This article was translated by JIIA from Japanese into English as part of a research project
to promote academic studies on Japan’s diplomacy. JIIA takes full responsibility for the translation of this article.
To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your personal use and research,please contact JIIA by e-mail (jdl_inquiry@jiia.or.jp).
Citation: Japan’s Diplomacy Series, Japan Digital Library,
http://www2.jiia.or.jp/en/digital_library/japan_s_diplomacy.php

The Evolution of Japan’s Perspective and Policies on Asia
—A review of literature with a focus on the White Paper on
International Economy and Trade from 2001 onward—*
Akira Suehiro

I. Periodization and Themes
1. Five Periods
Postwar Japan’s economic relations with Asia can be broadly divided into five periods.
The first period (1957-1970) spans the 14 years starting from the Kishi administration’s proactive
engagement with Asia in the late 1950s through to the end of the 1960s. The three key terms defining thisperiod were “compensation,” “economic cooperation” and “economic development.” In this period, theJapanese government adopted an overseas development assistance policy that packaged together compensation and economic cooperation, assisting economic development in Southeast Asia. The underlying aim was to promote economic growth in Southeast Asia as a means of expanding Japan’s merchandise
exports to the region as well as securing access to natural resources. The other key player during thisperiod was of course the United States. US engagement with the region took the form of economic assistance, and the Southeast Asian nations were able to use those funds to import industrial goods fromJapan. A major feature of the period was consequently the way in which the national goals of Japan (postwar economic recovery) and of Southeast Asia (economic development) converged around the containment policy of the US.1
At this time, however, Japan’s direct investment in Asia was still limited, only really taking off after
capital liberalization was phased in over 1971 to 1973. Capital liberalization meant Japan both allowing
in foreign capital with an eye to returning to the international community, as well as relaxing regulations
on the overseas expansion of Japanese firms.
Capital liberalization signaled the point of embarkation for the second period (1971-1984), which
saw Japan and the Asian newly-industrializing countries (NICs; later known as the Asian newly-industrialized economies, or NIEs) rise to prominence in the world economy after the two oil crises in the
1970s. Following full capital liberalization, there was a surge in Japanese foreign direct investment (FDI),
particularly investment directed toward Asia.2 However, the rapid expansion of Japanese companies into
Asia provoked strong opposition, symbolized by several incidents such as the anti-Japan movement inThailand in 1973-74 and the riots in Indonesia triggered by Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka’s visit there in
January 1974.3 Keidanren (the Japan Business Federation) and other business associations responded by* This article was originally published as 末廣昭「日本のアジア認識・政策の変容―二〇〇一年以降の『通商白書』を中心として」宮城大蔵編『戦後アジアの形成と日本』北岡伸一監修、歴史の中の日本政治 5、中央公論新社、2014年、245-286頁.

1

creating codes of business ethics for companies establishing operations overseas, seeking to avoid antiJapan protests and localize management in those countries in which Japanese companies were investing.
The 1970s was also a time of rapid economic growth for the Asian NICs as government export-oriented industrialization strategies realized a significant upswing in their exports of industrial goods to the
US. This period could consequently be characterized by the terms “offshore business expansion,” “antiJapan movements” and “Asian NICs.”
The third period (1985-1997) was marked by a second surge in direct investment from Japan triggered by the 1985 Plaza Accord. This intervention by the G5 to adjust the value of the yen resulted in
rapid yen appreciation, adding impetus to the shift of Japanese manufacturers into Asia and generating
an investment rush. The investment rush in turn spurred investment by the Asian NIEs as well as local
firms’ investment, giving rise to an economic boom in Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and elsewhere in
Asia as of the late 1980s. However, that economic boom prompted speculative stock and land investment,
and the early 1990s saw the emergence of an economic bubble which then peaked out in the mid-1990s,
devolving into the 1997 Asian financial crisis.4 Economic relations between Japan and Southeast Asia
deepened significantly during this third period, while the US too played a major role in the Southeast
Asian economic boom through the provision of markets and capital. Terms defining this period wereaccordingly “investment rush,” “economic boom” and “Asian financial crisis.”
In the fourth period (1998-2007), Japan reacted to the Asian financial crisis by launching independent and comprehensive engagement with Asia. It was independent in the sense that Japan responded tothe crisis-stricken Asian nations not by acting in concert with the US but rather by extending a massive
amount of economic assistance of its own design, exemplified by the New Miyazawa Initiative.5 Further,while 2002 through 2003 found the Japanese economy in the midst of a long-term recession that prompted
the Koizumi administration to initiate the top-down style structural reform, those same two years represented a time when, at least in terms of its Asia policy, Japanese initiative was strongly in evidence.
Specific examples of that initiative include Koizumi’s proposal of “an East Asian community” inSingapore in January 2002; establishment of the Board on Comprehensive ODA (Official Development
Assistance) Strategy in June the same year; the creation in August 2003 of a new ODA Charter whichclearly positioned Asia as a strategic region; the January 2003 announcement by then-Keidanren
Chairman Hiroshi Okuda (Toyota Motor Corporation Chairman) of the Okuda Vision, which declaredthat Japan had to be prepared to coexist with East Asia; and a special Japan-ASEAN summit meeting heldin December 2003 in Tokyo.
The comprehensive aspect of the engagement reflected Japan’s new perception of its relationshipwith the Asian countries not as the traditional sheaf of bilateral relations, but rather as one region, or as
East Asia.6 Previously, the tendency had been to view the Asia-Pacific with the Japan-US partnership at
its heart as the strategic region for Japan, as emerges in the Pacific Rim Cooperation Initiative (KanTaiheiyo Rentai Koso) advanced by the Ohira administration. Another important point was that thisimage of East Asia included as key actors not only the Asian NIEs and Southeast Asia—important economic partners for Japan since the 1970s—but also China, which was by then experiencing phenomenal
economic growth. “East Asia,” “regional cooperation” and “the rise of China” could therefore be identified as the terms epitomizing this period.
The fifth period, comprising 2008 onward, has been dominated by the new relationship between
Japan and Asia following the 2008 global financial crisis which began in the US when Lehman Brothers
filed for bankruptcy. While the crisis impacted heavily on Europe, the US, Japan and Asia, it was those
Asian nations other than Japan, and particularly the emerging Asian countries (China and India), which2have recovered rapidly and moved forward to play a critical role as the world’s economic growth engine.7
The Japan-Asia relationship during this period has been changing: Japan can no longer expect tomaintain single-handed dominance over the region; it has become strongly recognized that Japan’s futurelies with the emerging Asian countries, and the economic linkages between East Asia and the US havebeen reconfirmed, foregrounding the Asia-Pacific once more as a strategic region. The repositioning of
the Asia-Pacific as a strategic region for the first time since the 1970s has also been strongly influenced
by China’s expansionary foreign policy and the concomitant heightening of tension between Japan and
China over issues such as territory, prompting renewed recognition in Japan and the US that bolstering
their partnership would serve both their interests.8 Key words for this period have accordingly been
“global financial crisis,” “emerging Asian countries” and “return to the Asia-Pacific.”

2. Research Objectives
Given these five time periods, how should we approach the evolution of Japan’s perspective and policies
on Asia? One method would be to track in chronological order the content of the Prime Minister’s policy
speeches and the foreign and trade policies announced by the government. However, policy speeches
and other such public statements are often couched in deliberately ambiguous terms, making it difficult
to identify the actual policy or political intentions. Even in the case of the foreign policies and trade policies announced by the government, deducing the perspective on Asia underlying these policies would
require tracing the discussion process leading up to policy formation, undisclosed internal materials
included.
In this paper, the White Paper on International Economy and Trade, published annually by the
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI; up until 2000, the Ministry of International Trade andIndustry, or MITI), is used as basic data on the grounds that it not only reflects to some extent the directionality of the external economic policies of the administration of the time, but also draws extensively
on reports from study groups formed by MITI/METI, proposals from the business associations and theresults of academic research on Asia (differing in that sense from the Diplomatic Bluebook). Examiningreferences to Asia in the White Paper and the changing ratio of these will also offer a numerical indication of the extent of interest in Asia borne by MITI/METI and other economic bureaucrats, as well as thecharacteristics of their understanding of the region.
This paper is structured as follows.
Part II notes Asia’s changing weight in the world economy and overviews the evolution of economic
relations between Japan and East Asia using data on exports and direct investment from1996 onward.
Part III goes on to examine whether there are any Asia references in three white papers—the Economic
Survey of Japan, the White Paper on the World Economy, and the White Paper on International Trade—in
the 1980s and 90s, and if so, considers the content of those references. As of 2001, the scope is narrowed
to changes in the ratio of Asia-related references in the White Paper on International Economy and Trade.
Part IV looks more closely at the content of the White Paper on International Economy and Trade, specifically key terms used in the White Paper as analytic concepts, changes in those strategic regions emphasized by the White Paper (such as East Asia), changes in the analytical approaches to understanding theEast Asian economy (trilateral trade and the cross-border division of production processes, the development of production networks, etc.), and changes in regional cooperation concepts and frameworks (openregionalism, an East Asian business zone, wide-ranging infrastructure development, etc.). In short, MITI/
METI is foregrounded as a means of tracing the trajectory of Japanese perspectives and policies on Asia.
Finally, Part V summarizes findings and considers future scenarios.

3II. Asia in the World Economy, Japan-East Asia Economic Relations
1. Asia in the World Economy
Table 1 uses three indices—nominal GDP (PPP: purchasing power parity), steel production and automobile production—to examine how the weight of the Asian region in the world economy has changed andcompare it with North America and Europe (EU members). Starting with nominal GDP, Asia’s sharejumped from 8.9 percent in 1980 to 23.7 percent in 1990, reaching 28.0 percent in 2000. Since 1990,
North America and Europe have both lost ground, while within Asia, China has surged to the fore even
as Japan has fallen back. China’s nominal GDP surpassed Japan’s in 2010 to position it as the world’s
second largest economic power after the US. When it comes to PPP, however, note that China had actually already moved past Japan back as early as 2002.
The second point emerging from the nominal GDP trends in Table 1 is that Asia gained significant
share following the global financial crisis, reaching 35.1 percent in 2011. The table reveals that the emerging Asian countries staged a remarkable economic recovery after the crisis, driving forward the recoveryof the world economy. Further, while it is not shown here, export value has traced the same trajectory,
with Asia’s share moving from 17 percent in 1980 to 23 percent in 1990, 29 percent in 2000, 30 percent in2008, and 34 percent in 2011.
What should be noted from Table 1 is Asia’s dominance not just in terms of nominal GDP and trade
trends but also more evidently in indices for major manufacturing industries. Taking the steel industry
as an example, the major steel-producing countries in 1980 were the Soviet Union, Japan and the US.
However, the Soviet Union and the US subsequently lost the bulk of their share, and while the world’s
largest steel company ArcelorMittal S.A. (headquartered in Luxembourg) is included in the figure forEurope, its management rights have been transferred to India’s Mittal Group. The most significant
advance has been demonstrated by China thanks to robust steel production for the domestic market,
with the Chinese share rising from 14.8 percent in 1998 to 46.3 percent in 2012. Further, in 2012, 24 of
the 50 top iron and steel producers were in fact Chinese.
Much the same pattern emerges in auto production. The three major markets were traditionally
North America, Europe and Japan, accounting for more than 80 percent of world production. However,China’s automobile production has soared in the 2000s, to the point that it reached the same scale ofJapan plus North America in 2011. Industry forecasts suggest that Chinese production will top 25 million vehicles in 2015, which, when India is added in, will take Asia’s share to around 60 percent for theyear.
This new prominence of China, India and other emerging Asian countries has redrawn the economic map of the Asian region, shifting the economic gravity within the region from Japan to China.9
This is indicated by the slump in Japan’s share in nominal GDP and manufacturing and China’s rising
share, but manifests particularly clearly in the way that the value of trade (total exports and imports)
between China and Southeast Asia (the 10 ASEAN member nations) topped that between Japan andSoutheast Asia in 2008, with the former reaching US$362.8 billion, 1.4 times the US$255.4 billion
recorded by the latter, in 2011 (in 2000, the figure for trade between China and ASEAN was US$35 billion, between Japan and ASEAN US$127.7 billion). For many East Asian countries, their biggest trading
partner is no longer the US or Japan but rather China.

4

Table 1. Asia in the World Economy 1980-2011/12(1) Nominal GDP (PPP: purchasing power parity)

(US$ billion, %)Asia
Subtotal

Japan

China

India

North
America

12,250

2,278

996

245

294

3,039

3,618

1990

25,513

6,036

2,373

902

763

6,294

6,930

2000

42,441

11,899

3,295

2,988

1,610

10,775

10,585

2008

71,73422,856

4,289

8,215

3,407

15,522

15,9402011

81,17728,487

4,383

11,3794,534

16,492

16,441

1980

48.0

8.9

3.9

1.0

1.2

11.9

14.2

1990

100.0

23.7

9.3

3.5

3.0

24.7

27.2

2000

100.0

28.0

7.8

7.0

3.8

25.4

24.9

2008

100.0

31.9

6.0

11.5

4.7

21.6

22.2

2011

100.0

35.1

5.4

14.0

5.6

20.3

20.3

Year

World

1980

(2) Steel Production

Europe(Million metric tons, %)Asia
Subtotal

Japan

China

India

North
America

Europe

716

161

111

37

9.5

117

142

1998

777

298

94

115

23.5

115

160

2012

1,548

1,013

107

717

77

102

169

1980

100.0

22.5

15.5

5.2

1.3

16.3

19.8

1998

100.0

38.4

12.1

14.8

3.0

14.8

20.6

2012

100.0

65.4

6.9

46.3

5.0

6.6

10.9

Year

World

1980

(3) Automobile Production

(1,000 units, %)Asia
Subtotal

Japan

China

India

North
America

38,495

11,166

11,042

222

n.a.

9,380

11,2691998

52,355

14,396

10,041

1,628

n.a.

14,576

19,541

2011

80,09340,4008,400

18,4193,936

10,787

17,698

1980

100.0

29.0

28.7

0.6

n.a.

24.4

29.3

1998

100.0

27.5

19.2

3.1

n.a.

27.8

37.3

2011

100.0

50.4

10.5

23.0

4.9

13.5

22.1

Year

World

1980

EuropeNote: Asia comprises the total for East Asia, the Pacific, and South Asia. Europe comprises European Union (EU) member
countries as at 2011.
Sources:
1. PPP: World Bank, World Development Indicators 2012 Online
2.Steel production: International Iron and Steel Institute (IISI) statistics; The Japan Iron and Steel Federation, Handbook
for Iron and Steel Statistics
3.Automobile production: Organisation Internationale des Constructeurs d’Automobiles (OICA) statistics; Fourin, Inc.,
World Automotive Industry Yearbook 20115

2. Trends in Japan’s Exports and Direct Investment by Region
Next we turn to trends in Japan’s exports and direct investment by main region and country for theperiod from 1996 prior to the Asian financial crisis through 2011. Table 2 deals with exports.
As is clear from this table, until the 1997 Asian financial crisis, Japan’s exports to Asia accounted for42.1 percent of its total world exports, well above the 27.5 percent directed to the US and 15.6 percent to
the EU. The financial crisis saw Asia’s share plunge briefly and then stage a sharp recovery to 46.7 percent
of Japan’s world exports in 2005, rising further after the global financial crisis to 52.8 percent in 2011. In
terms of change in share from 2000 to 2011, the US’ share in Japan’s exports experienced the largest
drop—14.4 percentage points—while exports to the EU too fell 4.7 percentage points. In sharp contrast,
exports to Asia rose by more than 13 percentage points, predominantly the result of more exports to
China. Following the global financial crisis, trade evinced an Asia shift even more pronounced thanduring the investment rush at the beginning of the 1990s.
This same Asia shift phenomenon emerges in Table 3, which deals with trends in direct investment
or FDI by main regions. Trends in direct investment can be examined in two ways: by stock or by flow.
However, in the case of annual flow, while the figure for North America includes reinvestment of profits
by Japanese companies investing there, this reinvestment is not included in the Asian figure. As a result,whether in manufacturing or finance, flow data ends up underestimating Asia’s importance.10 Accordingly,
Table 3 uses stock data (outstanding direct investment).
Table 3 reveals that direct investment in Asia fell from 30.6 percent of Japan’s world total as at theend of 1996 to 17.6 percent at the end of 2000. This was the result of many manufacturing firms andfinancial institutions pulling out of Asia or reducing their investment scale in response to the Asianfinancial crisis. However, the Asian countries’ V-shaped recovery from the crisis, combined with newinterest among Japanese companies in moving offshore as a way out of the long-running domestic recession and concomitant low profits, saw Japanese firms again making strong inroads into Asia as of around2005. The upward trajectory of the yen since the global financial crisis in particular has prompted a swift
rise in the establishment of Japanese business operations in Asia.
Looking at the change in the share of Japanese exports by region from 2000 to 2011, investment inNorth America plummeted by 19.8 percentage points while Asia’s share conversely rose 9.1 percentage
points. Investment in Europe lifted only by 3.6 percentage points. The March 2011 Great East Japan
Earthquake and the strong yen have pushed direct investment in Asia (Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam andIndia, etc.) up steeply as of 2012, and by 2015 Asia should outstrip North America to become the biggest
recipient of Japanese direct investment.
Table 2. Trends in Japanese Exports by Region and Country 1996-2011

(US$100 million, %)Region/country

1996

2000

2005

2008

2011

Total world (value)
Total East Asia
China
NIEs 4ASEAN 10
India
United States
EU

4,113
1,732
218
1,003
719
24
1,132
642

4,807
1,891
304
1,150
687
25
1,429
785

5,982
2,794
803
1,455
761
35
1,349
880

7,759
3,631
1,240
1,711
1,028
79
1,362
1,094

8,208
4,331
1,615
1,865
1,227
110
1,257
954

6

2011/2008(scale factor)*
1.06
1.19
1.30
1.09
1.19
1.39
0.92
0.87

Region/country

1996

2000

2005

2008

2011

Region/country

1996

2000

2005

2008

2011

Total world (%)
Total East Asia
China
NIEs 4ASEAN 10
India
United States
EU

100.0
42.1
5.3
24.4
17.5
0.6
27.5
15.6

100.0
39.3
6.3
23.9
14.3
0.5
29.7
16.3

100.0
46.7
13.4
24.3
12.7
0.6
22.6
14.7

100.0
46.8
16.0
22.1
13.2
1.0
17.6
14.1

100.0
52.8
19.7
22.7
14.9
1.3
15.3
11.6

2011/2008(scale factor)*
2011-2000(share change)*
0.0
13.5
13.4
-1.2
0.6
0.8
-14.4
-4.7

Note: The NIEs 4 comprise Hong Kong, Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. Singapore also is included in the ASEAN 10.
Source: JETRO website, Japan’s Trade Statistics by Region and Country (http://www.jetro.go.jp/world/japan/stats/trade/)
Table 3. Trends in Japan’s Outstanding FDI by Region and Country 1996-2011

(US$ million, %)Region/country

End 1996

End 2000

End 2005

End 2008

End 2011

Total world (value)
Total Asia
China
NIEs 4ASEAN 10
India
North America
United States
EuropeLatin America

258,653
79,151
8,098
28,32853,246785
97,881
94,33647,71911,981

279,445
49,311
8,699
23,15324,996
1,171
138,455
132,22256,78921,020388,197
88,187
24,65532,70840,4781,802
156,189
150,152
94,27733,064

683,872
159,570
49,002
52,23767,6549,440
234,957
226,611
165,435
90,794

964,651
257,755
83,37978,579110,954
15,416286,176
275,504
231,001
122,223

Region/country

End 1996

End 2000

End 2005

End 2008

End 2011

Total world (%)
Total Asia
China
NIEs 4ASEAN 10
India
North America
United States
EuropeLatin America

100.0
30.6
3.1
11.0
20.6
0.3
37.8
36.5
18.4
4.6

100.0
17.6
3.1
8.3
8.9
0.4
49.5
47.3
20.3
7.5

100.0
22.7
6.4
8.4
10.4
0.5
40.2
38.7
24.3
8.5

100.0
23.3
7.2
7.6
9.9
1.4
34.4
33.1
24.2
13.3

100.0
26.7
8.6
8.1
11.5
1.6
29.7
28.6
23.9
12.7

2011/2008(scale factor)*
1.41
1.62
1.70
1.50
1.64
1.63
1.22
1.22
1.40
1.35
2011-2000(share change)*
0.0
9.1
5.5
-0.2
2.6
1.2
-19.8
-18.7
3.6
5.2

Note: The NIEs 4 comprise Hong Kong, Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. Latin America includes the Cayman Islands,
Panama and other tax haven regions.
Source: JETRO website, Japan’s Outward and Inward Foreign Direct Investment (http://www.jetro.go.jp/world/japan/stats/idi/)

III. Three White Papers and Asia
1. References to Asia in the Economic Survey of Japan, the White Paper on the World
Economy and the White Paper on International Trade
Here we take three of the key economy-related white papers published annually by the Japanese government—the Economic Survey of Japan and the White Paper on the World Economy from the Economic
7

Planning Agency (EPA), and the White Paper on International Trade from MITI—and examine thenature of references to Asia in these from the 1980s through to 2000 when Japan’s government departments were restructured. With the restructuring, the Economic Survey on Japan was succeeded by the
Annual Report on the Japanese Economy and Public Finance under the auspices of the Cabinet Office,while the White Paper on the World Economy became World Economic Trends under the auspices of the
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. Only the White Paper on International Trade remains
in publication, albeit with the name of the publishing entity changing from MITI to METI. In addition,
as economic ties between Japan and Asia deepened in the early 1990s, the Economic Planning Agency
put together a different team from that preparing the White Paper on the World Economy and began publishing the Annual Report on the Asian Economies as a separate volume (only up until 2000). As a result,
Table 4 shows Asia-related references in the White Paper on the World Economy becoming relatively
sparse as of 1996.
The first striking point in Table 4 is the surprising lack of attention paid to Asia in the three White
Papers. In fact, the first reference titled “the Asian economy” does not appear until the 1985 edition of theWhite Paper on the World Economy. The next year, the 1986 editions of the White Paper on the World
Economy and the White Paper on International Trade present trends in the Asian economy in sections on
the Asian NICs (now the Asian NIEs). Finally, in 1987, the White Paper on the World Economy includes
a feature on Asia from the perspective of the triangular trade structure in the Asia-Pacific.
The Asia feature in Chapter 3 of the White Paper on the World Economy 1987 notes that:
Strong growth in the Pacific Rim region, including the Asian NICs and ASEAN along with Japanand the US, has been a marked trend in the world economy since the 1980s. The Asian NICs have sustained strong growth since the late 1960s on the back of rapid industrialization and export growth,achieved by importing the bulk of their capital and intermediate goods from Japan and then exporting to
the massive US market.
The White Paper uses the term “Pacific Triangle” to describe the deepening interdependence andnew pattern of international division of labor emerging in the Pacific Rim region (White Paper on theWorld Economy 1987, 145 and 172). This Asia-Pacific triangular trade perspective was not only carriedover into analyses of Asia in subsequent editions of the White Paper on the World Economy and the White
Paper on International Trade, but also led to Takeshi Aoki’s detailed empirical research11 and Jaw-Yann
Twu’s Asian growth triangle theory12, which adds a technology transfer aspect to triangular trade.
Asia-Pacific triangular trade had the following features. First, the key players were the US, which
provided a massive market; Japan, which exported technology-intensive final goods to the US and capitaland intermediate goods to the Asian NICs; and the Asian NICs, which exported textile products, electrical and electronic products and other labor-intensive final goods to the US. Second, Japan ran a trade
surplus with both the US and the Asian NICs, while the Asian NICs’ trade deficit with Japan was coveredby their surplus with the US. As a result, the US operated a trade deficit with both Japan and the Asian
NICs. Third, the sustainability of this structure was premised on the US dollar remaining a global key
currency and the US effectively shouldering the military spending of Japan and Korea. In other words,
the US was underpinning the economic growth of Japan and the Asian NICs even while continuing tocarry twin deficits (a budget deficit and a trade deficit) itself. Accordingly, the US was the triangular tradelinchpin. East Asia was only a component of the Pacific triangle.
This configuration began to change dramatically as of the late 1990s. Specifically, exports of industrial goods from Japan and the Asian NIEs to East Asia rose as the region grew, with the emergence ofChina and the rapid development of China’s electrical and electronics industry in particular driving up

8

exports to China of intermediate goods (parts and components) from East Asian countries and regions.
Meanwhile, where direct investment in Southeast Asia by companies from Japan and the Asian NIEs
soared in the 1990s, from 2000 onwards, a growing number of Japanese and Asian NIEs firms also begansetting up operations in China. This led to the burgeoning of intra-firm trade between the companies andsubsidiaries established in China and their parent companies back home (trade in materials and final
products between Japanese parent companies and their Southeast Asian subsidiaries, and parts and components trade between subsidiaries in Southeast Asia and subsidiaries in China, etc.).
As a result, the ratio of East Asia exclusive of Japan in East Asian exports as a whole—the intra-regional trade ratio—rose from 26 percent in 1985 to 40 percent in 2002, 51 percent for East Asia inclusiveof Japan. Conversely, the ratio of the US as an export destination fell from 31 percent to 22 percent overthe same period. Simply put, East Asia evolved from being a production and export processing base forindustrial goods targeting the US market into a consumer market for locally manufactured industrial
goods. This new configuration could be described as the transition from an Asia-Pacific triangular trade
to an East Asian triangular trade.13
As a result of this shift, the various White Papers too began to change their perspective on Asia. For
example, the 1994 editions of the White Paper on the World Economy and the White Paper on International
Trade both referred to “East Asia.” The term had yet to become a fixture, however; in 1995, it was the
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum that drew the attention of the White Paper on
International Trade, which produced a feature on Asia-Pacific economic dynamism. As a concept designating a strategic region, East Asia really took hold in the White Paper on International Trade as of the2001 edition, when a major feature entitled “East Asia as the hub of a mega-competition era” foregrounded the interest in and support for Asia as a region that had emerged in the Japanese government
in the wake of the 1997 Asian financial crisis.
Table 4. Asia as Reflected in the Economic Survey of Japan, the White Paper on the World Economy and the White Paper
on International TradeYear

Economic Survey of Japan(Economic Planning Agency)

1981 No reference to Asia
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986

1987

White Paper on the World
Economy (Economic Planning
Agency)No reference to Asia

White Paper on International
Trade (MITI, METI)No reference to Asia
Subtitle: Japan’s role in stimulatChapter 3 Developing economies
No reference to Asia
ing the world economy (no referincreasingly struggling
ence to Asia)
No reference to Asia
No reference to Asia
No reference to Asia
The expanding US economy andSubtitle: Response of the Japanese
the world economy amidst highNo reference to Asia
economy to new internationalizainterest rates (no reference totion (no reference to Asia)
Asia)
Chapter 1.3.1 Growing stagnation
No reference to Asia
No reference to Asia
in the Asian economy (pp. 67-76)
Subtitle: Japanese economy aims Chapter 4.3 Changes in the NICs’ Chapter 3.3 Export growth andfor international harmonization international balances of payongoing industrial specialization(no reference to Asia)
ments (pp. 211-227)
in the Asian NICs (pp. 261-290)
Chapter 3 The changing patternof International division of labor:
Subtitle: Transformation of the
Key structures in the US, Japan,
industrial structure and future
No reference to Asia
the NICs and ASEAN (pp. 145challenges
221; adopts a triangular tradeperspective)

9

Year

Economic Survey of Japan(Economic Planning Agency)

Subtitle: Sustaining domestic
demand-led growth and contrib1988 uting to the international
Community (no reference to
Asia)
Chapter 3 The globalizing
1989 Japanese economy (no referenceto Asia)
1990 No reference to Asia
Chapter 4.2.5 Current status ofInternational division of labor in
1991
the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 311319)

White Paper on the World
Economy (Economic Planning
Agency)No reference to Asia

Chapter 3 Diversification andinternationalization of businessactivities and deepening economic interdependence with the
Asian region (pp. 161-238)

Chapter 3.4 The development of
Asia-Pacific trade and issues
No reference to Asia
therein (pp. 318-348)
No reference to Asia
No reference to Asia
China and Vietnam mentioned
for the first time in Chapter 3:
Chapter 4.3 Asia-Pacific economy
Economic reform in market econsurges forward (pp. 331-366;
omy transition countries. Refer­
referred to as Asian NIEs)
ence to Asian economic zone in
Chapter 4

Chapter 4 Japan’s market economy: Structure and issues (analy- Chapter 4.1 New directions in
1992 sis of the characteristics of thespecialization in the westernso-called Japanese economic
pacific region (pp. 288-320)
system compared to the US)
Chapter 2 Emerging economies
Subtitle: What we learned fromboosted by economic liberaliza1993 the bubble and our challenge to ation (looks at Asia and Eastern
new development
Europe)Chapter 3 New developments in
Chapter 3.1.2 Growing interdeinternational finance and East
pendence with Asia and develop1994
Asia (pp. 190-302; East Asia
ments in dynamic intra-industry
included for the first time as atrade (pp. 298-301)
regional classification)
1995 No reference to Asia

White Paper on International
Trade (MITI, METI)No reference to Asia

Chapter 3 Toward a free andtransparent world trade system(criticizes the movement toward
regional integration)
No reference to Asia
Chapter 3.2 Japanese companies
strengthen ties with East Asia (pp.
232-257; East Asia appears for the
first time)
Chapter 3 Stratification of theworld trade system and dynamism of the Asia-Pacific economy(pp. 216-312; awareness of APEC)

Annual Report on the Asian
Economies published alongside
Chapter 2.6 Catch-up of theWhite Paper on the World Econ­developing countries and changes omy as of this year; includes
1996
No reference to Asia
in International division of labor trends by country and mini-feaamong Japan, the US and Asia
tures, with basic economic statistics at the back. (Publication ends
in 2000.)
Part 1 New trade-related developChapter 1.4 Asia-Pacific generally ments (awareness of regional
1997 No reference to Asia
sluggish (pp. 66-91)
cooperation and regional economic integration)
Subtitle: The Asian currency andfinancial crisis and the world
Chapter 1 Japanese economy in1998
economy. Chapter 2 comprises a No reference to Asia
protracted recession
special feature on the title content.

10White Paper on the WorldWhite Paper on International
Economy (Economic Planning
Trade (MITI, METI)
Agency)The long-term expansion of the
Chapter 2 Deepening world ecoUS economy and its vulnerabilinomic globalization and theSubtitle: Challenges for economic ties (no reference to Asia); Annual
1999
spread of the currency and ecorevival (no reference to Asia)
Report on the Asian Economies
nomic crisis (not particularly
focuses on economic recovery
focused on Asia)
following the currency crisis.
Chapter 3 Widening and deepenChapter 1.4 Economy expanding ing economic integration:
Subtitle: The New era begins.
Establishing a virtuous circle with in Asia Pacific. Includes a special Interdependence strengthens
2000
the Asian economies throughfeature on IT, as does the Annual between the Asian economy andtrade in Chapter 1.1.7 (pp. 78-94) Report on the Asian Economies
Japan (first full feature; shift topromoting regional cooperation)
Government departments
Government departments
Chapter 1 East Asia as the hub ofrestructured; Economic Survey of restructured; White Papera mega-competition era (first fea2001 Japan becomes Annual Report on becomes World Economic Trends
ture on the Japan-Asian econthe Japanese Economy and Public under the Ministry of Internalomy)Finance under the Cabinet Office Affairs and Communications
Year

Economic Survey of Japan(Economic Planning Agency)

Note: Created based on the tables of content and actual content of the various reports. Shading denotes a focus on Asia.
The Economic Survey of Japan and the White Paper on the World Economy were published on a fiscal year basis, while
the White Paper on International Trade came out on a calendar year basis.

2. References to Asia in the White Paper on International Economy and Trade
Table 5 gauges the number and ratio of references to the Asian economy in those editions of the White
Paper on International Economy and Trade published over the 12-year period from 2001 to the mostrecent in 2012 by calculating the number and ratio of pages on which said references occur. The numberof pages is perhaps not in itself an index for measuring the level of priority ascribed by METI to its various regional policies. Nevertheless, the relative number of pages allocated to each region should at leastindicate where the ministry’s interest has lain.
Since 2001, the White Paper has generally taken the form of a first chapter overviewing the world
economy, with the second chapter onward dealing with particular themes, and the fourth chapter (or thethird and fifth chapters) turning to Japan’s policies on international trade and economic cooperation.
Moreover, as noted earlier, starting with the “East Asia as the hub of a mega-competition era” feature in
2001, the White Paper continued to devote a full chapter to Asia-related issues every year through to2008 (indicated by the shaded areas in Table 5).
Looking at Table 5 with these points in mind, an analysis by theme of Chapter 2, which was generally the face of that year’s White Paper, reveals a total of five Asian features from 2005 onward. The ratioof pages referring to Asia increased rapidly from 22.9 percent in 2001 to above 32.0 percent in 2002, infact reaching 74.5 percent in 2005. In 2008 too, the ratio was a high 61.6 percent.
However, this trend ended with the 2008 edition, after which Asia’s ratio continued to decline. The
2010 edition was subtitled “Opening up and growing together with Asia,” indicating renewed interest in
Asia, but the ratio of references dropped to 36.7 percent. Then subsequent rise to power of the Democratic
Party of Japan (DPJ; September 2009 to December 2012) with its tepid attitude toward engagement with
Asia, along with the Great East Japan Earthquake, brought Asia references down below 30 percent, while
Japan’s view of Asia also changed significantly. For example, in 2010, the term Asia-Pacific came to theforefront in place of East Asia.

11

So how did the White Paper’s perspective and policies on Asia evolve as of 2001? In the next section,
we trace that evolution through shifts in the keywords used in the White Paper and the themes of thevarious special features.
Table 5. Ratio of References to Asia in the White Paper on International Economy and Trade 2001-2012(No. of pages, %)Year Total pages
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

210
178
234
238
382
339
315
515
383
471
338
519

Total pages
Asia-related
in main text
188
43
150
48
208
71
205
61
329
245
265
115
257
91
440
271
326
150
411
151
281
77
450
110

Asia (%)

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

22.9
32.0
34.1
29.8
74.5
43.4
35.4
61.6
46.0
36.7
27.4
24.4

39/39
42/42
15/64
8/55
24/52
9/56
15/87
53/10993/14830/153
13/83
23/145

0/25
0/30
20/44
0/95
165/165
100/100
66/66
181/181
0/95
71/71
10/67
55/126

0/47
0/32
0/58
53/53
56/109
6/106
0/45
10/88
57/83
50/182
11/38
10/113

4/73
6/43
36/36
10/56
27/60
43/93
22/66

Notes:
1. Total pages include the notes, appendices, bibliography and index of tables and figures.
2. Chapter 4 in the 2011 edition is the total of Chapters 4 and 5.
Source: Created by the author from the various years’ White Papers. Only the overview chapter is covered for the 2001
edition.

IV. Japan’s Perspective and Policies on Asia through the Lens of the White Paper
on International Economy and Trade
1. Change in Strategic Region
Here we use the White Paper chapter breakdown from Table 6 to examine the change in references in the
White Paper for each subject deemed important, namely the four following areas: (1) the strategic region
highlighted by the White Paper and the scope thereof; (2) the trade and investment-centered East Asian
production network construct; (3) awareness of the massive Asian consumer market created by the upperand middle classes in the emerging Asian economies; and (4) regional cooperation models and specificcooperation projects developed by the Japanese government, including East Asian economic partnershipand the East Asia Industrial Corridor.
Looking first at strategic regions, as noted earlier, as of the 2001 White Paper, METI evinced a major
shift from the Asia-Pacific to East Asia as the subject of analysis and the focus of regional cooperation.
Three factors drove this shift. First, following the 1997 Asian financial crisis, the Japanese government
became strongly aware of the Asian countries not as a bundle of bilateral relations but rather as a region.
Second, the myriad Japanese companies setting up operations in East Asia through until the mid-1990s
generated dense and multilayered regional production networks which deepened even further as a resultof the economic recovery process in the Asian countries following the Asian financial crisis, as well as thefurther inroads made by Japanese firms into Asia (de facto East Asian economic integration). Third, andmost importantly, as of the late 1990s, East Asia began to boost its presence in the world economy, with
China in particular making its mark as a key player in the regional economy.

12In relation to this third point, as of 2001, amidst the White Paper’s talk of East Asia, it actually
devoted considerable space to analyzing the Chinese economy. The string of analyses highlighting China
included 13 pages in 2001 discussing China’s industrial clusters and accession to the WTO, 15 pages in2003 looking at “growth in the Chinese economy and future issues,” eight pages in 2004 on “imbalancesin the growing Chinese economy and their influence,” and 16 pages in 2005 on “the Chinese economy
and the risk of overheating.”
As of 2006, however, the components of METI’s strategic region began to change. First, Chapter 2of the 2006 White Paper included a 100-page feature entitled “‘Asian dynamism’ and the formation ofinternational business networks,” while Chapter 2 (“Creation of a pan-Asian market”) and Chapter 4.1(“Global strategies of other countries”) in the 2008 edition also strongly foregrounded Asia. The reason
for the disappearance of East from “East Asia” was India’s new prominence. In fact, Chapter 1.4 of the2007 edition dealt with the Indian economy for the first time, devoting 15 pages to the subject. The 2008
edition included not only Asia but also a special feature entitled “The growing economies of the emerging countries” (63 pages) in Chapter 1.3, with the strategic region starting to become more diffuse. As an
aside, the 2008 White Paper defined the emerging economies as China, India and the Asian countries;
the 2009 edition, as China, India and ASEAN. Furthermore, the 2012 edition added the Latin Americanand Russian economies.
Chapter 2 of the 2010 edition ran a major 71-page feature entitled “Japan growing with Asia’s development: An Asia-Pacific framework toward sustained growth,” marking a return to the Asia-Pacific (theJapan-US partnership). Factors behind this shift included dealing with the global financial crisis, theemergence of a DPJ administration with an American focus, and the APEC meetings scheduled to beheld in Yokohama in 2010. Next, Chapter 3 of the 2011 edition turned to the emerging markets—theemerging Asian economies included—as economic partners for overcoming the aftermath of the global
financial crisis and the domestic crisis presented by the 2011 disaster, while the 2012 edition responded
to the proposal of the Noda administration that Japan enter the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations by taking its first serious look at the TPP as a regional cooperation framework.
Table 6. White Paper Composition and Asia Features 2001-2012

Year

Chapter
Chapter 1

2001
Mori
administration

Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4

2002
Koizumiadministration

Chapter 1
Chapter 4

Title, content, relevant pages“East Asia as the hub of a mega-competition era” (pp. 1-38); industrial and trade
structure changes, emergence of Chinese economy“The IT revolution and business dynamism”; only introduces Taiwan’s foundry
industry“Globalization merits and demerits”; no reference to Asia
“External economic policy challenges in the 21st century”; focus on NAFTA andthe EU; reference to Asia (pp. 178-181)“Globalization, the changing face of the East Asian economy, and prospects forJapan” (pp. 1-42)*Section 2 looks at changes in Japan’s local economic structure and competition
with East Asian economic clusters
Section 2.3 Strengthening ties with East Asia and promoting multi-layered
external economic policies (pp.124-129)

13

Year

2003
Koizumiadministration

Chapter
Chapter 1
Chapter 2

Chapter 4

Chapter 1
2004
Koizumiadministration

Chapter 3

Chapter 1
2005
Koizumiadministration

Chapter 2

Chapter 3
Chapter 1
2006
Koizumi, Abeadministrations

Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 1

2007
Abe, Fukuda
administrations

Chapter 2

Chapter 4

2008
Fukuda, Asoadministrations

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Title, content, relevant pages
Section 2 Growth in the Chinese economy and future issues (pp. 13-27)“Deepening economic relations in East Asia and Japanese corporate activities”(pp. 65-84)“Issues and challenges for Japan’s external economic policy” (pp. 167-202)
Section 1 Energy and currency and financial stability in East Asia
Section 2 Promotion of external economic policy through enhancement of economic cooperation in East Asia and a multi-layered approach (*Institution
building of an East Asian Business Area)
Section 4.3 Imbalances in the growing Chinese economy and their influence(pp. 45-52)“Transition to a ‘new value creation economy’ and East Asian economic integration” (pp. 151-203)
Section 1 Deepening economic relations in the East Asian region
Section 2 International division of functions
Section 4 New business models for Japanese agriculture
Section 5 Dual track policy in Thailand“Growth mechanism of the global economy and issues of imbalance”
Section 2 The Chinese economy and the risk of overheating (pp. 10-25)
Section 5 Rising foreign exchange reserves and expanding current account surpluses in East Asia (pp. 44-52)“Indications of self-supporting, sustainable growth in East Asia: Business opportunities and risks in East Asia” (pp. 54-217)*Production and consumption trends, increasingly sophisticated triangulartrade, capital cycles, greater cultural exchange“Japan’s declining and aging population and economic integration toward new
East Asian economic prosperity”
Sections 3 and 4 discuss an East Asia-wide human resources policy (pp. 271326). Filipino nurses and nursing caregivers, etc.
“Trends in the international economy and structural changes”*Introduces various risks. No particular reference to Asia“‘Asian dynamism’ and the formation of international business networks” (pp.
57-156)*Increasing Asian presence, formation of international business networks as acorporate strategy, Japan’s service industry and Asia
“Challenges in achieving sustained growth potential”
Section 1.2 Business cost distance in Asia (pp. 173-178)“Current status of the global economy and future issues”
Section 4 India’s economy achieves high growth (pp. 73-87)“Expansion and deepening of international business networks in the East Asia”(pp. 90-154)*(1) EPA/FTA networks, (2) increasingly sophisticated logistics functions, (3)innovation through deployment into East Asia, (4) securing global human re­sources, (5) realization of a seamless economic zone
“Building an open and seamless economic system”
Section 3 Efforts towards a stronger partnership among all East Asia (pp. 230239)“The world economy facing difficulties and prospects for new development
driven by the new market of five billion people”
Section 3 The growing economies of the emerging countries (China, India,
Asian countries; pp. 47-109)“Creation of a ‘pan-Asian market’ leading new development of the world economy” (pp. 112-292)*Deepening East Asian production networks, competition to secure humanresources

14

Year

Chapter

2008
Fukuda, Asoadministrations

Chapter 4

Chapter 1
Chapter 2
2009
Aso, Hatoyama
administrations
Chapter 3

Subtitle
Chapter 1

2010
Hatoyama, Kanadministrations

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 1

Chapter 2
2011
Kan, Noda
administrations

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Title, content, relevant pages“Establishing a global strategy to lead sustainable development”
Section 1.3 Global strategies of Asian countries (pp. 391-440)
Section 5 Promoting Asian economic and environmental community, Economic
Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA) (pp. 434-440)*Economic partnership beyond East Asia → Regional economic integration
through APEC“Global economy facing challenges: current status and issues”*Financial crisis, characteristics of the global financial crisis
Section 2 China, India, ASEAN (pp. 56-148)“Japan’s path to cope with the world economic crisis”*No reference to Asia
“Japan’s global economic strategy and external economic policy”
Section 2 Four priorities for foreign economic policy (pp. 270-326)(1) I ntegrated domestic and external economic policy (cross-border growth
together with Asia, assuming that Japanese domestic demand has reached its
limits: Growth Initiative towards Doubling the Size of Asia’s Economy, development of Asian regional infrastructure, creation by ERIA of a Comprehen­sive Asia Development Plan, etc.)(2) Pursuit of “volume zone” innovation(3) Global spread of the low carbon revolution(4) Industrial cooperation with resource-rich countries
Opening up and growing together with Asia
“Current and future status of the global economy in transition”*Primarily an analysis of the US and European economies
Section 2.3 The Chinese economy (pp. 83-91)
Section 2.4 Other Asian economies (pp. 92-112)“Japan growing with Asia’s development: an Asia-Pacific framework toward sustained growth” (pp. 155-225)(1) Growing importance of Asia in the world economy(2) East Asian production and sales networks(3) The expanding Asian consumer market(4) Infrastructure development(5) Common agendas to be solved by Asia to achieve sustained growth“Japan’s current situation and direction of progress after the economic crisis”
Section 1 China, Asia, Korea (pp. 274-284)
Section 2 Securing emerging markets (regional infrastructure development,
smart grids, EPAs/FTAs (pp. 290-396)“Current status and problems of the world economy”
Section 1.3 The Chinese economy (pp. 37-49)
Section 4 The Great East Japan Earthquake (pp. 76-83)“Changes in the trade structures of the world and Japan”*“Emerging countries” the key term
Section 1.2 East Asia production networks (pp. 93-102)
Section 2 Brazil and MERCOSUR“Toward a new concept for the overseas development of the Japanese economy:
Overcoming the global financial crisis and 2011 disaster”
Section 1.1 Income group in emerging countries that is growing rich (pp. 152155)
Section 1.2 Strategy for the Emerging Asian Markets (pp. 156-162)
Section 2 ‘Localization’ of Japanese companies entering a new stage“Trade and economic relations between Japan and the world as seen through thedamage caused by the Great East Japan Earthquake”*Actual status of global supply chains as revealed by the disaster (pp. 199-223)

15

Year

Chapter

2011
Kan, Noda
administrations

Chapter 5

Chapter 1

2012
Noda, Abeadministrations

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Title, content, relevant pages“Overcoming the earthquake disaster, and revitalizing the Japanese economy”
Section 2.1 FTAs/EPAs and active promotion of regional economic integration(pp. 244-259); Section 2.4 Influence that the East Japan Great Earthquake to theworld supply chains and the importance of partnership agreements in postdisaster recovery (pp. 275-276)“Trends in the world economy”
Section 1 Overview
Section 2 European economy
Section 3 US economy
Section 4 Chinese economy (pp. 105-118)
Section 5 Other Asian economies (pp. 119-127)
Section 6 Central and South American economy and Russian economy (pp.
128-145)“Structure of and change in Japan’s trade and investment”
Section 1 Changes in Japanese trade and economy over the years of the White
Paper on International Economy and Trade
Section 2 Structure of international division of labor in East Asia and changes
therein (pp. 178-190)
Section 3 Thai floods (pp. 191-232)*Analysis of Asia-wide supply chains and the impact of the floods“Development of overseas business activities of Japanese enterprises”*Expansion of supporting industries and ‘hollowing-out’, introduction ofGerman and Korean overseas business activities, expansion of overseas businessactivities to emerging economies, towards the overseas expansion of the service
industry“Towards new growth of Japanese economy by linkages with outside of Japan”
Section 1 EPSs/FTAs and TPP (pp. 386-404)
Section 2 Support for overseas business activities in response to changing needs
Section 3 Urgent measures to strengthen locational competitiveness →Promoting Japan as an industrial hub in Asia (pp. 439-441)

Source: Created by the author from the various years’ White Papers. Only the overview chapter is covered for the 2001
edition.

2. East Asia Production Network Construct
One consistent White Paper theme from 2001 onwards was the East Asian production network/businessnetwork construct. These networks were formed by (1) Japanese companies’ geographical expansion of
their production bases into East Asia and (2) triangular trade among (a) Japan and the Asian NIEs,
which exported intermediate goods to China and ASEAN, (b) China and ASEAN, which imported intermediate goods for final assembly and (c) North America and Europe, which provided massive markets
for final goods. In other words, they were patterns of international division of labor created through thetriangular trade and the provision of intermediate goods (White Paper on International Economy andTrade 2007, 90). The theoretical framework (optimal geographical plant distribution at the production
process level, or in other words, fragmentation theory) and empirical data for (1) above was provided by
Keio University Professor Fukunari Kimura and the Institute of Developing Economies (IDE-JETRO),
while the trade data by type of commodity (intermediate and final goods) for (2) was compiled by the
Research Institute for Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI) and the Institute for Developing Economies(the team responsible for creating the Asia-Pacific International Input-Output Table).
What is interesting is the way in which the content and scope of the East Asia production network
construct evolves. Back in the 2001 edition, the White Paper viewed the East Asian economic area as arelatively autonomous unit. However, the 2005 edition emphasized that this triangular trade was not16confined to the region; rather, through deepening trade ties with America and Europe, it had become asource of dynamism powering world economic growth. Moreover, the White Paper took the rise in theunit price for exports of intermediate goods from Japan to China and the unit price for exports of final
goods from China to North America from the late 1990s to the early 2000s as evidence of the increasingly
sophisticated structure of triangular trade.
Based on the results of a public awareness survey on exchange in Asia undertaken by a study groupwithin METI in January 2005, the 2005 White Paper also suggested that the growth of an East Asianurban middle class was generating commonalities in consumption patterns and cultural tastes, and thatJapan should accordingly turn its attention to cultural and contents industries such as movies, music andfood. The White Paper’s new interest in the contents industry deserves note as the beginning of a shift inconceptual framework from manufacturing-centered East Asian production networks to East Asianbusiness networks, a construct with a much broader framework inclusive of the overseas expansion of
the non-manufacturing sector or the service industry and the hiring of highly-skilled Asian humanresources.
More specifically, Chapter 2 of the 2007 White Paper comprised a 65-page feature on the “expansion
and deepening of international business networks in East Asia.” Exploring not only the development ofinstitutional frameworks such as economic partnership agreements (EPAs) and Free Trade Agreements(FTAs), but also enhanced logistics, the overseas transfer of R&D functions, and global recruitment, theWhite Paper called for the creation of a “seamless economic zone.” The same tenor is continued in subsequent editions, which present examples of the Asian expansion of the logistics, transport and service
industries that underpin manufacturing, and argue the need for policy support for this trend.
In the 2012 edition, Chapter 3.3 provided a 34-page detailed explanation of the overseas expansionof the service industry backed by an abundance of cases. Examples of intellectual service industries proffered by the White Paper included logistics (Yamato Group), contents (films, animation, TV programs,
gaming software, not referring to particular individual firms), food services (Yoshinoya, Mos Burger),tourism and hotels (Kagaya, a Japanese-style hotel in Ishikawa Prefecture), convenience stores (7-Eleven,Lawson, FamilyMart), education business (Kumon, Benesse) and medical services. Their drive into East
Asia responded to the rapid urbanization and service economy transition occurring in the region, andthe concomitant change in consumer spending patterns occurring at the household level.

3. New Focus on Asia’s Upper and Middle Classes
Reinterpretation of East Asia as not just a production and export base for the manufacturing industry but
also a massive consumer market becomes apparent in the White Paper from the 2005 edition. East Asia
was originally characterized by a low rate of urbanization compared to the world average for developing
countries. In the 1990s, however, the urbanization rate soared, and the 2000s saw the formation of anumber of East Asian mega-cities, including Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Ho Chi Minh, Bangkok,
Jakarta and Mumbai. While these mega-cities were generated through population drift from rural areas,
unlike the Latin American experience, their emergence did not lead to a progressive increase in thenumber of urban poor, but rather a class of consumers and shoppers called the urban middle class.14
The spotlight was first turned on Asia as consumer in the 2008 White Paper, in which Chapter 2 isentitled “Creation of a ‘pan-Asian market’ leading new development of the world economy.” The formation of this perception was heavily influenced by a 2008 fact-finding survey of the urban middle class andthe retail industry conducted by a METI study group in relation to six countries: China, India, Indonesia,
the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam.15 “Expansion of Asian consumer market” was also a theme in17

Chapter 2 of the 2010 edition, evolving in Chapter 3 of the 2011 edition into a discussion on “income
group in emerging countries that is growing rich.” Table 7 lays out the White Paper’s data on the emergence of upper and upper middle classes in the Asian emerging economies along with forecasts throughto 2020 (with some raw data derived from Euromonitor International estimates).
According to the table, the upper class (household disposable income of at least US$35,000 per
annum) in the Asian emerging economies will grow from 104 million people in 2010 to 350 million in
2020, triple Japan’s market scale. Further, if the scope is widened from the upper class to include theupper middle class (disposable income of at least US$15,000 per annum), the predicted increase will befrom 348 million in 2010 to 1.16 billion in 2020, or 34 percent of the total population. Because theseclasses are known to have similar consumption preferences in terms of their own houses, cars, home
appliances, and computers and other telecommunications equipment, this really does represent the
emergence of a massive Asian consumer market. For Japanese companies struggling with a protracted
recession back home, it was certainly a market impossible to dismiss, and the White Paper in fact continued to push an Asia strategy targeting Asia as a consumer market, as seen in the 2009 edition’s call for
Japan to transcend national borders and grow together as a region, the reference in 2010 to Japan growing together with Asia, and the strategy for the emerging Asian markets” promoted in the 2011 edition.
These references signify a shift in perspective from Asia as a production hub to Asia as a consumer
market.
Table 7. Growth of the Upper and Middle Classes in the Asian Emerging Economies, 2010 and 2020 Forecasts
(Million people, %)(1) 2010 (actual)Country/region
China
ASEAN 6
NIEs 3
India
Total Asian emerging economies% of total population(2) 2020 (forecast)Country/region
China
ASEAN 6
NIEs 3
India
Total Asian emerging economies% of total population

Upper
class
38
16
32
18
104
3.3

Upper middle Lower middle
class
class
118
523
40
198
33
13
53
495
244
1,229
7.7
39.0

Lower
class
663
260
2
649
1,574
50.0

Upper
class
180
40
60
70
350
10.4

Upper middle Lower middle
class
class
390
530
120
270
20
5
280
710
810
1,515
24.0
44.9

Lower
class
290
130
1
280
701
20.7

Total
1,342
514
80
1,215
3,151
100.0
Total
1,390
560
86
1,340
3,376
100.0

Notes:
1.The number of people comprises the household populations of households with disposable income.
2.The upper class comprises households with annual disposable income of at least US$35,000; the upper middle class,
US$15,000-35,000; the lower middle class, US$5,000-15,000; and the lower class, less than US$5,000.
3.The ASEAN 6 comprise Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam. The NIEs 3 are Korea,
Hong Kong and Taiwan.
Source: Created by the author from the White Paper on International Economy and Trade 2011, 155-156. Data for 2020
was drawn from Euromonitor International (2011) estimates.

18

4. Regional Cooperation Initiatives and Specific Cooperation Programs
The basic policy promoted by METI, and indeed the Japanese government, in terms of external economic policy has been the pursuit of open regionalism based on a multi-layered approach and thestrengthening of economic partnerships (White Paper on International Economy and Trade 2002, Chapter
4.2; White Paper on International Economy and Trade 2003, Chapter 4.2). This policy has remained
unchanged from the 1990s through to the present, with the term East Asia attached as of January 2002
when Prime Minister Koizumi took the opportunity of his visit to Singapore as the final stop on his
Southeast Asian tour to propose the establishment of an East Asian community (open to any members,in contrast to the European Community). In addition, as seen in the change in strategic region, as of2008, strengthening partnerships beyond East Asia was added to the policy agenda.
Japan’s multi-layered approach referred to a basic policy of actively utilizing not only bilateral agreements and the ASEAN-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership but also vehicles for consultationsuch as ASEAN+3 (Japan, China and Korea), ASEAN+6 (3 + India, Australia and New Zealand) and theAsia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, as well as open regionalism (no discrimination as tomembers or negotiating parties), in order to realize a world free trade order.16
Drawing on this basic policy, at the end of 2002, METI released a paper entitled Promotion of
Economic Partnership that called for the creation of an East Asian Business Area. The goal of this initiative was “to look to Asia as a way of boosting the Japanese economy past the triple handicap of deflation,
non-performing loans and low growth …… positioning East Asia as a wellspring of profit for Japanesecompanies” (White Paper on International Economy and Trade 2003, Chapter 4.2).
Next, in April 2006, METI released its “Global Economic Strategy,” which called for an East Asiawide EPA promotion strategy. In September that year, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced the Asian
Gateway Initiative in his policy speech, and in May the following year, an Asian Gateway Strategy Council
was established in the Prime Minister’s Office with the aim of harnessing Asia’s growth and vitality torealize new creation and growth. Despite the talk of open regionalism, therefore, Japan retained its policy
focus on the East Asian region. However, the Asian Gateway Initiative faded away after the departure of
the first Abe administration.
It was from 2008 through 2009 that a new trajectory emerged in Japan’s Asia policy. First, thenMETI Minister Toshihiro Nikai tabled an East Asia Industrial Corridor Initiative (Higashi Ajia Sangyo
Dai-domyaku) at the ASEAN+6 Economic Ministers meeting in August 2008. This was subsequently
fleshed out by the Asia Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Study Group, established within METI andchaired by Waseda University Professor Shujiro Urata. In its final report in April 2009, the group proposed the development of wide-area infrastructure in Asia along with the construction of various hub
points.
Three areas and five regions were identified as specific examples of these hubs: (1) developing industrial and logistical infrastructure in metropolitan base stations (Hanoi Metropolitan Area, Jakarta
Metropolitan Area); (2) upgrading industrial parks and infrastructure on the periphery of medium-sized
cities (India’s Chennai-Bangalore Corridor, Phnom Penh and Sihanoukville in Cambodia); and (3) developing new industrial parks and logistical infrastructure in regional hub cities (Lao PDR-Thai border).17
The hub concept was successfully realized in the Comprehensive Asia Development Plan (CADP) spearheaded by the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA), a METI project establishedwithin the ASEAN Secretariat, and at the initiative of Japan, a policy of tackling wide-area infrastructuredevelopment was announced at the East Asia Summit.18
The plan to develop wide-area infrastructure which began with the East Asia Industrial Corridor

19

Initiative and continued in the CADP was naturally premised on the idea that the primary agent in developing urban infrastructure in Asia (India included) would be Japan’s construction industry, which was
experiencing tough times at home. Urban infrastructure development would also require the participation of companies from a whole spectrum of other areas, including distribution, transportation, telecommunications and services (overlapping in this sense with the conceptual shift from East Asian production
networks to East Asian business networks). METI’s vision was that if these infrastructure projects with
their massive investment requirements could be implemented through PPP fusing the public sector(Japan’s ODA) and private sector (investment by Japanese companies), Japan could indeed grow together
with Asia. In fact, the subtitle of the Asia PPP Study Group’s final report was Together with Asia: PublicPrivate Creation and Coexistence.(Author comment in January 2016: This idea is echoed exactly in China’s
external economic strategy of establishing the Asian Infrastructure Investment Fund or AIIB.)
From the same period, Chapter 3.2 of the 2009 White Paper flagged the following four priority areas
in external economic policy: (1) integrated domestic and external economic policy; (2) pursuit of volume
zone innovation; (3) global spread of the low carbon revolution; and (4) industrial cooperation withresource-rich countries. The importance that METI placed on wide-area infrastructure development isclear from the specific content identified in (1), namely, realization of the Growth Initiative towards
Doubling the Size of Asia’s Economy, development of Asian wide-area infrastructure, and creation of aComprehensive Asia Development Plan.
Let us touch briefly on the relationship between Asia policy and the New Growth Strategy: Blueprintfor Revitalizing Japan announced by the DPJ-led Kan administration in June 2010. The New Growth
Strategy laid out a 2010-2020 growth strategy for Japan together with a specific schedule, focusing onseven key areas and 21 national strategic projects. Asia was addressed within the third key area, which
merited five national strategic projects, more than any of the other key areas. These projects comprised:(1) exporting infrastructure system packages; (2) reducing the effective corporate tax rate and promoting
Japan as an industrial hub in Asia; (3) global human resource development and development of highly-skilled personnel; (4) strengthening intellectual property and standardization strategies and exporting
Cool Japan; (5) an economic partnership strategy based on a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific(FTAAP).19
Of the above, (1) was a reworking of the wide-area infrastructure development concept noted earlier, and (3) and (4) too simply continued the line taken by previous Liberal Democratic Party (LDP)
administrations. The new elements introduced by the DPJ were (2) and (5). While (2) essentially comprised a passive defensive policy, countering moves by the US, European and other foreign companies
shifting their Asian regional headquarters and R&D bases to Asian countries other than Japan by re-establishing Tokyo and Osaka as Asian hubs, (5) declared that the focus of Japan’s economic partnerships
would no longer be East Asia but rather the Asia-Pacific. As an aside, the FTAAP was actually proposedby the US at the Hanoi APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting in November 2006 and became a turning pointin the US’s subsequent participation in the TPP negotiations.20 The 2012 edition of the White Paper subsequent to the Great East Japan Earthquake moved a step further, with Chapter 4 not specifying the targets of Japan’s economic partnerships but rather shifting to the general language of links with the world
and links with the outside.
What should be noted here is the growing separation as of the 2008 global financial crisis between
Japanese economic and corporate trends and the strategic region identified by the Japanese government
in the White Paper. Specifically, where the trade trends in Table 2 and the direct investment trends inTable 3 clearly reveal the Japanese economy and Japanese companies shifting toward Asia, the scope of20

the strategic region demarcated by the White Paper increasingly diffuses beyond East Asia, conversely
exhibiting a shift away from Asia. While this dissociation in part reflected the lack of a specific Asia strategy in the DPJ’s external economic policy, it also signified growing nebulousness in the strategic region
concept which METI had pursued.

V. Conclusion
The change in the perspective and policies on Asia evinced by MITI/METI (and the Japanese government) that emerges from the above examination of the White Paper could be summed up as follows:First, the area identified by MITI/METI as a strategic region moved from the Asia-Pacific to East
Asia following the Asian financial crisis and subsequently expanded to Asia inclusive of India, then theemerging economies inclusive of Latin America and Russia, before finally returning to the Asia-Pacific.
METI’s interest in the emerging economies reflects the displacement of the G7 as the key forum for discussing the shape of the world order by the G20, which includes the emerging economies, international
institutions like the World Bank, and the EU and ASEAN regional organizations.21
Second, the analytical perspective on the East Asian economy changed from the manufacturing­
centered East Asian production network construct to that of East Asian business networks inclusive of
non-manufacturing industries—in particular, the service and contents industries. While this was partly
due to an understanding of how logistics, transportation, retail and other industries complement theactivities of manufacturing firms, it was also linked to METI’s policy of breaking Japanese firms out of thedomestic recession by encouraging industries such as construction and services to expand offshore.
Third, interest in East Asia shifted from Asia as a base for production and export processing, withthe massive US, European and Japanese markets serving as the final absorbers, to Asia as a massive consumer market formed by the region’s rapidly growing urban upper and middle classes. This reflected thehopes of the manufacturing industry, which looked to burgeoning domestic demand within Asia as the
key to new growth for the Japanese economy, given the unlikelihood of Japan’s own domestic demand
increasing in the face of deflation, a falling birth rate and a super aging society.
Turning finally to Japan’s engagement with East Asia, the strong initiative which the government
envisaged immediately after the Asian financial crisis shaped a dynamic stance, and this stance seems tohave continued through to at least around 2003. Over that period, METI’s East Asian Business Area concept clearly positioned East Asia as a hinterland where Japanese companies would realize high profits.
However, in the subsequent Strategy for the Emerging Asian Markets and the Comprehensive Asia
Development Plan, rather than Japan leading Asia, we see a manifestly more passive stance whereby
Japanese revitalization is sought by harnessing Asian growth. In the 2010 New Growth Strategy, thisregresses to a defensive policy of seeking to keep in Japan those foreign companies moving away into the
Asian emerging economies, as manifests in the Asian hub concept. This was of course a direct reflectionof the changeover in key players on the Asia economic map or Japan’s diminishing presence, but it wasalso indicative of the difficulty which Japan was experiencing in defining its own place in Asia.
Was the prospect therefore that Japan would simply continue to reduce its presence in Asia? Was
there no sign of a new engagement?
When Abe returned to power following a decisive victory in the December 2012 House ofRepresentatives elections, his second Cabinet evinced an even stronger emphasis on Asia, and particularly ASEAN, than during his first term. Starting with his January 2013 visit to Vietnam, Thailand andIndonesia, Abe went on to Myanmar in May, Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines in July, Brunei in
October, and Cambodia and Laos in November, becoming the first ever Japanese Prime Minister to have21

visited all 10 ASEAN member nations while in office. In December 2013, the Japanese government also
hosted the ASEAN-Japan Commemorative Summit in Tokyo (the first since the original Commemorative
Summit was held 10 years prior in November 2003). Judging from these moves, the Japanese government
would appear to have returned to its focus on Asia.
However, the second Abe Cabinet’s Asia strategy lacked the clarity of the string of domestic economic policies being reeled out. During his January 2013 visit to Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia,
Prime Minister Abe was meant to announce the following new five-point foreign policy (an announcement precluded by his early return home to deal with the Algerian hostage crisis): (1) reaffirmation of theuniversal value of freedom in the region where the two oceans (the Pacific and the Indian Ocean) meet;(2) an emphasis on governance by laws and rules (cooperation with the US); (3) deployment of a network
strategy in the region (particularly support for an economic corridor linking ASEAN); (4) promotion ofintercultural ties between Japan and the region; and (5) promotion of people-to-people exchanges among
the next generation. Of these, (1) and (2) were directed at containing China, (3) at rolling out Japan’s
wide-area infrastructure development concept in the Asian region, and (4) and (5) at pursuing former
Prime Minister Takeo Fukuda’s 1977 promise that Japan would forge ties with ASEAN based on heart toheart understanding.22 In other words, Abe had yet to add anything new to the mix, with the only outstanding feature from his series of Asia visits being Japan’s readiness to extend capital cooperation for the
economic development of the Asian countries.
But should Japan’s new engagement with Asia really be seen as no more than cooperation with apriority on production, consumption and human resources, just as in the former East Asian businessnetwork construct (putting aside here the issue of regional cooperation from a security perspective)?
Was there not another form of engagement?
A fascinating insight in that regard can be gleaned from Chapter 2 of the 2010 White Paper. This
chapter identifies the following four pillars from the perspective of developing an Asia-Pacific framework
for realizing sustained growth: (1) reinforcing Asia’s status as the world’s factory by establishing cross-border supply chains within Asia; (2) ramping up the rollout of Japan’s service industry into Asia to offer
appeal, safety and peace of mind in order to take advantage of growing spending on food services, travel,
health care and education in Asia as the world’s consumer market; (3) developing wide-area infrastructure and creating an East Asia Industrial Corridor in response to the rapid rise in infrastructure needs
accompanying the advance of urbanization; and (4) working with Asia on common issues facing theregion such as inversion of the age pyramid and environmental and energy issues. The first three repeatedthe White Paper’s standard position and were issues related to the third point in the second Abe Cabinet’s
new foreign policy agenda. The new element was the fourth point.
The White Paper did in fact have a tradition of devoting occasional columns to social issues facing
the Asian emerging economies and the Asian NIEs, including growing domestic income disparities,
aging societies, and increasingly severe environmental and energy problems. Chapter 2 of the 2012 edition also contained a 42-page feature on the floods in Thailand. This was partly in recognition of the
major impact of the Thai floods on global supply chains in the automobile, electrical and electronics
industries, but it also embodied a strong sense of commitment on the part of Japan as a country which
had experienced a major disaster to work with the other Asian countries exposed to the risk of natural
disasters to help prevent or alleviate such disasters.
The author has previously stated as follows:
Rather than simply integrating with an increasingly regionally autonomous Asia through trade,investment and labor, I believe that the critical issue for Japan today is to commit itself fully to22

cooperation on social issues that are also issues for the region as a whole [such as growing domestic
income disparities and the aging of society] as a forerunner in addressing social problems. To that end,
we must move away from the old idea of industrialized Japan leading developing Asia to the idea or perspective of Japan as a forerunner in addressing social problems cooperating with Asia as a newly-industrialized region.23
The author continues to hold that position, in fact even more strongly so in the wake of the Great
East Japan Earthquake. The conclusion to the 2010 White Paper (pp. 409) suggested that Japan’s role wasto contribute to the Asian nations as a forerunner in addressing social issues and as a knowledge leader.
The author concurs with this. Japan has a vast amount of experience that should be amassed and passed
on in relation to not only the development of new technologies and products, but also disaster management, local welfare for the elderly, environmental protection, and food safety and reliability. The time hascome for Japan to give serious thought to a new style of engagement with Asia, looking beyond the defacto approach of constructing an East Asian economic area grounded in deepening economic interdependence to stage a bold offense on mutual social and environmental issues.

1

Akira Suehiro, “Keizai Saishinshutsu e no Michi: Nihon no Tai-Tonanajia Seisaku to Kaihatsu Taisei” [The Road to Economic
Re-entry: Japan’s Policy toward Southeast Asian Development], Masanori Nakamura et al, eds., Iwanami Lecture Series,
Sengo Nihon: Senryo to Sengo Kaikaku, Dai Rokkan: Sengo Kaikaku to Sono Isan [Postwar Japan: Occupation and Postwar
Reform: No. 6, Postwar Reform and its Legacy] (Iwanami Shoten, 1995 [new edition in 2005]). See also the English version,
Akira Suehiro, “The Road to Economic Re-entry: Japan’s Policy toward Southeast Asian Development in the 1950s and1960s” Social Science Japan Journal, Vol.2, No.1, 1999 (Institute of Social Science, the University of Tokyo).

2

Akira Suehiro, “Keizai Saishinshutsu e no Michi” [The Road to Economic Re-entry].

3

Akira Suehiro, “Tai: Hannichi Undo no Keizaiteki Haikei” [Thailand: Economic Background to the Anti-Japan Demonstra­tions], Kazuo Shibagaki, ed., Sekai no Naka no Nihon Shihonshugi [Japanese Capitalism in an International Context] (ToyoKeizai Shinposha, 1980).

4

Akira Suehiro, Kyacchiappugata Kogyoka-ron: Ajia Keizai no Kiseki to Tenbo [Catch-up Industrialization: The Trajectoryand Prospects of Asian Economies] (Nagoya University, 2000). See also Akira Suehiro, Catch-up Industrialization: The
Trajectory and Prospects of East Asian Economies, Singapore: NUS Press, 2008.

5

Akira Suehiro and Susumu Yamakage, eds., Ajia Seijikeizairon: Ajia no Naka no Nihon o Mezashite [The Political Economyof Asia: Positioning Japan in East Asia] (NTT Shuppan, 2001).

6

Akira Suehiro and Susumu Yamakage, Ajia Seijikeizairon [The Political Economy of Asia].

7

Asian Development Bank (ADB), Asia 2050: Realizing the Asian Century (Manila: ADB, 2012).

8

Satoshi Amako, Nicchu Tairitsu: Shu Kimpei no Chugoku o Yomu [Conflict between Japan and China: Interpreting the China
of Xi Jinping) (Chikumashobo, 2013).

9

Indermit Gill and Homi Kharas, An East Asian Renaissance: Ideas for Economic Growth (Washington, D.C.: The World
Bank, 2007).

10 Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO), ed., Sekai to Nihon no Kaigai Chokusetsu Toshi, Jetoro Hakusho (Toshihen)
1991: Gurobaru na Kozo Chosei o Sokushin Suru Chokusetsu Toshi [JETRO White Paper on Investment 1991: Foreign Direct
Investment by Japan and the World: Direct Investment Promotes Global Structural Adjustment] (JETRO, 1991).
11 Takeshi Aoki, Taiheiyou Seicho no Toraianguru: Nihon-Beikoku-Ajia NICs Kan no Kozo Chosei [The Pacific Growth Triangle:
Structural Adjustment amongst Japan, the United States, and the Asian NICs] (Nippon Hyoronsha, 1987).
12 Jaw-Yann Twu, Toyo Shihonshugi [Oriental Capitalism] (Kodansha Gendaishinsho, 1990).
13 Akira Suehiro, “Higashi Ajia Keizai o Dou Toraeru Ka? Kaihatsu Tojokoku-ron kara Shinko Chushinkokugun-ron e” [HowShould We Read the East Asian Economies? From ‘Developing Countries’ to ‘Emerging Middle-Income Countries’], RIM
Vol.10, No.38 (July 2010) (Japan Research Institute).
14 Keiichiro Oizumi, Shohi Suru Ajia: Shinkokoku Shijo no Kanosei to Fuan [Asia as Consumer: The Possibilities and Uncertain­
ties of Emerging Markets] (Chuko Shinsho, 2011).
15 Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Kourigyo no Kokusai Tenkai ni Kan Suru Kenkyukai Hokokusho [Study

23

Group Report on the International Expansion of the Retail Industry] (METI, May 2008).
16 METI, Nihon no EPA no Torikumi Jokyo [Status of Japan’s EPA Initiatives] (METI, March 2012).
17 METI, Ajia PPP Seisaku Kenkyukai Hokokusho [Report of the Study Group on Asian PPP Policy] (METI, April 2009).
18 Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA), ERIA Katsudo no Ayumi [History of ERIA Activities] (2012).
19 Cabinet Office, Shinseicho Senryaku: Genki na Nihon Fukkatsu no Shinariro [New Growth Strategy: Toward the Revival ofan Active Japan] (Cabinet decision, 18 June 2010).
20 Keiichi Umada, Shujiro Urata, and Fukunari Kimura, eds., Nihon no TPP Senryaku: Kadai to Tenbo [Japan’s TPP Strategy:
Challenges and Perspectives] (Bunshindo, 2012).
21 Masanao Ito, Kinyu Kiki Wa Futatabi Yatte Kuru: Sekai Keizai No Mekanizumu (Iwanami Bukkuretto) [Financial Crisis Will
Come Again: The Mechanism of the World Economy (Iwanami Booklet)] (Iwanami Shoten, 2012).
22 Akira Suehiro, “Abe Naikaku to Tonan-ajia” [The Abe Administration and Southeast Asia], The Asian Affairs ResearchCouncil, Ajia Jiho [Asian Journal] (September 2013). For more detail, see Keiko Chino, “Abe Shinzo to Ajia” [Abe Shinzo
and Asia] in Nihon wa ASEAN to Dou Tsukiaunoka: Bei Chu Koubou Jidai no Shin Senryaku [How will Japan Associate with
ASEAN? New Strategy in the Era of Conflict between the United States and China] (Soshisha, 2015).
23 Akira Suehiro, “Higashi Ajia Keizai o Dou Toraeru Ka?” [How Should We Read the East Asian Economies?]. See also Akira
Suehiro, Shinko Ajia Keizai-ron: Kyacchiappu wo Koete [Newly Emerging Asian Economies: Beyond the Catch-up
Industrialization] (Iwanami Shoten, 2014).

24