Bibliographic record
Abstract
How the welfare state and capitalism coexist is an enduring and highly contentious research question. According to Margarita Estevez-Abe, Japan's welfare state is not easily classified in standard, comparative ways. Despite relatively modest government social spending and benefit levels, for decades the country achieved an egalitarian form of capitalism. Existing theories have been unable to explain the Japan puzzle, we are warned, the odd combination of equality, meager redistributive social spending, and extensive protection from market risk without heavy taxes and massive government expenditures. Yet, recent shifts in welfare policies make explanation all the more urgent. The major purpose of this study is to provide a new theory of the welfare state using Japan as the major case study. Estevez-Abe's argument is that orthodox welfare policies in Japan are used in combination with a wide range of functionally equivalent and highly targeted programs of social protection that until recently resulted in a sort of ‘egalitarianism'. The combination of policy tools, she argues, is best explained by the structural logic of a rational-choice model of election results in combination with theories of veto politics. Through the lens of the model, the author traces the postwar origin and development of social protection policy during the country's ‘miracle’ days of equity with growth. Even in times of economic stress and waves of institutional reform in the 1970s, the regime of social protection remained in place protecting citizens, organizations, and communities from the free workings of the marketplace.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".