Association for Public Policy Analysis & Management

My quantitative analysis displays whether or not each ethnic group is represented by a nation state or shared by multiple states. In developmental states as exemplars of strong states and historic states, each state and each nation has a one-to-one correspondence, such as the Japanese state for Japanese people. Meanwhile, in weak states with fragmented societies—although they were historic and non-immigrant states—ethnic groups are dispersed across several states, while their states do not create their own national identity. In this research, not only the introduction of nationalism indicators, such as national integration and linguistic integration, but also social network analysis focus on how to conceptualize nationalism and how to measure nationalism.

As for postwar state building, nationalism created strong states with strong state capacities for economic growth and redistribution in East Asia and Europe, while it did not in other regions. In postwar state building, strong nationalism has been evolved under endless interstate competitions. War is destructive in substance, but it made East Asia evolve into strong states through land reforms as the postwar process. In this paper, nationalism is measured as near-perfect national homogeneity, which is homogenization of multiple ethnic groups into one nation. Because national homogeneity implies that several ethnic groups are integrated into one national group under common national identity, it is considered as national integration. In this paper, national integration is national homogeneity as a logic of quantification. Japan could have maintained its strong mobilization system and militarism despite its large population. Two Koreas have survived and retained national identity, while they have been surrounded with the hostile, greedy great powers throughout their long history.