Conclusion

Diana Kim
{"title":"Conclusion","authors":"Diana Kim","doi":"10.23943/princeton/9780691172408.003.0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This concluding chapter reflects on the analytical and normative significance to this book's approach toward colonial bureaucracies and inner anxieties of the administrative state. Understanding this bureaucratic dynamic in the historical context of Southeast Asia provides a theoretical opportunity for scholars of colonialism and the modern state to rethink some basic assumptions about why and how rulers govern. The interrelated analytical and normative implications to this alternative understanding orients attention away from the loud hubris of power toward the quiet trepidations of those who govern. To begin by thinking along with welcome approaches to reconceptualizing the state in light of its complexity and “many hands, functions, and forms of power,” political scientists gain reason to assume less coherence behind motivations for bureaucratic projects that adjust and advance the state's fiscal reach. If there are context-specific regulatory histories and ambivalent administrative actors, then rationales for policies altering the scope of taxation and depth of social control must differ depending on how bureaucracies reflect on their own pasts and construct problems internally. It follows that retrospective assessments, ways of archiving official records, and interpretation by low-level administrators may define reasons that higher officials take for granted as imperatives for state action.","PeriodicalId":155593,"journal":{"name":"Empires of Vice","volume":"576 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Empires of Vice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23943/princeton/9780691172408.003.0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This concluding chapter reflects on the analytical and normative significance to this book's approach toward colonial bureaucracies and inner anxieties of the administrative state. Understanding this bureaucratic dynamic in the historical context of Southeast Asia provides a theoretical opportunity for scholars of colonialism and the modern state to rethink some basic assumptions about why and how rulers govern. The interrelated analytical and normative implications to this alternative understanding orients attention away from the loud hubris of power toward the quiet trepidations of those who govern. To begin by thinking along with welcome approaches to reconceptualizing the state in light of its complexity and “many hands, functions, and forms of power,” political scientists gain reason to assume less coherence behind motivations for bureaucratic projects that adjust and advance the state's fiscal reach. If there are context-specific regulatory histories and ambivalent administrative actors, then rationales for policies altering the scope of taxation and depth of social control must differ depending on how bureaucracies reflect on their own pasts and construct problems internally. It follows that retrospective assessments, ways of archiving official records, and interpretation by low-level administrators may define reasons that higher officials take for granted as imperatives for state action.
结论
这最后一章反映了本书对殖民官僚机构和行政国家内部焦虑的分析和规范意义。在东南亚的历史背景下理解这种官僚动态,为研究殖民主义和现代国家的学者提供了一个理论机会,让他们重新思考统治者为什么以及如何治理的一些基本假设。这种另类理解的相互关联的分析和规范含义,将人们的注意力从权力的高调傲慢转向了统治者的安静恐惧。首先,考虑到国家的复杂性和“多手、多职能、多形式的权力”,政治科学家有理由认为,调整和推进国家财政范围的官僚项目背后的动机不那么连贯。如果存在特定环境的监管历史和矛盾的行政行为者,那么改变税收范围和社会控制深度的政策的理由必须根据官僚机构如何反思自己的过去和内部构建问题而有所不同。由此可见,追溯性评估、官方记录的归档方式以及低级管理人员的解释,可能会定义高级官员理所当然地认为是国家行动必需的原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信