Journal of International Development Studies
31(3), 5―8, 2023

DOI：10.32204/jids.31.3_5

Introduction to the Special Issue 1

Untranslatable Japanese Development Concepts
Jin Sato
Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia, The University of Tokyo
E-mail：satoj@ioc.u-tokyo.ac.jp

1. Why focus on the untranslatable ?
To what extent can concepts be transferred freely between countries and groups that speak
different languages? There are undoubtedly local concepts and words that are difficult to translate
into English, which makes such transfer particularly challenging. In Japanese, amae（甘え）is
one such example that resists a simple straightforward translation. If we dare to translate, itwould require a long and complicated explanation that draws in much contextual information:
emotional dependence or being spoiled, a uniquely Japanese need to be in good favor with, andbe able to depend on, the people above and around oneself（Doi １９８２）. Attempting to explain
why it is hard to translate opens up a promising avenue for understanding features of the culture
in question. This special issue is a reminder that development practice takes place in particular
cultural and contextual settings that requires communication between the providers and recipientsof ideas.
Before delving into the question of semantics, it is valuable to differentiate this approachfrom the question of power. Bourdieu argued long ago that language is not only an instrumentof communication or even of knowledge, but also an instrument of power （Bourdieu １９７７, p.
６４８）. In the colonial context, the question of language and power has been addressed intensely.
Forced assimilation through language imposition was an important instrument for the colonizers
such as France and Japan to exercise their influence（Caprio ２００９）. Even today, some authors
problematize the hegemonic status of English and French in the context of foreign aid. Vitantonio argues that languages spoken in the Global North are often used when creating manual
guidelines for development and humanitarian sectors without local translations. This has the effect of excluding certain locals from accessing aid privileges, and burdening local implementors
to take care of the impossible task of translating （Vitantonio ２０２２）.
But suppose we try to translate non-English concepts into English, what do we lose in theprocess? I ask this because the theory and practice of development are often seen to ignore national and cultural boundaries as though ideas born in one place can be easily exported to theother. This is especially so in the context of foreign aid which is, by definition, a cross bordertransaction. We often talk about whether a lesson learned in one country can be applied to another. Questions are even raised between ethnic groups and cultures within a country. Yet theirfrequent designation as pilots betrays an underlying assumption that they can, and most likelyⒸ２０２３ The Japan Society for International Development All rights reserved.

6Jin Sato： Untranslatable Japanese Development Concepts

will, be replicated in other areas.
The development industry is awash with apparently borderless jargons: advocacy, capacity
development, empowerment, impact, technical assistance, etc. These concepts are used widely
across cultures. However, few have questioned how such terms play out differently in different
contextual settings. Moreover, how a concept is understood has intimate relations to action andhow ideas are implemented on the ground. Differences in terms are not only a matter of semantics. They have substantial practical implications.
What we need instead is an inside out approach that begins with the vernacular understandings of concepts, giving agency and voice to non-English speaking locals, while remaining
committed to engaging with English speaking audiences（Sato and Sonoda ２０２１）.

2. Why Japan?
Japan provides a powerful context from which to raise such questions for three reasons. １）
Japan is the first a non-English speaking country that has achieved the status of a top donor in
the realm of Official Development Assistance（ODA）in the １９８０s. Although some scholarly investigations have emerged to critically examine the hegemonic role of English in the field of development studies（e.g., Erling and Seargeant ２０１３）, studies of the international role of nonEnglish development concepts are yet to be seen, ２）Japan is the first country that adopted thefull range of Western practices, including not only technologies but also values and institutions.
Its success in Westernization has allowed Japan to serve as an archetype of theory, illustrating what mainstream development should look like. And ３）Japan has become an advanced
knowledge economy with resources to invest in knowledge creation. Japan has thus contributed
greatly to development related concepts in both theory and practice, and has thus played the role
as a leader in Asia.
Japan was exposed to rapid Westernization in the late １９th century with much struggle andconfusion in its search for self-identity. One of the earliest commentators on Japanese development was the famous novelist Natsume Sōseki, who deplored how Japan s civilization was being
driven externally by the West. He refers poignantly to the haste of Westernization: It is like sitting at a dinner table and having once dish after another set before us and then taken away soquickly that, far from getting a good taste of each one, we can t even enjoy a clear look at what
is being served （Natsume １９９２［１９１１］, p. ２７８）.
In the process of Westernization, scholarly emphasis has always been on adoption and domestication of foreign ideas. However, borrowing, and its concomitant translating of ideas
from English into Japanese, was only one dimension of this complex process. Howland（２００１）
looks beyond the realm of language toward the realm of action. The creation and circulation of
new concepts offered new meanings to inform programs and policies of modernization. Yet, although Howland deals with the international migration of concepts, he discusses Japan solely asa passive recipient.
Countries in Asia have mostly been treated as reactionary recipients of Western ideas.
This tendency obscures two critical and related questions: １）how do local appropriations and interpretations of foreign concepts occur through their translation, and ２）how do such localized
concepts, in turn, spread to broader international settings and shape the knowledge market.
Whilst development has proven one of the most central and international doctrines ofcivilization through the ２０th century, it is rarely acknowledged that many key original ideas cameto Asia from the West earlier in the １９th century. As illustrated by Shimada s paper in this issue,
kaizen（improvement）, has developed into business operations on the ground to eliminate waste

Journal of International Development Studies Vol. ３１, No. ３, ２０２３

7and redundancies. It was brought from the US during the occupation period after WW２, adopted
and expanded by Toyota, and is now entering Africa as an important Japanese concept in theglobal development context. To the contrary, the dramatic withdrawal of the US from Afghanistan in August ２０２１ after more than ２０ years of infusing concepts such as private property, human rights and democracy leave us pondering how far ostensibly universal concepts can penetrate into foreign lands.

3. Overview of the Special Issue
This special issue considers Japan s role as a contributor of development ideas. By focusing
on key concepts of development that emerged in Japan in the process of modernization in the１９th and early-２０th century, and during its engagement as an aid donor after WW２, it explores theextent to which culturally nuanced concepts are created and contested in Japan, and translated
and adapted in Asia and beyond. Again, our focus is not merely on the semantics of words but
more on the different expectations and meanings attached to developmental terms which can invite international misunderstanding and conflict. Using Sōseki s analogy, it seeks to taste someof the dishes that have been cooked domestically. It examines pre-existing concept or locally invented concepts, some of which have travelled beyond Japan to other neighboring countries andeven to Africa.
This special issue is an in-depth investigation into the evolution of indigenous concepts, examining their emergence, translation and adaption through time and place amidst the process ofdevelopment itself. The examination of developmental concepts that have successfully took rootin foreign lands offers insights into how culturally unique inventions can travel beyond nationalborders. What happens through the process of such translations? What is lost and what is gained
when ideas are initially imported from the West, domesticated, and subsequently exported outward again?
We highlight six key concepts that are prevalent in the Japanese lexicon of developmentthat are hard to translate. They are by no means exhaustive but they do represent key local concepts that are widely used in contemporary development discussion not only in Japan but somein China, Korea, and in Africa. They are kaizen（改善, improvement）by Go Shimada; naihatsuteki-hatten（内発的発展, endogenous development）by Kanako Omi; yen-shakkan（円借款,yen loans）by Hiroaki Shiga; san-mi-it-tai（三位一体, the trinity of trade, investment, and aid）
by Muyun Wang; hito-zukuri（人づくり, human resources development）by Noriyuki Hashimoto, and genba-shugi（現場主義, hands-on approach）by Naoki Matsubara.
Development practice often produces impacts and repercussions that go beyond what one
would imagine from the concepts that describe its features. It is precisely for this reason that themileage of development ideas requires scrutiny. Practitioners use such ideas and concepts tojustify their actions by（re-）
purposing the meanings of those ideas. We believe that untranslatable local concepts are key to understanding how development is understood in local contexts
where such concepts are translated into action. More importantly, it provides a promising avenue
for democratizing the development industry itself.
On the one hand, this special issue is structured around key concepts that can be understoodonly in reference to the particular conversation that has unfolded or is unfolding within Japan,
with Asia and with the West. However, in times when other non-Western development donors
are rising, most eminently China, the discussion on the transferability of development concepts
will provide readers with theoretical tools designed to pursue a global perspective on development through a local lens.

8Jin Sato： Untranslatable Japanese Development Concepts

References
Bourdieu, Pierre. １９７７. The Economics of Linguistic Exchanges. Social Science Information.
Vol. １６. No. ６. pp. ６４５―６６８.
Caprio, Mark. ２００９. Japanese Assimilation Policies in Colonial Korea, １９１０―１９４５ . Seattle:
University of Washington Press.
. The Anatomy of Dependence. New York: Kodansha America.
Doi, Takeo. １９８２［１９７１］
Erling, Elizabeth J., and Philip Seargeant. ２０１３. English and Development: Policy, Pedagogy
and Globalization. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Howland, Douglas R. ２００１. Translating the West: Language and Political Reason in NineteenthCentury Japan. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
. The Civilization of Modern-day Japan. Kokoro a Novel andNatsume, Sōseki. １９９２［１９１１］
Selected Essays（translated by Edwin McClellan）. pp. ２５７―２８３. Seattle: Madison Books.
Sato, Jin, and Shigeto Sonoda. ２０２１. Asian Studies Inside-out : A Research Agenda for theDevelopment of Global Asian Studies. International Journal of Asian Studies. Vol. １８. No.
２. pp. ２０７―２１６. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479591421000140
Vitantonio, Carla. ２０２２. The Relationship Between Language and Neocolonialism in the AidIndustry. DEVPOLICYBLOG. https://devpolicy.org/language-and-neocolonialism-in-the-aid-industry20220530/（May ３０, ２０２２）.