 9/11, immediately following the events of that date, and in the subsequent year. Our findings support democratic and modernist theories of public capacities while challenging long‐standing traditional precepts about widespread volatility of mass public opinion.     

Devolving Authority and Expanding Autonomy in Japanese Prefectures and Municipalities

The English-language scholarship generally describes Japan as a centralized developmental state. However, while "developmentalism" does describe Japan's strategic economic approach, "centralized" no longer accurately depicts its spatial development process. This article argues that local autonomy is not equivalent in Japan, but rather, varies based upon a jurisdiction's population size and economic base. Large cities, important employment centers, and heavily populated prefectures have greater authority and influence than do smaller, less affluent communities. This article also asserts that the role prefectures play in the development planning process has been greatly undervalued. It then concludes that this combination of factors suggests that today's Japanese State is something more complex than the term "centralized" connotes.