Chapter 4: Understanding Deviant Autocracies: Reintroducing Agency
4.4 Data Collection Method for Small-N Analysis
The archival method is used to collect data for case studies of Singapore (Chapter 5) and Hong Kong (Chapter 6). According to Kapiszewski et al. (2015), ‘national archives [are] “low-hanging fruit” – publicly available and located in places (e.g. archives and libraries) that are familiar and comfortable for academics. These qualities can make gathering such materials relatively easy, and immediately make progress’ (p. 165). I have visited archives in Hong Kong, Singapore and London from 2013 to 2015.16 Only
the National Archives in London, it turns out, provide the data required for this thesis. Documents in the archives in Hong Kong and Singapore have sometimes been destroyed by the governments (see Kapiszewski et al. 2015: 171); the remaining documents are mainly stored in London, the former colonial capital. Because the focus of the small-N analysis is the transitional period, I have relied primarily on the London archives, which contain important data on the interaction and decision making process among actors during this period. The data are also openly available to access due to the 30-year transfer rule (see Burnham et al. 2004: 202).
Regarding historical source materials, Lichtman and French (1978) provided a very refined categorisation: ‘Historians… usually refer to evidence produced at the time of the event as “primary”, and accounts written later as “secondary”… and tertiary source are “historical” accounts written afterward to reconstruct the event’ (p. 18). The small-N analysis here mainly relies on primary and tertiary sources. The primary source is mainly documents from the archives, and the tertiary source is memoirs of different actors in Hong Kong (Chung 2001; Lu 2009) and Singapore (Lee 1998) during the transitional period. This triangulation method is generally regarded as a valid approach to field research, as it ‘allows the strengths of the data gathered using one mode of collection to offset the weaknesses of those gathered using another’ (Kapiszewski et al. 2015: 158). It can also verify the validity of the data and
16 I visited National Archives of Singapore on 3-9 January 2014; Public Records Office in Hong Kong on
3-5 February 2014; and the National Archives in London three times in March 2013, July 2014 and June 2015.
127
fill in information gaps. Because sources are written by different actors with conflicting interests, it provides a holistic view of events.
I sampled archive data through careful advance planning. I visited the National Archives three times to apply for a reader ticket, identified relevant materials and collected data,17 staying near the National Archives from 1 to 10 July 2014 and 17 to
23 June 2015 collected the archive documents for Singapore and Hong Kong cases. Data were copied using professional digital cameras. I have adopted two strategies in my data collection. The first is a common practice of historically oriented social scientists: ‘ordering a series of events or processes chronologically and without gaps’ (Kapiszewski et al. 2015: 167). Another strategy is identifying a cut-off point (see Saunders 2010), i.e. the transitional period in Hong Kong before the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration and the independence of Singapore in 1965.
There are several advantages and disadvantages to archival research. The researcher can use this method to build theories, develop research questions, select cases, generate and test hypotheses, and illuminate causal processes and mechanisms (see Kapiszewski et al. 2015: 160-164). It also helps clarify the dilemmas and decisions of leaders (see Mahoney 2001). However, there are also limitations. First, archive data was not originally created for academic research. As Kapiszewski et al. (2015) note, ‘[t]he archives were not organized to fit your project!’ (p. 165). Second, the data may be biased. As Kapiszewski et al. (2015) stated, ‘such sources’ pre-existing nature means that they are remnants and artefacts that reflect the choices and interests of other scholars or cross-influences that often remain unknown to a researcher who pulls them from an archive box decades or centuries later’ (p. 157). In some extreme cases, for example in the context of authoritarian regimes such as China, there are biases in state-generated archives (see Chen 2010: 22; Stoler 2002: 108-109). To overcome these problems, I have read significant amounts of archive documents18 to
dig out the relevant data for analysis. I also adopted the triangulation method discussed above. In addition, I concur with Kapiszewski et al. (2015) that scholars must
17 From March to May 2014, preparation work have been done to search and identify relevant archives
information from the National Archive’s catalogue for the Hong Kong case; From February to April 2015, the same procedure was conducted to prepare for the Singapore case’s materials.
128
‘take any biases they encounter into account as they interpret the sources’ and ‘report them in their scholarship so that readers can also take them into consideration’ (p. 176). In short, archive data must be examined carefully and critically with reference to the historical context of the archives’ original creation, and cross checked with other material sources.
Conclusion
A more sophisticated and holistic analytical framework, the neo actor-based approach with supporting empirical evidence, is in my view needed for understanding the political development of deviant autocracies from three perspectives: elite negotiation, elite competition and state capacity. The existing actor-based approach focuses on the interaction of internal elites. While it is valuable for explaining democratic transition and consolidation, it is inadequate for understanding the non- transition to democracy among deviant autocracies in Asia. The neo actor-based approach solves this problem by considering a wider range of elites, including international and domestic actors. The British, as the former colonial master of Singapore and Hong Kong, had significant political and economic influence during the transitional period, i.e. the process of decolonisation and transfer of sovereignty. Another external actor, communist China, also shaped the resultant system due to the influence of the Chinese diaspora, China’s geopolitical influence in Asia and the ideological confrontations of the Cold War era.
The factionalisation of interest-oriented local elites in Hong Kong and Singapore has also played an important role in sustaining autocratic regimes. The period following the transfer of sovereignty became an arena for competition between colonial rulers, business elites associated with former rulers, external actor(s) involved in sovereignty disputes, local business and professional elites and opposition factions. The former colonial ruling elites and international actors had to decide which elite faction to support, to represent their perceived interests in the resultant system. They consequently empowered a specific group of local elite, so that it became the ruling
129
elite in post-transitional society. These empowered elites gained a robust coercive state capacity to protect the interests of different involved actors, in the form of institutional arrangements deterring potential challenges from the opposition and safeguarding the political domination of ruling elites.
This analytical framework for interaction between the major internal and external elites during transition aims to shed light on how elite competition shapes the state to protect their interests. The following chapters use archival data from Singapore and Hong Kong to examine how international actors interacted with local elites, and how the empowerment of post-transitional ruling elites led to coercive state capacity in the resultant system. It is expected that the domination of political power and a corresponding absence of limitations on rulers’ power has resulted in persistently non-democratic regimes.
130