The Economic DevelopmentofJapan
The Path Traveled by Japan as a Developing Country

Kenichi Ohno

Translated from Kenichi Ohno, Tojokoku Nippon no Ayumi: Edo kara Heisei
madeno Keizai Hatten (The Path Traveled by Japan as a Developing Country:
Economic Growth from Edo to Heisei), Yuhikaku Publishing Co. Ltd., Tokyo,
2005.

Copyright © 2006 by GRIPS Development ForumGRIPS Development Forum
National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies
7-22-1 Roppongi, Minato-ku, Tokyo 106-8677, Japan
Phone: 81-3-6439-6000
Fax:

81-3-6439-6010

Email: forum@grips.ac.jp

I would like to thank my students at GRIPS for giving me theopportunity to write this book, and Ms. Azko Hayashida forcompiling the English edition.

Contents —————————————————
Preface to the English Edition
Foreword to the Japanese Edition
Chapter 1 Modernization for Latecomers ······ 1
Chapter 2 The Edo Period: Pre-conditions for Industrialization ······ 21
Chapter 3 Meiji (1): Key Goals of the New Government ······ 39
Chapter 4 Meiji (2): Importing and Absorbing Technology ······ 55
Chapter 5 Meiji (3): Development of Major Industries ······ 71
Chapter 6 Meiji (4): Budget, Finance and the Macroeconomy ······ 85
Chapter 7 World War I and the 1920s: Export-led Boom and Recession ······ 99
Chapter 8 The Showa Financial Crisis of 1927 ······ 113
Chapter 9 The 1930s and the War Economy ······ 125
Chapter 10 Postwar Recovery, 1945-49 ······ 143
Chapter 11 The High Growth Era ······ 161
Chapter 12 Economic Maturity and Slowdown ······ 183
Chapter 13 The Bubble Burst and Recession ······ 199
Final Exams ······ 217
Questions Asked by Students ······ 221
References ······ 233

Preface to the English Edition
Materials contained in this book were initially made available on the Englishlanguage website for a Master’s program at the National Graduate Institute for
Policy Studies (GRIPS) in Tokyo. They were then translated into Japanese andpublished in book form for the benefit of Japanese readers in early 2005. However, it soon became clear that the book was very much wanted by non-Japanese readers as well. I was approached by foreign students in Japan and publishers abroad for permission to translate it into other languages including Arabic,
Chinese, and Vietnamese. While the Japanese edition can serve as the original,
it would be much easier to secure good and fast translation if the book werealso available in English. Furthermore, the readership would expand greatly
with the publication of an English edition. That is why the book was translatedback into English.
This book offers an analytical tour of Japan’s socio-economic changes. It is neither a monotonous chronology nor a collection of unrelated academic papers.
Instead, it introduces the readers to the most advanced—and sometimes controversial—studies on the modern history of Japan. Internal capability generated
by frequent interactions between domestic and external forces is the connecting
thread throughout this volume. While the writing style may seem simple andwithout too much theorization, ideas presented here are the ones that haveemerged from long and serious investigation by many researchers. I believe that
this is the first book of this kind ever to have been published either in English or
in Japanese. Please enjoy.
Tokyo, February 2006
Kenichi Ohno

Foreword to the Japanese Edition
This book contains lectures on the Economic Development of Japan which wasdelivered in English by the author at the National Graduate Institute for Policy
Studies (GRIPS) in Tokyo from 1998 to 2004. The majority of my students
were young government officials from developing and transition countries who
would return to their duties after the study at GRIPS. Japan is a unique country
which rose from a backward agricultural economy in the Far East to the forefront of industrial technology. Although I am not an economic historian, I
agreed to teach this course because I was attracted by the intellectual challengeof re-telling the remarkable story of Japan’s development not as a past tale reminisced about by the Japanese themselves but as a contemporary message to foreign elites who are struggling to develop their motherlands at this very moment.
I am a practitioner of economic development. I stay in a latecomer country(Vietnam, to be more precise), advise its government on economic policy making, train young people who can replace me in the future, and offer academic
inputs to the Japanese government and other donors of that country. The topic
of this book, the history of Japan after its global re-integration in the mid-19th
century, may seem a little worn-out to Japanese scholars who have alreadyspilled a huge amount of ink on the subject. But I still take it up, in the hopethat we might see the road traveled by past Japan in a new light as shed by thestandards and common sense of today’s developing countries. I wrote this bookin Japanese to share my excitement with the Japanese readers.
We recognize ourselves by the existence of others. International comparison isabsolutely necessary to understand the characteristics of any society. My lectures were meant to be a mirror in which foreign students discovered their own
countries. At the same time, I believe that they can also serve as a mirror forJapanese people to re-discover themselves. I myself encountered numerous surprises as I prepared and delivered these lectures. Domestic research closed to
the rest of the world cannot uncover Japan’s position in the world history.

In preparing the website and lecture notes which I used to compile this book, I
tried to gather information broadly. While the core materials came from theexisting academic literature on Japanese economic history, I also added discourses on politics, culture and ideas in order to make the lectures intellectuallystimulating to my target audience. Since my time and knowledge were limited,discussions in this book might at times be less precise than experts would allow.
Concise description of issues that have been hotly debated by scholars runs therisk of oversimplification. If there are any errors in factual statements, I will be
more than happy to correct them. However, it should also be stressed that the
purpose of this book is to describe a broad stream of history with the help of aparticular vision rather than to scrutinize historical facts in detail. The presentation of a historical vision is a task that can be done relatively independently
from the clarification of minor details.
When I visited libraries and second-hand bookstores in the Kanda District ofTokyo for writing this book, I was often disappointed. In my opinion, there
have been too many studies on Japanese history that were influenced by the
Marxian ideology. Another group of studies endlessly pursue mini discoveries
and minor re-interpretations without placing them in a proper historical context.
Still others list numerous facts chronologically without structure, making themquite boring to the readers. While I respect their effort in search of truth, it isevident that competition among alternative historical visions, which can help us
to select and evaluate various facts, is lacking. Social phenomena must be
understood organically and comprehensively, but this does not mean that therigid Marxian interpretation should be the only guide.
In a modest way, this book attempts to offer one possible vision to review andproject economic development. This vision, presented more fully in Chapter 1,
states that the dynamism of Japanese society was the result of cumulative interaction between domestic and foreign systems in which internal institutional
evolution and responses to foreign elements were repeated throughout history.
This progress pattern, which was unique to Japan (and Western Europe),
strengthened the capabilities of both private enterprises and government officials, transformed social structure gradually but irreversibly, and prepared theconditions for rapid industrialization in the Meiji period and beyond. However,this fortunate pattern does not exist in today’s developing countries. For thisreason, they cannot copy Japan’s development path to grow and industrialize. I
leave the validity of this vision to the assessment of the reader.
In producing this book, Japanese studies were first summarized and translated
into English, then translated back into Japanese. In the process, some historicalterms have been replaced by more general language. Some explanations which
are totally unnecessary to Japanese readers have nonetheless been partly
retained, to convey the atmosphere of the lectures delivered to foreign students.
Additional data and photos used in classroom handouts and the lecture website
had to be mostly omitted from this edition due to the limitation of space. Quotations in archaic Japanese have been rephrased in contemporary Japanese. At theend of this book, final exam questions I gave to my students and classroom
exchanges are attached for the interested readers.
In planning and producing this book, I was deeply indebted to Ms. Yuko Fujita
of Yuhikaku Publishing Co., Ltd. Mr. Susumu Ito of Yuhikaku was also instrumental in this publication. My sincere thanks go again to both, who previously
helped me to publish another book. The rest of my gratitude is properly directed
to my students who attended the Economic Development of Japan over the past
six years. The official count of students who sat the final exam was 172, but if
the dropouts are included, over 200 students listened to my lectures. I hope thatthey will remember the path traveled by a developing country called Japan—
with its brilliant successes and dismal failures—when they formulate policies
back in their own countries.
December 2004
The Author

Modernization for Latecomers

The World Bank today, Washington, DC, USA

Newspaper illustration of the Black Ships of Commodore Perry, circa 1853.

Chapter 1

1. Domestic society and external forces
In any country, history proceeds as an interaction between domestic
and foreign forces. In the discussion of Japanese development which follows,
this aspect of systemic interaction will be highlighted. Japan’s modernization
began with its encounter with the powerful West in the 19th century. The pathof Japanese industrialization thereafter can be interpreted as the process of various domestic actors, including the government, businesses, communities andindividuals, responding to shocks and influences coming from abroad. This perspective is very useful even today, since developing countries are now required
to develop under the strong presence of globalizing pressure. The development
process of such countries can also be understood as two systems, local and foreign, in dynamic interaction. Today, new ideas and systems often come with thenames such as the market mechanism, democracy, conditionality, international
best practice, PRSP, MDGs, and so on.
A domestic society is the base into which new foreign systems are
introduced. Each society has unique characteristics reflecting its ecology andhistory. Existing institutions in that society are mutually dependent and form a
coherent whole (this is called “institutional complementarity”). Domestic societies have their own logic and mechanisms of internal evolution and, for certain
periods, can evolve mainly through internal forces. This evolution is usuallyslow and continuous. But when exposed to strong foreign impacts, social equilibrium is suddenly disturbed and the country is dislodged from its previous
course. If the domestic response to foreign forces is resilient and appropriate,
the society will begin a new dynamic evolution. But if the response is weak or
inconsistent, the society may be destabilized or even destroyed under foreign
dominance.
In the 20th century, isolation and self-sufficiency were pursued undersocialist planning, but the effort failed miserably to produce economic
dynamism. Since the disappearance of the Soviet Union, refusal to integrate
into the world has been totally discredited as a national economic strategy.
While the policies of the WTO, IMF, and World Bank contain many shortcomings, latecomer countries have no option but to join these international organizations. Now the question is not whether to integrate but how to integrate. Inter-2Modernization for Latecomers

national integration is the necessary condition for development, but it is not sufficient (UNCTAD, 2004).
The term development does not necessarily imply the existence of
external influence. Theoretically, development can be internally driven or externally motivated. In our age, however, it has become almost impossible toachieve sound and sustainable development without effectively coping with andintegrating into the global system. Development now carries almost the same
meaning as “catching up with industrial countries” or “modernization throughtrade, FDI, and industrialization.” From a long historical viewpoint, this is avery special type of development. But we can hardly think of any other way.
Whether desirable or not, this is the reality we face today1.
Throughout its history, Japan also experienced periods of relatively
tranquil internal evolution and periods of dynamic change under strong external
influences. These periods alternated to create Japanese society in a multi-layered fashion (Figure 1-1). Major external impacts on Japan included the following:
Rice cultivation

introduced from the Eurasian Continent around thethird century BC (recent evidence shows that rice cultivation may havebeen brought to Japan earlier).
Buddhismbrought from China via Korea in the sixth century AD.

Chinese culture and political system

imported vigorously from theseventh to the early tenth century AD.
First direct contact with Europeansguns and Christianity arrived in

the 16th century AD.
Modernization

the second contact with the industrialized West in the

19th century.
The Mongolians also tried to invade Japan twice in the 13th century,
but their military attempts failed. It is said that, on each occasion, a huge storm
destroyed their fleet off the coast of Kyushu Island. If the Mongolian invasion
1

Among development strategies, the promoters of endogenous development argue for restricting
external integration and letting local systems within each society become the growth engine.
This includes, for example, agricultural production for local consumption rather than commercial sales, and communal development based on traditional religion, value and customs. Thisapproach may activate communities and provide a risk sharing mechanism in a certain stage ofdevelopment. But its validity as a long-term universal development strategy is not confirmed.

3Chapter 1

Figure 1-1 Japan’s Multi-layered Identity

Pre-historic Japan
Rice cultivation
Buddhism, China
Heian & Samurai
CultureGuns & Christianity
Edo Culture
Western influence

Note: Shaded areas indicate external impacts.

had been successful, Japan would have received another big foreign impact.
Compared with the history of other countries in the non-Westernworld, it can be said that Japan absorbed successive external shocks rather well,and used them positively for change and new growth. Japan also retained its
national identity throughout this process, although Japan today and Japan in thepast are entirely different in their appearance. Japanese society exhibits a multilayered, onion-like structure, where old and new elements coexist flexibly anddifferent characteristics can surface depending on the circumstance (Figure 11). Meanwhile, one Chinese social scientist has remarked that China is like ahard stone ball which cannot change unless it is exploded and replaced byanother hard ball (called “revolution”), maybe of a different color.
The Japanese people happily absorb a large number of potentiallyconflicting elements and use them interchangeably as occasions require. This isa unique feature of the Japanese people not often seen in other societies. To put
it positively, the Japanese are flexible, generous and pragmatic. But to put it
critically, they are without principle, fidelity or devotion. In his famous book on
Japanese philosophy, Masao Maruyama (1961) lamented that the Japanese had

4Modernization for Latecomers

no tradition of thinking logically and consistently though they were full of feelings and experiences. This criticism may be legitimate from the viewpoint ofWestern rationalism. But from another aspect, the seemingly principle-less wayof the Japanese may have some value if we are to co-exist peacefully among
different ethnicities, religions and ideologies in an integrated world. At any rate,
the point we want to make here is that Japanese thinking is quite different from
Western thinking, without asserting which is superior.
This book focuses on Japan’s latest great transformation driven by an
external shock, namely the process of Westernization and industrialization
under the strong pressure of the West during the 19th and 20th centuries.

2. Translative adaptation
The idea of translative adaptation is proposed by Keiji Maegawa, an
economic anthropologist at Tsukuba University.
When a country in the periphery joins the world system, it may look
as if the country (say, Kazakhstan) is being absorbed in the dominant international order (say, the global market system). It looks as if the country is forced
to abandon its traditional culture, systems, social structure and so on, which areconsidered “backward,” in order to embrace the “international best practice.”
Viewed from inside the country in the process of “being absorbed,” however,the situation is not always passive. In a proper integration process, Maegawa
says that the country should take initiative in deciding the terms of integration,
Figure 1-2 Integration Viewed from Outside

Existing World System
Democracy, market economy, industry,technology, life style ...

Latecomer countr y

Dynamism for change（＋）
Integration risks（−）

5

Chapter 1

Figure 1-3 Integration Viewed from Inside
Interaction of domestic & foreign systems
Imported from outside by:Foreign
Systems

Invasion
Migration
Trade and FDIODAInternational organizations

Conflicts andadjustments
Govornment
must manage

Base SocietyInternal systemic evolution

making sure that it can retain ownership (national autonomy), social continuity
and national identity. The country changes, but the change is managed by its
government and people and not by foreign firms or organizations. Foreign ideas
and systems are introduced not in the original form but with modifications to fit
local needs. If this is achieved, the transformed country is not really so weak or
passive. It is taking advantage of external stimuli to change and grow. This iscalled “translative adaptation.” Maegawa says that Japan since the Meiji period
did just that.
When a non-Western society encounters a powerful representative of Western
civilization, it is hardly possible to escape from its influences. Some ethnic
groups have been eradicated in short periods after contact with the West. At
the same time, many nations and societies have adopted Western institutions
and objects from without in order to survive (or by their own choice). However, it is important to recognize that they did not accept Western inventionsin their original forms. Any item in one culture will change its meaning whentransplanted to another culture, as seen widely in ethnography around theworld. Not only cosmology, religious doctrine, rituals, but also the familysystem, the institution of exchange, and even socio-economic organizations

6Modernization for Latecomers

like the firm exhibit the property of adapting to external institutions and principles with the existing cultural system maintaining its form of structure. The
essence of what has been called “modernization” is the adaptive acceptanceof Western civilization under the persistent form of the existing culture. Thatis, actors in the existing system have adapted to the new system by reinterpreting each element of Western culture (i.e. “civilization”) in their own
value structure, modifying yet maintaining the existing institutions. I shallcall this “translative adaptation.” (Maegawa, 1998, pp.174-175)

However, international integration is a risky process and not all countries can perform translative adaptation. A developing country exposed tostrong external pressure faces a great challenge. This is a critical moment in thehistory of that country. Compared with the more predictable days of internal
evolution, the fate of the society and its people now depends critically on how
they react to this challenge. Domestic capability is still weak, while thedemands of globalization are high. Suddenly, the country is required to make agreat leap forward or fall into an abyss. It is as if an average student is told byhis teacher to participate in an international math competition. With enormous
effort, he may improve his skill and win. But it is more likely that he will failmiserably. The problem is that the challenge is too big for his current ability. If
the goal is unreachable, the effort is not fruitful.
While the effort of domestic businesses and communities is important, the most crucial response to globalization must come from the policies of
the central government. If the government loses control of the integration
process, dire consequences may occur, such as macroeconomic instability,
social disintegration, political crises, ethnic conflict, foreign dominance, and soon.
When caught in a dilemma between weak capability and the greatchallenges of globalization, some governments refuse to deal with the external
world and revert to isolation, economic control and the rejection of Westernideas. Other governments rush to embrace the imported principles of free tradeand Western democracy uncritically, without considering the effects it brings to
the domestic society. Both reaction patterns are shallow, extreme and unadvisable. Translative adaptation requires much deeper thinking by the top policy
makers. It is indeed a very difficult task.
Japan faced great challenges when it opened up to the Western world7Chapter 1

in the middle of the 19th century. It also experienced similar hardship after the
war defeat of 1945. In both cases, Japan eventually emerged as a brilliantly successful latecomer, at least economically.

3. Why Japan could succeed
Traditionally, we consider Japan in the 19th
century as a weak, agricultural, backward country with
low technology suddenly exposed to influences from thepowerful West. Japan struggled to industrialize andsomehow succeeded. But why did only Japan succeed
so early, among all non-Western countries? This is thebiggest question for whoever studies Japan’s modern
history. However, Dr. Tadao Umesao, a distinguishedTadao Umesao (1920-)

scholar in comparative civilization, says that there is no
mystery here. According to him, Japan emerged as a non-Western industrial
country very naturally.
Until 1993, Dr. Umesao was the director general of the National
Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, which he founded in 1974. In his earlier days,
he traveled extensively in Mongolia, Afghanistan, Southeast Asia, Africa andEurope undertaking anthropological fieldwork. In 1957, he proposed a new theory on Japanese history and national identity.
Dr. Umesao says that the traditional view of Japan as a backward
country is wrong. He argues that Japan and Western Europe are two very
unique societies in the world. Both are located on the periphery of the huge
Eurasian Continent. Both enjoy a temperate climate. More importantly, they are
relatively insulated from violent invasions by nomadic peoples residing in thecentral dry areas of the Eurasian Continent. He argues that these geographic andclimatic advantages are crucial for the spontaneous and continuous development of society. Japan and the United Kingdom are particularly similar in thatthey are island nations just off the continent.
Japan and Western Europe were an appropriate distance (not too far,not too close) from the great civilizations of Eurasia—namely, China, India,
and the Middle East (Islam). They could absorb the cultural achievements of8

Modernization for Latecomers

Figure 1-4 Dr. Umesao’s View of the World
Eurasian Continent

RussiaThe
Western Mediterra- Dry Area China
Japan
Europe neanandIslamic
statesIndia

Source: Compiled by the author from Umesao, 2003, 1986.

these civilizations while being invaded and destroyed much less often than societies located in the middle of the continent. This permitted both societies to
evolve cumulatively and organically. They mixed domestic culture and foreign
impact properly, without being wiped out and having to start over again fromscratch. Under these similar historical conditions, Japan and Western Europe
developed independently and in parallel—from centralized imperialism topower decentralization, establishing feudalism, then absolutism, and finallycapitalism. It is no accident that the Industrial Revolution originated in the
United Kingdom, and that the only non-Western country to industrialize as
thoroughly as the West was Japan. In no other areas did history evolve sosequentially. According to Umesao, Japan got behind the United Kingdom
because it adopted the bizarre policy of external isolation from 1639 to 1854
(chapter 2). Without this deviation, Umesao asserts, the two nations would haveachieved the Industrial Revolution at about the same time2.

2

In the historical discourse of Dr. Umesao, the most shocking passage to the author was his view
on Japan’s invasion of other East Asian countries from the late 19th century to 1945. He argues
that, without the strange isolationism, Japan would have reached the Southeast Asia much sooner and fought the British and French forces there. In his words, “Japan’s role in international
power politics was similar to that of Britain, France and the Netherlands. Japan’s later behavior
as a regional power was not solely the result of a surge of militarism after the Meiji Restoration(1868). It grew from the gap between Japan and Southeast Asia in terms of their situation in thehistory of civilization, and from the similarity of circumstances between Japan and Western
Europe” (Umesao, 2003, p.110).

9Chapter 1

Chinese, Indian and Islamic civilizations produced great culturalachievements, but their social structures were static; only empire and dictatorship (and later, colonialism) ruled. From one dynasty to another, there was noclear progress from the viewpoint of social and political evolution. For thousands of years, emperors and kings were basically the same. According to Umesao, only Western Europe and Japan satisfy the historical conditions necessary
to industrialize. Japan did not imitate the West; the two areas developed spontaneously and independently (North America can be regarded as part of Western
Europe). He is very pessimistic about the possibility of industrialization in therest of the world, including all the developing countries today.
This chapter has introduced Dr. Umesao’s view not because theauthor agrees with him completely, but because it is interesting and stimulating.
His interpretation of Japanese history is unique and in the minority. In fact, hisview is not very well known even among Japanese. Personally, I think the ideathat industrialization will take place only under certain rigid historical conditions and nowhere else is too simplistic and deterministic. If the path to industrialization cannot be built but only inherited, ODA, FDI, development economics, World Bank and UNDP policies, and all courses in our campus (including
this lecture) are all in vain. Can we really say that China will never become anindustrialized country? Does Africa have no hope?
The present author believes that industrialization is more dynamic
and transferable today. Dr. Umesao’s explanation may be valid up to the recent
past. However, we are now living in the age of internet, air travel and global
exchange of information. Physical distance from the center country should nolonger matter very much. Even though history is ingrained deeply in the characteristics of each people, ethnic traits are also dynamic and changeable. With
great leadership and ideas, a new way of development suitable for each country
should be found. Moreover, there should be more than one path to development
in response to different initial conditions and shifting historical circumstances.
Additionally, Dr. Umesao does not discuss the role of technology, capital andinvestment very much. As a specialist in comparative civilization, he emphasizes the evolution of social structure rather than the physical aspects of industrialization. But the latter are also crucial in determining the success or failureof development.

10Modernization for Latecomers

Having said this, however, Dr. Umesao may be quite right in certain
areas. In particular, his theory can explain why Japan had a unique social structure suitable for industrialization, which is not observable in other countries,
even before its encounter with the West. This was the result of the uninterrupted
organic evolution of the Japanese society over the two millennia. It permitted
Japan to absorb new foreign influences flexibly in a multi-layered fashion andsucceed in the translative adaptation of Western thought and technology. This,at least partly, should be an answer to the question of why Japan was able toachieve success so early.
The next chapter will present the concrete conditions prevailing inJapan during the Edo period which enabled it to achieve a rapid catching up in
the late 19th and 20th centuries.

4. A brief history of Japan
While this book focuses on modern Japan, it is useful to take a brieflook at the entire Japanese history at the outset. The summary given below is
not meant to be an academically respectable discourse but a very rough sketch
for those who know little about Japanese history. For beginners, Japanese history can be divided into four major periods: (1) the period in which emperors held
real power, (2) the period of samurai governments, (3) the period of modernization and military invasion, and (4) the period of post WW2 growth.

<Period 1:

The rise and fall of the emperor>

In the pre-historic period, the Japanese people (whose origin is still
debated) were hunter-gatherers with limited agricultural activity. They lived
separately in small villages but were connected by long-distance maritime
trade. They lived relatively peacefully.
When rice cultivation was introduced from the continent (third century BC or before), life changed significantly. Rice cultivation required collective
effort beyond family units under effective leadership. Village size grew andsocial order was established. Religious and military leaders began to form ministates. Wars between mini states became common, and after a few centuries of11

Chapter 1

fighting (details of which is not known due to the shortage of evidence), Japan
was politically unified for the first time.
After a few more centuries, the imperial family took real power andsubordinated other influential clans (Reform of Taika, 645AD). Under a strongemperor, a centralized government with Chinese-style bureaucracy and tax system was created. Many capital cities were built and abandoned one after another (consider how much resource was wasted in doing this!), but finally in 794
the nation’s capital was settled permanently in Kyoto3. Military conquest ofminority peoples was conducted. Buddhism was used for the political purposeof demonstrating the emperor's power and ruling the country. This is the only
period in Japanese history in which the emperor had real political power.

<Period 2:

The age of the samurai>

But power concentration did not last very long. Soon, local landlords
and temples became more independent from the central government andstopped paying taxes or obeying official orders. They established shoen(manors) and employed people to cultivate it. To protect their land, the warrior
class (samurai) emerged. For samurais, land was the most precious asset to be
defended with their lives. Meanwhile, the political power of the noble class
gradually declined. They composed poems, conducted ceremonies, and played
kemari (garden football) in Kyoto.
From the end of the 12th century onward, samurai leaders formed thegovernment4. The first samurai government was established in Kamakura, 350
km east of Kyoto, in 1192 (Kyoto was still the capital—where the emperor
resided—but real power rested with samurais in Kamakura). The top samurai
was called shogun. The Kamakura government guaranteed samurais’ right toKyoto literally means capital city. If the capital is defined to be the location of the emperor’s
official residence, Kyoto remained the capital of Japan until 1868.
4
Even after the emperor lost real power, samurai leaders still sought an imperial approval to set
up a new government and legitimize their power. All subsequent governments (even today)
have used the symbolic authority of the emperor instead of terminating the imperial family andthemselves establishing a new kingdom or dynasty. The benefit of receiving an imperial sanction to rule must have been greater than the cost of keeping the emperor who rarely intervenedin politics. Once this practice was established, deviation from it became politically too costly as
it would surely invite a severe accusation of demeaning the divine family.
3

12

Modernization for Latecomers

own land and also distributed new land to those with distinguished service inwar. However, Japan was greatly shaken by two invasion attempts by the Mongolians in 1274 and 1281. Each time, the great Mongolian fleet attacked thecoast of Kyushu but was repelled by a combination of Japanese resistance and ahuge storm. While unsuccessful, the Mongolian attacks led to the eventual collapse of the Kamakura government. It ran out of land to distribute to samurais
who bravely fought Mongolians.
After this, long internal fights among daimyo (samurai leaders)ensued. Finally, Ieyasu Tokugawa, one of the daimyos, reunified Japan andestablished the Edo government in 1603 (in what is now called Tokyo). The
Sengoku Jidai (Warring Age) came to an end and Japan finally began to enjoy
internal stability.
The Edo government was politically conservative and highly bureaucratic. It imposed rigid social order and banned foreign contact and trade (witha few exceptions). Peace was restored under a strict bureaucratic rule. However,in recent historical research, the Edo period is viewed as a dynamically evolving period rather than a stagnant dark age. Under international isolation whichlasted more than two centuries (1639-1854), agricultural productivity graduallyrose, and commercial crops, trade, finance and industry grew. Japan’s uniqueculture developed. Conditions for industrialization were ripe.

<Period 3:

Meiji modernization, industrialization and wars>

Several Western powers wanted to open up Japan from its selfimposed isolation. First, the Russians came. Then other Europeans arrived. But
the Edo government refused to deal with them. Finally, in 1853, the American
troops led by Commodore Perry came with four “black ships” loaded with powerful guns to force Japan into concession. The Edo government—and the entire
nation—was thrown into confusion. A strong anti-foreigner movement emerged
all over Japan. In the following year, the government yielded to the Americanpressure and signed the Japan-US Friendship Treaty. Other Western powers followed the American move. The Americans further demanded a full commercial
treaty with Japan. In 1858, in the midst of a heated national debate, the government suppressed the opposition and concluded commercial treaties with the13Chapter 1

West which later turned out to be defective (chapter 3). Criticism against the
government rose sharply and internal political fights ensued, finally toppling
the Edo government in 1867.
The new Meiji government restored the emperor (who for a long time
had no real power) as a supreme ruler and adopted a policy of rapid Westernization, modernization and militarization. In the political area, the first national
constitution was promulgated in 1889 and parliamentary politics was established. In the economic area, the absorption of Western technology and the creation of modern industries were the primary national goals. The textile industry
gradually emerged as an internationally competitive industry. In the militaryarea, Japan won a war against China (Qing Dynasty) in 1894-95 and began toinvade Korea (it was later colonized in 1910). Japan also fought a victorious
war with the Russian Empire in 1904-05.
The Japanese economy experienced an enormous export-led boom
during WW1. During the 1920s, industrialization continued despite frequentrecessions, the Great Kanto Earthquake, and banking crises. The party cabinet
system and the diplomacy based on international cooperation (especially with
the US) were implemented during most of the 1920s. But in the 1930s Japan
turned decisively to militarism. In the 1931 Manchurian Incident, Northeast
China was occupied. A full-scale war with China was initiated in 1937 and thePacific War began in 1941. Wartime economic planning was adopted.

<Period 4:

Postwar growth>

Japan was defeated in 1945 and the country’s economic base wasdestroyed. Under the US occupation, a recovery strategy under material planning was successfully conducted in 1947-48 and postwar inflation was terminated in 1949. From the mid 1950s through the early 1970s, Japan enjoyed very
rapid growth and industrialization. The manufacturing sector expanded strongly
and Japan became the second largest economy in the world (after the US) by
the end of the 1960s. National security under the US military umbrella, global
trade expansion, and a stable exchange rate contributed to the miracle growth.
As the Japanese economy matured, growth slowed down. In the
1970s, oil shocks and floating exchange rates reduced Japan’s growth to about

14Modernization for Latecomers

4 percent. An asset bubble in land and stocks occurred in the late 1980s whichburst in 1990-91. Since the early 1990s and even to this day, the Japanese economy has virtually stopped growing.

15

Chapter 1

The Age of Samurai

Rise and Fall of Emperor

Table 1-1 Outline of Japanese History
PeriodDomestic Events

External Events

Jomon (-3c. BC)

Hunting and gathering, some agriculture

Yayoi / Kofun(3c. BC-5c. AD)

Internal wars → Unification of Ja- ←Rice production introduced→Diplomacy with China (tributary)pan→Intervention in Korea

Asuka / Hakuho(5-7c. AD)←Buddhism introduced (via Korea)
Clan politics
Tenno (emperor) consolidates power

Nara (710-794)
Capital: Nara

Ritsuryo System―Emperor s di- ←Chinese political system imported
rect rule based on laws & centralized government; Buddhism promoted as state religion

Heian (794-1192)
Capital: Kyoto

Court politics by nobles
Manorial system (power decentrali- ×Diplomacy with China terminatedzation)Rise of samurai (warrior) class

Kamakura(1192-1333)
Cap: KamakuraFirst samurai government
New Buddhist sects emerge

Muromachi(1338-1573)
Capital: Kyoto

Samurai government
Two emperors compete (north vs. →Trade with China resumes→Japanese pirates attack Chinese coast
south)→Active trade with Southeast Asia
Internal wars and rebellions

Sengoku (-1603)

Internal wars among daimyo (sa- ←First contact with Europeans
Guns & Christianity introduced
murai warlords)→Unification by Ieyasu Tokugawa

Edo (1603-1867)
Cap: Edo (Tokyo)

Tokugawa Shogun Government (samurai rule, agricultural tax, class system)
・ Stability under strong government
・ Han s promotion of local industries
・ Agriculture & handicraft develop
・ Transportation, finance, commerce,
education upgraded, unified national
market・ Merchants economic power increases
・ Unique popular culture develops←Two Mongolian invasions (failed)

×Closed door policy―No diplomacy & trade allowed (except China,
Holland, Korea, Ryukyu); Christianity
bannedDebate over open door policy vs. anti- ←America opens Japan by military
threat (1853-54)
foreigner military campaign
Han samurais topple Shogun Government Danger of colonization by West16

Modernization for Latecomers

PeriodDomestic Events

External Events

Modernization

Strong government under emperor Need to catch up with West
Meiji(1868-1912)(Capital: Tokyo to adopts open door policy and rapid
Westernization
present)

Taisho (1912-26)

Early Showa(1926-45)

Postwar

Late Showa(1945-88)

Fukoku kyohei (strong economy &army)
Industrialization (strong private
sector supported by government)→War with China (Qing Dynasty, 1894)→War with Russia (1904)→Annexation of Korea (1910)
Democracy movement (short-lived) →Pursuit of Chinese interest
Recessions & economic crises →Invasion of Manchuria (NE China,(1920s-30s)
1931)
Military takes over government→Full-scale war with China (1937)
Mobilization of people & resources →Pacific War (1941) Invasion of SEA
for war
Democratization & demilitarization War defeat (1945)
Economic recovery from postwar ←U.S. occupation (1945-51)
crisisPriority production system
Rapid industrialization (1950s-60s) Multilateral open door policy
Strong private initiative
Joins IMF, World Bank, OECDMITI s industrial policy
Economic slowdown (1970s-)

Heisei (1988-)

Becomes No.2 economy (around1970)

Bubble burst, economic stagnation Becomes top ODA donor (1990-99)(1990s-)17

Chapter 1

The gap between economic and social achievements
In the book entitled Japan’s Modernization and Social Change, sociologist
Kenichi Tominaga proposes a general framework to understand the various aspects ofJapan’s modernization and industrialization. Traditionally, there have been two
opposing interpretations of Japan’s modern history. The first view positively considers Japan’s economic performance, especially its brilliant success as a latecomer. The
second view castigates past Japan as the oppressor of its own people and a military
invader of the neighboring countries. Is Japan a model for all developing countries, ora negative case to be avoided at all cost? Tominaga cautions that a debate over such asimplistic dualism yields little result. According to him, modernization is a complex
phenomenon that must be analyzed with scientific concepts and models.
Tominaga first emphasizes that the modernization process of a non-Westerncountry does not trace the same path as it does in the West.
To be successful, the modernization of a non-Western country must be a creative
process in which a comparison between indigenous and foreign cultures is made, thesuperior aspects of the latter are selectively introduced, the imported and indigenous elements are combined to breed something new, and conflict between the two is mitigated.
Japan’s modernization was precisely such a process. Modernization currently proceeding in the societies of the Asian NIEs also conforms to this description. (Tominaga,
1990, pp.38-39)

This idea is essentially the same as Maegawa’s translative adaptation discussed
in the main text. From this realization, Tominaga’s method proposes to divide society
into the following four subsystems and describe the evolution of each in detail.
Economic modernization (economic growth through industrialization)
Political modernization (democratization)
Social modernization in the narrow sense (transition from gemeinschaft[land- and lineage-based groups] to gesellschaft [functional groups] aswell as a shift from closed rural communities to open urban communities)
Cultural modernization in the narrow sense (transition from superstition
and irrational customs to scientific and rational thinking)Tominaga’s main argument can be summarized as follows. The modernization ofEurope started with the internal development of political and social subsystems fol-18

Modernization for Latecomers

lowed by the Industrial Revolution. But latecomer countries cannot follow thissequence. For them, economic modernization is “easier” than political modernization.
Social and cultural modernization is even harder. This is because much more time andenergy are required to transform a structure which dominates and permeates every
detail of people’s life than to copy new technology and industries. This naturally leads
to a gap between fast economic growth and slow progress in all other aspects. However, since the economic subsystem and the non-economic subsystems are interdependent, this gap generates tension and conflict which distorts the modernization processof that country. Prewar Japan, which boasted high technology and modern industries
on the one hand and imposed the concept of the holy nation derived from ancientemperor worship and the feudal family system on the other, is a typical example.
While expressed sociologically, Tominaga’s assertion in fact belongs to one of thevery popular views on the merits and demerits of Japan’s modernization process.
Tominaga also argues thus:
Before the Edo period, Japan did not generate any ideas or systems that
could support modernization. For this reason, modernization beginningfrom the subsequent Meiji period called for a total negation of traditional systems and a switch to foreign systems.
Modernization cannot succeed in a society where gemeinschaft, closed ruralcommunities and irrational thinking remain. If modernization is pursued in
the presence of these elements, dilemma and friction become inevitable.
The serious modernization gap in the prewar Japan was largely removed asa result of bold postwar reforms, but some traditional elements still
remain even today. Japan’s modernization will not be complete unlessthese remaining elements are finally eliminated.
It is clear that Tominaga views Japan’s indigenous elements very negatively. He
regards them as nothing but obstacles to modernization rather than a basis on which
imported elements are to be grafted. This is in sharp contrast to Umesao’s high evaluation of the continuity of Japanese history which prompts him to say that Japan, as
Britain, evolved naturally and autonomously as a modern nation. It is also at odds
with Maegawa’s translative adaptation and his assertion that Japan successfully
mixed domestic systems with foreign ones with the former serving as the more fundamental base. Which interpretation is more reasonable? I leave it to the reader todecide.

19

The Edo Period:
Pre-conditions for Industrialization

Yomei Gate, Toshogu Shrine in Nikko

Chapter 2

1. The Edo period: 1603-1867
From the late 12th century through the 17th century, Japan was ruledby samurais (military leaders) but its politics remained unstable. Internal wars
and power shifts were very frequent, especially during the late 15th century to
the end of the 16th century, which was called the Sengoku (warring) period.
Finally, Ieyasu Tokugawa unified the country after the decisive Battleof Sekigahara (located between Nagoya and Kyoto, and visible today from the
Shinkansen) in 1600 and the attacks on Osaka Castle in 1615 where the rival
Toyotomi family perished. Ieyasu established a new government in Edo andbecame the first shogun of the Edo Bakufu in 1603. Edo, a sleepy little town
until then, was transformed into a huge political city by aggressive public works
projects including land reclamation and artificial canals and water supplies. The
Tokugawa family ruled the country for the next 264 years (15 shoguns in all).
Ieyasu Tokugawa was deified and is still worshiped in Nikko Toshogu Shrine.
A particularly important development during the Sengoku and early
Edo period was the removal of various middle-layer organizations such as Buddhist temples and sects, manorial owners and resident landlords which had
existed since the ancient times and through the middle ages. Power decentralization and indirect rule were now replaced by direct and unified rule by the
newly emerged daimyo (warlord) in each region. This was achieved by a number of policies and actions taken by Sengoku daimyos, especially Nobunaga
Oda and Hideyoshi Toyotomi, the two most powerful military leaders before
Ieyasu finally took power. Their policies included the military conquests of
opponents, the liberalization of commerce, the prohibition of inter-regional custom duties, official land survey and registration (kenchi), the confiscation of allarms from non-samurai population (katanagari), the construction of a castle
town in every region, the residential requirement of all samurais in castle towns,
the relocation of markets to castle towns, and so on. From this time onward,
samurais and farmers were strictly separated in profession and residence. Samurais who no longer protected their land became salaried urban officials.
Daimyos began to rule land, farmers and samurai retainers directly. This movement which was started in the Sengoku period was continued and completed by
the Edo government.

22

The Edo Period: Pre-conditions for Industrialization

Table 2-1 Some Basic Terms of the Edo Period
Edo

DaimyoShogunBakufuHan

The old name for Tokyo. Edo literally means the mouth of bay. Incidentally, Tokyo means eastern capital (the western, or the traditional, capital
is Kyoto).
Regional samurai ruler. During the Edo period, it meant the head samuraiof a local government (han).
Originally, the supreme commander of a dispatched army. But it usuallymeans the head of a central military government.
Residence of a military ruler. Later it meant the central government established by a military leader.
A local government (like province or prefecture) in the Edo period.

We start the story of Japan’s economic development from the Edo
period because the pre-conditions for later industrialization and modernization
were created internally during this period. Let us list these pre-conditions at theoutset:(1) Political unity and stability(2) Agricultural development in terms of both area and productivity(3) The development of transportation and the emergence of nationallyunified markets(4) The rise of commerce, finance and the wealthy merchant class(5) The rise of pre-modern manufacturing (food processing, handicraft,etc.)(6) Industrial promotion by local governments (sometimes successful but
not always)(7) High level of education
These are the features of the Edo period which are commonly cited bymany researchers. The remainder of this chapter examines them in detail. Notethat these conditions are not met by some countries even today. We may evensay that developing and transition countries equipped with all these conditions
are relatively rare.

2. Features of the bakufu-han system
The Edo society can be characterized as follows.
(1) It was a class society. The ruling class was the samurai (military23

Chapter 2

men who were permitted to carry a sword). The ruled included farmers (rankedno.2), craftsmen (no.3), and merchants (no.4). These four classes were called
Shi-Nou-Kou-Shou (from top to bottom)1. There was a big gap between thesamurai class and other classes. Farmers were officially placed no.2 because
they paid the rice tax, but they were not particularly respected. Below all ofthese classes, there were also outcasts (eta and hinin—see QAs at the end of thebook).
(2) Politically, it was a centralized system. The bakufu (central government) had absolute political power over the fate of hans (local governments)
and could even remove or abolish them. The shogun gave daimyos the land torule. In return, daimyos pledged loyalty to shogun2. Any sign of disobedience
was met with the sternest punishment including seppuku (ritual suicide) and thetermination of the family.
(3) Economically, it was more decentralized. The bakufu was notvery capable of (or interested in) conducting consistent economic policies. Its
policies were often unstable and myopic. On the other hand, each han could
decide its internal policies including administration, taxation, education, industrial promotion, issuing paper money, and other economic regulations as long as
it was not explicitly prohibited by the bakufu.
(4) The bakufu imposed the following expenses on hans.
(i) sankin kotai, the bi-annual commuting of the han lord between home andEdo: every daimyo was asked to live in Edo in every other year and in his
han the rest of the time. This cost a huge sum of money in travel and residence since a large number of retainers also moved with the daimyo annually;

Historically, Vietnam also had the distinction of Si-Nong-Cong-Thuong (the Chinese characters
are the same, only the pronunciation is different). The idea originally came from Confucius in
ancient China, but the top ranking “si” in Vietnam meant scholars, not fighting men. Moreover,in China and Vietnam, the four-way classification merely indicated what type of people wererespectable in society and had no political implications. The Edo government turned this idea
into an ideology that legitimized a class society with samurai on top.
2
Because of this relationship, the Edo period is sometimes characterized as feudalism. Many people (especially those in the Meiji period) also commonly recalled the Edo system as “feudal”
with negative connotation. However, we prefer not to use this term in order to avoid ambiguity
and unnecessary debate.
1

24

The Edo Period: Pre-conditions for Industrialization(ii) the irregular assignment of public works such as building and repairing
castles, moats, roads, reservoirs, canals, waterworks, etc;(iii) other ad hoc and arbitrary taxes and charges, for example, for celebrating
the birth of a son in the shogun family. Imposition of these expenses onhans had the effect of weakening the financial capability of hans. Many
hans sank deeply into debt and building up military forces to rebel against
the bakufu became almost impossible.

3. Agriculture
The Edo society was agrarian, particularly at the beginning, with
about 90% of the population being peasants although this ratio subsequently
declined a little. The basic unit of production was the small family. Previously,
one farming household often contained dozens of people with many families
and their servants. But a series of official land surveys and registration (kenchi)
conducted before and after the beginning of the Edo period dismantled the big
family system into small farming units, with each family guaranteed (andobliged to cultivate) its portion of the farmland.
According to the law, peasants had no right to move and were tied to
the land as a labor force and a tax base. But in reality, some farmers moved to
new land, sometimes to avoid a high tax burden or unreasonable policies andsometimes to simply improve their life. Later, as rural income rose, many wellto-do farmers enjoyed village festivals as well as trips to Ise Shrine and otherreligious sites (officially for worship, but actually for fun).
Villages were well organized and permitted autonomy as long as they
paid rice taxes as stipulated by the central or local government3. The rice tax
was levied on villages, not on individual farmers. Village leaders, who were
often themselves farmers, allocated the rice tax burden among villagers. In thissense, village leaders played the role of the lowest-level tax administration.
Thanks to them, the bakufu and hans could raise tax revenues with little admin-

3Each han separately decided the rice tax rate and the way to collect it. Similarly, the bakufu
levied rice taxes from the areas directly ruled by it. Rice tax revenue thus belonged to each collecting government.

25

Chapter 2

istrative cost. Keiichi Tanaka (2000), an Edo historian, argues that farmers werevery dynamic and independent, and they often rejected bakufu officials andtheir policies which were considered inconsistent or unreasonable. Tanaka
believes that the bakufu government generally had no long-term policy vision;
most of its laws and regulations were ad hoc responses to ongoing historicalchanges which could not be stopped.
There were two ways to determine the rice tax obligation. The firstwas the kemi (inspection) system where an official inspector visited the village
to check the actual rice yield every year. Naturally, village leaders treated theofficial with a lot of delicacies and gifts. Some officials only had drinking parties without actually going to the fields. The bribed official happily understatedthe crop yield, often substantially, greatly relieving the tax burden of the villagers. According to historian Shinzaburo Oishi (1977), this type of corruption
was the main reason for the chronic revenue shortage of the governments at alllevels. On the other hand, if the visiting official was arbitrary and uncooperative, he might inflate the tax obligation to the chagrin of the farmers.
The second method was the jomen (fixed amount) system, whereby
the rice tax was unchanged for consecutive three or five years based on the
average yield of the past years. Under this system, the government could securea stable tax revenue while minimizing the inspection cost. Farmers faced a riskin the case of a crop failure, but the incentive to produce more was also greater
if they worked harder, since additional output was all theirs. According to Tanaka (2000), farmers often preferred the jomen system because they did not want
to deal with corrupt officials every year.
During the Edo period, the agricultural sector grew in two phases:
quantitative expansion first, then qualitative intensification.
From the mid-15th century to the late 17th century, which includes
the previous Sengoku (warring) period and the early Edo period, there was anenormous expansion of farmland (especially rice paddies). Earlier, rice was produced in narrow valleys where mountains ended and plains began, because thiswas the only place where constant water supply was available. But during thisperiod, large-scale water management projects were carried out all over Japanby daimyos and influential farmers to control floods and use rivers for irrigation. As a result, land under cultivation expanded dramatically. The plains,

26

The Edo Period: Pre-conditions for Industrialization

Figure 2-1 Population and Rice Production(1600=100)
300
Population
250
Rice production

200
150

Arable land

100
50
1600

1650

1700

1750

1800

1850

Source: Hayami and Miyamoto, eds, 1988, p.44.

which had hitherto been uninhabitable marshlands, were turned into productive
paddy fields. The population increased rapidly in a way rarely seen in a premodern society. Shinzaburo Oishi calls this “The Great Age of Opening
Fields.”By the late 17th century, land expansion came to a halt. The rapid
growth of farmland in the previous period also brought some negative effects,
including labor shortage, deforestation, and frequent occurrence of floods. From
this period onward up to today, Japanese agriculture has emphasized intensive
cultivation with large inputs of labor and technology rather than the quantitative
expansion of arable land.
From the 18th century onward, the area of cultivation and population
remained relatively stable, but rice output continued to grow thanks to increased
productivity. Contributing factors included double cropping, new species ofrice, fertilizer (dried fish was especially popular), and the introduction of new
farming tools. Many guidebooks were published to teach farmers how to produce crops more effectively. Yasusada Miyazaki’s Nogyo Zensho (Encyclopedia of Agriculture) in eleven volumes, published in 1697 and reprinted manytimes subsequently, was one of them.
At the beginning of the Edo period (17th century), peasants produced
mainly for family consumption. They ate what they produced and their living

27

Chapter 2

standards were at subsistence levels. However, from the middle Edo period,
productivity rose and agricultural surplus was created. Peasants began to sell
their rice and other crops to the market which was often nationally integrated.
Cash crops increased and commercial agriculture began.
Officially, all farmers were supposed to belong to (be tied to) the
assigned land. But by the 19th century as landless farmers increased, theincome gap among farmers widened. Large landowners who hired tenant farmers to cultivate their land began to emerge.
Farmers’ uprisings frequently occurred, especially at the time offamine and toward the end of the Edo period. Rebellious farmers were unhappy
with taxes, inflation, famine, corrupt officials, or government policies.

4. Budget and money
The bakufu’s revenue sources included the following:
Rice tax from the land ruled directly by the bakufu (areas not distributed
to other daimyos)
Monopoly on mining, foreign trade and minting money
Direct control on major cities (Edo, Kyoto, Osaka, Nagasaki, Sakai, etc.)
Financial contributions from merchants in exchange for monopoly andcartel rights
In addition, as noted above, the bakufu freely ordered hans to various
public works, eliminating the need to have its own public investment budget.
On the other hand, the han’s revenue consisted of the rice tax from its territory
and the revenues from promoting local industries (if it is successful).
The entire fiscal system was based on the rice tax. The fiscal unit ofaccount was the “koku” (about 180 liters of rice). The han’s economic size wasmeasured in koku and samurai’s salaries were also paid in rice (but of course
they had to be cashed before buying things). Rice was actually collected fromeach village and transported to the major rice markets, then redistributed to therest of the country. Osaka was by far the most important national rice market.
This rice-based economic system had the following consequences:(1) Since rice had to be physically shipped across regions, this tax system
required a nationally unified transportation and distribution mecha-

28

The Edo Period: Pre-conditions for Industrialization

Figure 2-2 General Price Levels(1840 to 44=100)

400
300
200
180
160
140
120
100
90
80
70
60
50
1720 30

price index measured by gold

price index measured by silver
40

50

60

70

80 90 1800 10

20

30

40

50

60 年

Source: Shimbo and Saito, eds, 1989, p.71.
Note: The general price index in Kyoto and Osaka, five-year moving average.

nism. Private merchants provided the required services but the bakufu
and han governments often regulated and supported them. As landtransportation (by horse) was very costly and inefficient, water transportation on the sea, river and lake was mainly used.
(2) The center of economic activity gradually shifted from subsistence
farming to commercial agriculture and handicraft industries. But the
government's tax base basically remained on rice. There were occasional attempts to levy on commerce but this did not become a reliable
tax base. As time went by, the bakufu and han governments faced fiscal crises while farmers and merchants enjoyed increasing income andwealth.
(3) Faced with chronic fiscal deficits, the bakufu resorted to the following
measures: monetary debasement (similar to printing money, whichleads to inflation), spending cuts, tax increases, price controls andadministrative reforms. Some commercial policies were tried in certain
periods, including granting certain merchants with the exclusive rightto market a product (i.e. monopoly) in exchange for financial contribution to the government. However, these measures cannot be considereda set of consistent policies supported by a long-term vision.
Money consisted of both gold and silver. Gold was popular in Edo

29

Chapter 2

A scene from Tokaido “Highway” (photograph by Felice Beato)(Eastern Japan) and silver was mainly used in Osaka (Western Japan). Copper
coins were also used for small transactions. Hans were also allowed to issue
local paper money. Inflation rose at the time of famine and accelerated towards
the end of the Edo period, especially after international trade was resumed.

5. Transportation and commerce
The bakufu designated five official highways and opened major sealanes. But private inns, restaurants, shippers, baggage carriers, etc. provided
necessary services. As part of non-tax obligation, farming villages near the
highway were required to provide horses at the time of heavy travel needs.
Sankin kotai (daimyos’ bi-annual commuting between Edo and their hans) further stimulated the development of the road system. At the same time, out ofmilitary concern, the bakufu did not permit the free movement of people andmerchandise. At strategic points, sekisho (passport controls) were created.
Some rivers were intentionally left without bridges, to block the march of apotential enemy to Edo. Hans were not allowed to build military ships or maintain navies.
As noted above, from the beginning, the Edo tax system presupposeda nationally unified rice market. The development of cash crops and handicrafts
also expanded nationwide commerce. Osaka was the commercial center with a30

The Edo Period: Pre-conditions for Industrialization

Figure 2-3 Inter-regional Economic Linkage in the Late Edo Period
LocalmarketHan

Local
marketLocal
marketHan

Greater Edo Economic Area
Osaka
(Central market)

Han

Edo
(Central market)

Han

Han

Local
marketGreater Osaka
Handicraft andManufacturing Area

LocalmarketHan
Flow of agricultural
products including riceLocalmarketFlow of handicraft andmanufactured products

Flow of bakufu’s money

Source: Miyamoto and Uemura, 1988, p.285.

large number of wealthy merchants and money lenders, while Edo was thepolitical center as well as a large city with consumers. Naturally, the sea lane
between the two cities was well-developed. In Osaka, even the futures market
in rice was established. This is said to be the first futures market in the world.
The bakufu’s policy towards commerce and industry was variable andinconsistent. Sometimes the central government tried to control and tax private
businesses, while at other times a free economy was encouraged. Cartels weresometimes imposed and other times prohibited. Economic historians still debate
whether the Edo economy was more dynamic under the free market policy orunder the pro-cartel policy. According to Matao Miyamoto and others (1995),
the sound development of the market economy depends on a number of institutions and customs such as the bill of exchange and credit provision to facilitatetransaction. From this perspective, the authors defend the cartels in the Edo
period as a private mechanism to generate such services. From the viewpoint ofhistorical institutional analysis4, Tetsuji Okazaki (1999) also tries to show that31

Chapter 2

estimated GDP grew faster during the time when cartels were permitted thanwhen they were banned. He argues that trade cartels were a positive factor forthe development of the Edo economy rather than an impediment. However, theavailable data and his regressions may be too crude to draw a strong conclusion.
Toward the end of the Edo period, many hans and local cities reached
a relatively high level of economic development. As a result, direct trading
among them without the intervention of Osaka merchants began. The center of
economic activity gradually shifted eastward, from Kansai (Osaka, Kyoto) to
Edo and Eastern Japan. In addition to rice, a large number of products weretraded in nationally integrated markets.

6. Industry
As agriculture and commerce grew, pre-modern manufacturing suchas handicrafts and food processing also began to develop. Each region createdspecialized products which were marketed all over Japan. For example, tea,
tobacco, wax, indigo, salt, knives, sword, pottery, lacquer ware, silk, cotton, soysauce, sake, paper, stone cutting, medicine, and chemicals were traded widely.
In order to enrich the local population and increase the tax revenue, many hanspromoted local industries, and some even succeeded (Nishikawa and Amano,1989). Here are some examples:
Tokushima han (indigo): Farmers produced indigo along the Yoshino Riverand their output gradually grew. But indigo distribution was monopolized by Osaka merchants who imposed high interests on loans. In orderto protect local farmers and encourage local merchants, the han government created an indigo exchange and provided financial and distribution
services. The bakufu objected to this move, prohibiting official bodies toengage in such activity. In reality, the bakufu wanted to protect Osaka
merchants who contributed financially to its coffer. In response, the han
privatized the indigo exchange and other services.
432

According to Okazaki, historical institutional analysis is “a research program that conducts theoretical and empirical analyses on important problems in economic history such as the role, thereason of existence, and the mechanism of emergence and transition of institutions by the application of game theory.” (Okazaki, 1999, pp.5-6)

The Edo Period: Pre-conditions for Industrialization

Takamatsu han (sugar): The Takamatsu government issued han’s paper
money to promote various industries but its attempts generally failed,
and its money depreciated. After many such failures, the han finally succeeded in pilot production of sugar from sugar beets and commercializing the technology. As sugar production greatly increased, the han
encouraged inter-han trade to expand the market. But again, the bakufu
intervened to discourage such trade not brokered by Osaka merchants.
Satsuma han (military technology): This han in southern Kyushu imported
new technology from the West and produced blast furnace, cannons andwestern ships. It was also engaged in illegal trade with Ryukyu (Okinawa), which was very profitable. By increasing wealth and militarycapability, Satsuma han later played the key role in toppling the bakufu
government and establishing the Meiji government.
These are just a few examples. Many other hans were engaged inindustrial promotion including Choshu han (paper, wax), Yonezawa han (safflower and lacquer), Akita han (silk and silk dress), Hizen han (pottery, coal),
Higo han (lumber, silk), and so on. But we should not forget that there werealso other hans which were less successful and fell deeply in debt. They borrowed a large amount of money from private merchants but never repaid.

7. Education
The popularity of education in the Edo period is often cited as thecause of fast industrialization in the later periods. Education in the Edo period
ranged from the recondite study of ancient Chinese philosophy and literature at
public schools to children's basic education at private schools. Education fever
was not just in such large cities as Edo, Osaka and Kyoto but also a nationwide
phenomenon. Here, the four main types of learning institutions are introduced.
(1) Bakufu schools—The bakufu schools mainly taught Confucianism, anancient Chinese philosophy started by Confucius in the 6th to 5th century BC. It emphasized social order, proper rituals, the way of goodpolitical leadership, and respect for the elderly and superiors. The Edo
government vigorously promoted Confucianism as an ideology tolegitimize and maintain the class society. Seika Fujiwara, Razan

33

Chapter 2

Table 2-2 Examples of Private Professional Schools (Late Edo Period)
School & location

Teacher & year of
establishment

Main teaching

Prominent students

Shinsaku Takasugi (anti-bakufu fighter)
Social and political Genzui Kusaka (anti-bakufu fighter)philosophy
Hirobumi Ito (prime minister)Aritomo Yamagata (prime minister)
Yukichi Fukuzawa (founder of Keio Univ.)
Dutch language & Masujiro Omura (military reformer)
Koin Ogata
Teki Juku
Western medicine Sanai Hashimoto (Western studies)
1838(Osaka)Keisuke Otori (bakufu & Meiji statesman)Philipp F. B. von SieChoei Takano (Western studies)
Narutaki Juku
Western medicine Genboku Ito (medical doctor)
bolt (German)(Nagasaki)
1824
Keisuke Ito (medical doctor and botanist)
Tanso Hirose
KangienConfucianism & an- Choei Takano (Western studies)
cient Chinese literature Masujiro Omura (military reformer)(Hita, Bungo Han) 1817
Shokason Juku
(Hagi, Choshu
Han)

Shoin Yoshida
1855 (until 1857)

Hayashi and Hakuseki Arai were the leading bakufu scholars. Students
had to memorize and interpret ancient Chinese books. How to modify
this foreign doctrine to fit the Japanese reality was one of the important theoretical questions. There were also bakufu schools for theEuropean language (Dutch) and technology (medicine, navigation,
military technology, etc).
(2) Han schools—Hans also established schools to educate their young
samurais. The curriculums were basically the same as those of bakufu
schools, with Confucianism at the center of learning. Toward the endof the Edo period, han schools were expanded to emphasize practicalskills such as military training and foreign language. Some evenaccepted non-samurai students. Many han schools were transformed
into education institutions in the Meiji period which followed.
(3) Private professional schools—Eminent scholars often set up their own
private schools and recruited students. Depending on the instructor,
various subjects were taught: Confucianism, “national studies”(research on ancient Japanese literature which later led to nationalism
and an anti-foreigner movement), Western languages (Dutch, later also
English), medicine, science, technology, and so on. These schools
accepted both samurai and non-samurai students. In the late Edo period, they often attracted talented and passionate young people with the34

The Edo Period: Pre-conditions for Industrialization

desire to contribute to the country. Their eyes were opened to theinternational situation and Japan’s precarious position in it. A large
number of national leaders in the late Edo period and the early Meiji
period came from such professional schools.
(4) Terakoya (private primary schools)—These schools were run by local
teachers to teach the 3Rs (reading, writing, and arithmetic whichmeant abacus) to small children. Initially, terakoya was typically acharity organization but later evolved into a profit-seeking entity
charging tuition fees. Normally one teacher taught a few dozen children who received individual assignments. There was no regulation onschooling age, but most children entered terakoya at the age of sevenor eight and stayed until the age of twelve or thirteen. As the public
realized the importance of studying letters and arithmetic, a large number of terakoya were established from urban to rural areas contributing
to the high literacy rate among the general population.

35

Chapter 2

Proto-industrialization and population dynamics
Economic historians have noted that certain areas of Europe, such as Flanders in
Belgium and Lancashire in England, were “industrialized” in the 17th and 18th centuries even before the Industrial Revolution took off in the United Kingdom. This
industrialization was characterized by rural, family-based production of textiles andgarments without modern machinery and was often brokered by urban merchants.
The concept of proto-industrialization was proposed to explain why this happened, and why it was observed in certain areas only (proto means primitive or early).
The proponents have advanced a hypothesis to explain rural industrialization from theunique interaction among agriculture, population and commerce. Population growth isoften regarded as given in economic modeling. But in the hypothesis of proto-industrialization, population dynamics is a crucial endogenous element. F.F. Mendels and
P. Deyon, who proposed this idea, define proto-industrialization as a phenomenon satisfying the following three conditions:･ It is a manufacturing activity for market sales, not for home consumption.
･ It is undertaken by peasants in a rural area where soil is poor and plots are small.
･ It is located near an area of commercial agriculture with large farm size andhigh productivity.
Proto-industrialization begins as a side job in villages where agricultural productivity is low. They can sell cloth and garments to nearby rich villages where agricultural productivity is high. It is a sort of specialization (division of labor) within a relatively small geographical area: villages with fertile soil produce farm products andvillages with poor soil produce manufactured goods, and they exchange output witheach other. They sometimes also sell their products to larger markets.
Furthermore, the hypothesis of proto-industrialization assumes certain demographic dynamics in the following sequence:(1) For some reason, villages with poor soil face a population increase, leading tofood shortages.
(2) Poor peasants engage in the production of garments for sale to relieve thepopulation pressure.
(3) This increases their income, which prompts them to get married sooner andhave more children.

36

The Edo Period: Pre-conditions for Industrialization(4) Population growth continues to keep the peasants just as poor as before, eventhough they are more “industrialized.”(5) The supply of cheap labor is thus increased, and rich farming villages andurban merchants continue to accumulate wealth. (This widening income gap
may possibly generate capitalists and landless farmers leading to industrialization under full-fledged capitalism in the Marxian sense. However, this historical linkage is not convincingly proven empirically.)
According to Osamu Saito (1985) of Hitotsubashi University, the Japanese data in
the Edo period does not support the hypothesis of proto-industrialization. There is noevidence of systematic population increase in the areas where peasants engaged in
pre-modern manufacturing. On the contrary, it is said that farmers practiced birth control, sometimes even killing new-born babies, to manage the population pressure.
Proto-industrialization seems to assume a rather peculiar population dynamics
which may be applicable to certain European regions in certain periods, but not in therest of the world or other times. However, the idea of population growth responding
to the process of early industrialization is an interesting one.

37

Meiji (1) :Key Goals of the New Government

Two of the remaining odaiba, the bakufu’s fortified square-shaped islets, are visible.

Chapter 3

1. The opening of ports and the fall of the bakufu
From 1639, the bakufu government banned any foreign contact
except in a very limited way at Nagasaki’s Dejima (tiny artificial island) understrict official control. In other words, the bakufu monopolized foreign trade.
Korea and Ryukyu (Okinawa) had diplomatic relations with Japan while Chinese and Dutch merchants were allowed to trade with Japan. All other transactions were strictly prohibited. No Japanese were allowed to go abroad or comehome from abroad. Under this isolation policy, the only channel for absorbing
Western knowledge, mainly medical and scientific information, was throughDutch books and products.
But from the end of the 18th century, foreign ships began to approach
Japan with an intention to trade. The Russians and the British were particularly
eager but the bakufu refused to talk to them. Meanwhile, the news of the Opium
War (1840-42), in which Britain defeated China, took possession of Hong Kongand forced China to open its ports, was a big shock to the bakufu.
Finally, four American military ships (“Black Ships”) led by Commodore Matthew C. Perry entered Edo Bay in 1853. The bakufu was forewarned about their coming but did nothing to counter it. This was a wellplanned mission for which the negotiating strategy with Japan had been carefully designed. Perry was convinced that the show of force, not peaceful diplomacy, was most effective with the Japanese. Firing powerful cannons, Perrydemanded a “friendship” treaty which allowed American ships to use Japanese
ports. The Americans left, saying that they would return to hear the answer the
next year1. All of Japan was thrown into chaos and a fierce debate began as towhether Japan should open its ports or repel foreigners. When Perry and his
troops returned to Edo Bay the next year, the bakufu agreed to sign the friendship treaty with the United States and opened Shimoda and Hakodate for foreign ships. Similar treaties were also concluded with the Europeans.

140

When the American black ships left, the bakufu ordered the Administrator of Izu to quickly
build odaiba, several fortified islets, off the coast of Shinagawa. Today, the two remaining odaiba can be seen from the Yurikamome train near Rainbow Bridge. Apparently, these tiny forts
were not enough to stop the Americans.

Meiji (1) : Key Goals of the New Government

In 1858, the bakufu government asked for an imperial permission tosign comprehensive commercial treaties with the major powers but it was notgranted. However, the bakufu signed them anyway without imperial permission. Politically it would have been more advisable to first hear the views ofvarious domestic groups, especially influential daimyos, before signing thesetreaties but the bakufu did not do that. Naturally, the bakufu’s unilateral action
was severely criticized. Naosuke Ii (bakufu high official, something like Prime
Minister) responded by arresting and executing the political opponents. However, Ii was assassinated one year later, in 1859, by samurais infuriated by the
bakufu’s oppressive policy.
With the conclusion of the friendship and commercial treaties, foreign
diplomats and merchants began to settle in Japan. However, they were permitted to live only in designated foreign settlements and travel only in their vicinities. Free contact with the Japanese public was prohibited. The largest foreign
settlement was Yokohama, a city newly created for this purpose.
The opening of Japanese ports led to significant social and economicchanges.
(i) Foreigners brought new ideas, technology, industry and systems, andthe Japanese began to absorb them very rapidly. But they were also
afraid of the superior military power of the West.
(ii) Silk and tea suddenly found huge overseas markets. The rising output
and soaring prices of these commodities enriched farmers who produced them2.
(iii) Enriched farmers began to buy clothes made in England instead ofwearing homemade or secondhand clothes.
(iv) A new merchant class, called the Yokohama merchants, emerged tolink domestic producers and markets with foreign merchants. As noted2

Some development economists regard international integration and free trade as the engines ofgrowth. However, in reality, a sudden opening of developing economies often leads to enterprise bankruptcies, de-industrialization, rural impoverishment and the widening income gap.
The Least Developed Countries Report of the UNCTAD (2004) states that a consistent domestic
development strategy is the prerequisite for poverty reduction without which export promotion
alone will not have desired effects. In this context, the Japanese experience in which the exportsof silk and tea enormously enriched the farmers in the late Edo “port-opening” period isextremely interesting (chapter 5).

41

Chapter 3

above, foreigners were not permitted to travel outside the foreign
settlement.
(v) As inflation surged, samurais and the urban population were impoverished. The entire price structure was transformed after the opening ofports. Old industries and merchants declined and new ones emerged.
The commercial treaties which the bakufu signed with the West were
unequal treaties in the sense that (i) Japan had no right to decide tariffs; and (ii)the Japanese court could not judge foreign criminals in Japan. After a while,
Japanese import tariffs were set uniformly at about 5 percent (this situation continued until 1899 when the tariff rights were partially restored). Inability toindict foreign criminals was considered to be great national humiliation. The
opposition blamed the bakufu for signing defective treaties. They also criticized
the bakufu for economic turmoil, including inflation, and yielding to foreignpressure without national consensus or imperial permission.
After the opening of ports, severe political fights ensued for about fifteen years. The details are too complicated to describe here, but events unfolded
over the following three key issues:(i)Open door policy versus anti-foreigner nationalism(ii) Upholding the emperor versus supporting the bakufu(iii) Fighting for political control among strong hans (especially Satsuma
and Choshu)
Anti-foreigner nationalism was very strong at first, but people gradually realized the impossibility of repelling the foreigners by force; the West was
too modern and powerful. The political fight finally centered on who would
remove the bakufu and establish a new government. In a series of relatively
minor battles (one of the fiercest was fought where Ueno Park now stands), thebakufu forces were defeated and the new Meiji government was established in
1868. The emperor moved from Kyoto to Edo, which was renamed Tokyo(meaning eastern capital).

2. The Meiji government and its goals
The Meiji government was established and run by young samurais
from strong hans in Western Japan (especially Satsuma, Choshu, Tosa, and42

Meiji (1) : Key Goals of the New Government

Hizen) and a few influential noblemen. The emperor was elevated to the headof state for legitimacy and as a unifying symbol of the new regime. The Meiji
government had a very clear and determined policy objective: rapid Westernization and modernization of Japan. At first, the biggest external challenge wasto avoid being colonized by the West. But this fear subsided in the early Meiji
period as Japan began to aggressively absorb Western systems and technology
while retaining national unity and identity. For the rest of Meiji and beyond, thetop national priority was to catch up with the West in every aspect of civilization, i.e., to become a “first-class nation” as quickly as possible.
After a “long, peaceful sleep” (international isolation), Japan suddenly discovered that Europeans and Americans were greatly advanced in technology and industry while Japan was a backward agricultural country. This was a
big shock to Japan. The acute recognition of backwardness and shattered pride
was the psychological driving force behind Japan’s industrialization during the
Meiji period.
The national slogan was fukoku kyohei which means “rich country,
strong army.” In order to modernize Japan, the Meiji government had threegoals:
Industrialization (economic modernization)
Introducing a national constitution and parliament (political modernization)
External expansion (military modernization)
These were shared goals among all politicians, officials and even people. While there were many political struggles among Meiji leaders, they fought
over the method of and prioritization in achieving these goals. For example, apolitician might oppose his rival who advocated the invasion of Korea, butwhen the rival was ousted, the same politician might send troops to Taiwan(this actually happened in 1873-74). Similar flip-flop of positions was observed
over many other political and economic issues.
The biggest headache for the Meiji government in its early years was
the resistance from conservatists who disliked radical reforms. The previous
samurai class, now deprived of their rice salary and the privilege of carrying
swords, were particularly unhappy with the new government which was established, ironically, by young samurais. But step by step, the new government

43

Chapter 3

succeeded in reducing their influence and consolidating power. It abolished thesamurai class and offered them government bonds as a compensation whose
value rapidly depreciated under inflation. Local autonomy under the han system
was replaced by a centralized government and prefectures whose governors
were appointed by Tokyo. A new land tax at the initial rate of 3 percent of theland value replaced the old rice tax which was levied on annual yield.
In 1871-73, a high-level official delegation called the Iwakura Mission, which included about half the cabinet ministers, was sent to the US andEurope for nearly two years. As it departed from Yokohama, the mission members counted 107 including the students dispatched abroad. Its purposes were to(i) conduct preliminary negotiations for revising the unequal treaties; and (ii)study Western technology and systems. They failed in the first objective
because the West would not treat Japan equally as long as its institutions
remained highly “backward.” But the mission succeeded in gaining insights intheir second objective. The mission was warmly welcomed wherever they went.

3. Industrialization
Among the members of the Iwakura Mission, Toshimichi Okubo wasparticularly impressed with Western technology. Returning to Japan, Okubo
vigorously promoted industrialization as the Minister of Finance (later, as the
Minister of the Interior). His policies included hiring foreign advisors, the hosting of domestic industrial fairs, and the construction of roads, railroads andagricultural research centers. Many state-owned model factories were established in military production, silk spinning, shipbuilding and mining (mostmines were rehabilitated mines from the Edo period). New systems, such as
metric weights and measures, the Western calendar, a new monetary system,banking, and joint stock companies, were introduced. Okubo was assassinatedin 1878 but his supporters, especially Kiyotaka Kuroda and Shigenobu Okuma,
continued his policies.
Most state-owned enterprises (SOEs) were commercially unsuccessful, but they had strong demonstration effects on emerging Japanese entrepreneurs. These factories also trained a large number of Japanese engineers wholater worked in or established other factories. Subsequently, these SOEs were44

Meiji (1) : Key Goals of the New Government

The Iwakura Mission in San Francisco. Tomomi Iwakura (mission chief, in Japanese
dress) sits in center. Others are in Western clothes. Okubo is sitting on the right.

privatized except those producing military goods. They were sold “cheaply” toinfluential businessmen such as Tomoatsu Godai (see below), and this caused apolitical scandal in 1881. However, many of the previously loss-making SOEs
were restored to profitability through restructuring and new investment by the
new owners. It may be unfair to criticize these businessmen for stealing state
assets.
The government sometimes confused businesses with inconsistentpolicies. But more often, it strongly supported the emerging private sector toestablish domestic industries and drive out foreign rivals. This policy was calledyunyu boatsu (import substitution). With official assistance, big business groups
started to form. Politically well-connected businessmen were called seisho andtheir business groups were called zaibatsu. Some of them, for example Sumitomo and Mitsui, date back to the Edo period, but many others such as Mitsubishi, Furukawa, Yasuda, and Asano emerged during the Meiji period. Some
big names included the following:
Yataro Iwasaki

He was a businessman from Tosa who started a maritime

transportation company. Okubo’s government gave him support andmonopoly so that he could drive out foreign shippers. Iwasaki made a huge
profit with an exclusive contract with the government to provide military45

Chapter 3

Tomoatsu Godai was aseisho in Western Japan

Yataro Iwasaki, the founderof Mitsubishi Grouptransport to Taiwan in 1874. Iwasaki was the founder of the Mitsubishi
Zaibatsu whose business empire expanded to include coal mining, shipbuilding and, later, virtually everything.
Eiichi Shibusawa

Born in Saitama, first he was a bakufu retainer serving

the last shogun, then an energetic official of the finance ministry of the new
government, and finally a super coordinator of Japanese industries. Shibusawa helped to establish hundreds of joint stock companies such as Imperial
Hotel, Nippon Usen, Nippon Steel, Bank of Tokyo, Osaka Spinning andSapporo Beer, and economic and cultural institutions such as the Tokyo
Chamber of Commerce, Imperial Theater, Japan Women’s University andCentral Charity Association. However, unlike Iwasaki, he did not form his
own zaibatsu.
Tomoatsu Godai

Godai was a business coordinator from Satsuma. Like

Shibusawa, he also contributed to the creation of many companies and business organizations in Osaka.
Mitsui Zaibatsu

The Mitsui was a big merchant family in the Edo period.

Its original business was trade in kimono (Japanese dress) and moneychanging. In Meiji, the Mitsui family gained the status of a treasury depositary of the central government, which was very profitable, and succeeded ininternal organizational reform. Banking, coal mining and trading (“Mitsui46

Meiji (1) : Key Goals of the New Government

Figure 3-1 Survival of Millionaires in the Late Edo and Meiji Period(Persons)
250
Millionaires of Edo period
200

New millionaires in company
boom period

New millionaires of Late Edo
New millionaires inearly Meiji

150
100
50
0
1849

1864

1875

1888

1902

Source: Computed from Miyamoto, 1999, p.53. Each line shows how many of
the new millionaires emerging each period survived in later periods.

Bussan”) became the main business areas.
Sumitomo Zaibatsu

The Sumitomo group operated Besshi Copper Minein Shikoku (Western Japan) during the Edo period. The old copper mine
was modernized in Meiji. The business expanded to include coal mines,banking, electrical cables, fertilizer, etc.
Thus, the Meiji period saw the births of many business groups andenterprises which survived and prospered into the current period. At the sametime, and somewhat contradictorily, the ups and downs of enterprises were
extremely volatile from the late Edo to Meiji period. Economic shocks such as
the beginning of international trade, demand shifts, foreign institutions andtechnology, and the great transformation of relative prices led to the replacement of old enterprises with new. Even influential merchants and large producers in the past failed to survive these shocks unless they could undertake boldreforms or build linkage with the emerging merchant class.
Figure 3-1 depicts the attrition of millionaires calculated from thenational data in Miyamoto (1999). It is clear that the new rich of the late Edo toearly Meiji period declined very quickly. The speed of disappearance seems
even faster for the millionaires which emerged in the later periods. Among the
231 millionaires in the Edo period, only 20 survived into the late Meiji period.

47

Chapter 3This proves, at least in terms of the number of rich families, that the main driving force of Meiji industrialization was not the rich merchants from the Edo
period.

4. The Constitution and Parliamentary
Government
Politically, the establishment of a Western style parliament and constitution was a nationally-shared goal. This was considered absolutely necessary
in order for Japan to be treated equally by the West. But different opinions over
the timing and contents of the proposed constitution caused a lot of political turmoil.
With respect to timing, from 1873 onward, many political groups outside the government demanded a constitution as soon as possible. Political
oppositions, intellectuals, and rich farmers joined this Freedom and People’s
Rights Movement, which spread to the entire nation. The government cracked
down on this movement and the advocates of an early constitution also at times
turned violent. Meanwhile, the majority of the top government officials wanted
to go slow. They thought that the Japanese people were only “semi-developed”
and that careful preparations were necessary.
As to contents of the constitution, an acute debate arose on the choice
between a more advanced British-style democracy and parliamentary system
and a less democratic German-style constitutional monarchy. Many intellectuals and progressive politicians favored the British system, but conservatists in
the government preferred the German model. The latter feared that if too much
freedom was allowed when people’s political views remain primitive, violence
and instability would result. They pointed to the violence that occurred in theaftermath of the French Revolution as a thing to be avoided at all cost.
In this regard, the difference of opinion between Toshimichi Okubo
and Yukichi Fukuzawa is worth attention. After coming home from the official
mission to America and Europe, Finance Minister Okubo submitted the Proposal on Constitutional Politics to the government in 1873 whose key arguments
can be summarized as follows:
Democracy and monarchy each has merits and demerits. Ideally, there is no48

Meiji (1) : Key Goals of the New Government

doubt that democracy is far superior. But the actual working of democracy
often falls into party politics, and even the tyranny of majority over minority
in the worst case. On the other hand, monarchy functions well if the people
are unenlightened and the monarch is excellent, but the citizens will suffer
enormously if corrupt officials pursue their personal interests under a cruelruler. In comparison with Britain, Japan still remains semi-developed andcannot rid itself of feudal customs. Monarchy is a thing of the past, but we are
not yet ready for democracy. Moreover, the central government must havestrong authority for the time being to carry out bold reforms. Thus, the mostpractical system Japan can now adopt is a constitutional government based on
gradualism that matches the speed of social change. This means constitutionalmonarchy.

By contrast, prominent educator Fukuzawa argued basically as follows in his Outline of the Theory of Civilization (1875): Countries can be classified into civilized, semi-developed and barbaric, and Japan belongs to the second group. Democracy and monarchy each has merits and demerits. The highest priority for Japan at present is to avoid being colonized by Western powers
and remain independent [up to here, his views are the same as Okubo’s andhardly unique]. To achieve this great objective, Fukuzawa urges Japan to throw
away past traditions and customs and vigorously introduce Western civilization.
There are two aspects, physical and spiritual, to civilization. Physical is easy tocopy while spiritual is difficult to internalize. In adopting these, Fukuzawa proposes to “pursue the difficult first and the easy later; by first reforming people’smind, then change politics and laws, and finally introduce tangible objects.”
In other words, Okubo’s strategy is to design new policies and institutions by taking people’s backward spirituality as given, while Fukuzawa wants
to transform the spiritual structure of the nation as a matter of priority. The contrast between the pragmatism of Okubo, the high official, and the idealism of
Fukuzawa, the enlightenment thinker, is remarkable. Their debate is far fromoutdated today since it contains a fundamental question about the sequencingof economic development versus political modernization (democratization) inlatecomer countries.
Under mounting popular pressure, Emperor Meiji declared in 1881that a parliamentary government would be established within 10 years. To study
and prepare the contents of the proposed constitution, Minister Hirobumi Ito49

Chapter 3

went to Europe for more than a year to consult German and British legal
experts. After returning to Japan, his team drafted a constitution based on theGerman model while partially incorporating foreign advisors’ opinions such as
K.F.H. Roesler’s. The final draft was submitted to the Privy Council, an organ
newly created to study this draft, and debated in detail in closed sessions. The
Meiji Constitution was promulgated in 1889 and, after an election, the firstimperial parliament was convened in 1890. Japan became the first non-Westerncountry with a functioning constitution (among the non-Western countries,
Turkey also had a constitution but it was shortly suspended).

5. Foreign policy
The most important diplomatic goal in Meiji was to revise theunequal treaties with the West which lacked tariff rights and the right to judge
foreign criminals. This was needed to regain national pride and join the ranks of
the “first-class countries.” But to succeed, westernization of Japanese society
was considered necessary. To show that Japan was westernized, the government
even built Rokumeikan, a state-run ballroom, and invited foreign diplomats andbusiness people for evening balls3. This “excessive westernization” was criticized by nationalists and political opposition groups. Nevertheless, over time as
Japanese modernization and industrialization proceeded in substance, treaty
renegotiation became possible and the revision was accomplished. Tariff rights
were partially regained in 1899 and completely restored in 1911. The court
rights were regained in steps during 1894-99.
Another feature of Meiji diplomacy is expansionism. To protect political independence and national interests against Western intervention, it wasconsidered necessary to construct a zone of influence around Japan. The government was eager to “open up” Korea, which was maintaining its closed-door
policy, as Japan did previously, and conclude an unequal treaty in Japan’sfavor, just like the West did to Japan before. Naturally, Korea resisted. In 1873,
350This western style ballroom was located in Hibiya, near where the Imperial Hotel now stands.
Since foreign diplomats and business people lived mainly in Yokohama, the government evenprepared a special late-night train from Shimbashi to Yokohama to bring them home after theball.

Meiji (1) : Key Goals of the New Government

military invasion of Korea was proposed but rejected within the Japanese government. In the following year, the government sent troops to Taiwan over anincident in which Okinawa fishermen were killed by the Taiwanese. These
external expeditions were often planned to deflect the anger of former samurais
who were deprived of rice salary and the privilege of carrying a sword.
In the 1880s Japan became more aggressive in its attempt to place
Korea under its influence. Japan’s rival was China (Qing Dynasty) which considered Korea as its protectorate. Japan started to intervene in Korea’s internal
politics and stage military provocation. This eventually led to the Japan-China
War of 1894-95.

51

Chapter 3

Soseki Natsume’s lecture
Soseki Natsume (1867-1916) was and is the most popular novelist in Japan. His
life largely coincided with the Meiji period. He was an expert in both English andancient Chinese literature. His early novels were comical (“I am a Cat,” “Bocchan”)
and sometimes romantic (“Sanshiro”) or pedantic (“Kusamakura”). But his later novels exposed a dark side of modernized Japan, especially individuals who struggle
under human limitations in modernized life without success (“Sorekara,” “Mon”).
Desperate love triangles were his favorite theme.
In his famous lecture, “Development of Modern Japan” (1911), Soseki warned his
fellow Japanese against newly emerging complacency. In late Meiji when this lecture
was delivered, Japan already had a parliamentary government and had recently won a
victory over Russia, and industrialization was proceeding rapidly. But Soseki said thatJapan’s modernization was superficial.
Since Japan opened its ports to foreigners, Western impact transformed Japan
completely. But all these influences originated in the West, and Japan only copied
them passively without really digesting and internalizing them. The arrival of Western
waves was too fast for the Japanese to make them their own. Forced absorption of foreign ideas and systems would make the Japanese nervous and unhappy, but there wasno good solution to this problem. This was the essence of Soseki’s message whose
excerpts are quoted below. Soseki touched on the fundamental dilemma of Japanese
identity which remains unsolved even today. In the 21st century, Japan is sometimes
ill at ease in the company of the advanced Western nations, while unable to build true
trust and friendship with its Asian neighbors.

“Development in the West is endogenous, while Japan’s development is exogenous. Here, endogenous means emerging naturally from within, like a bud blooms
into a flower in an outward motion, and exogenous means being forced to take acertain form because of external influences...”“Western societies are evolving naturally but Japan after the Meiji Restorationand foreign contact is quite different. Of course, every country is influenced by its
neighbors, and Japan was no exception. In certain periods, Korea and China were52

Meiji (1) : Key Goals of the New Government

models for us. But overall, throughout history, Japan was developing more or lessendogenously. Then suddenly, after two centuries of isolation, we opened up andencountered Western civilization. It was a big shock we never experienced before.
Since then, the Japanese society began to evolve in a different direction. The shock
was so severe that we were forced to change directions...”“Western tides dominate our development. Since we are not Westerners, every
time a new wave arrives from the West we feel uneasy like a person living insomeone else’s house. Even before we can grasp the nature of the previous wave, a
new wave arrives. It is as if too many dishes are brought in and soon removed
before we can start to eat. In such circumstances, people will inevitably become
empty, frustrated, and worried.”(Source: Yukio Miyoshi, ed, Soseki’s Writings on Civilization, Iwanami Bunko,
1986)

53

Meiji (2):Importing and Absorbing Technology

The first steam locomotive made in Japan

Chapter 4

1. The preview of Meiji industrialization
At the outset let us list the three salient features of Meiji industrialization:
Very strong private sector initiative supported by appropriate official assistance
Successful import substitution in the cotton industry
Parallel development of the modern sector and the indigenous sector
These will be discussed more fully in this and the following chapters.
As noted in the previous chapter, one of the principal policy objectives of the Meiji government was rapid industrialization. While the official
policies of introducing western institutions, building infrastructure, hiring foreign advisors, education and training, establishing SOEs and research centers,organizing trade fairs, assisting zaibatsu and so on were all important, it should
be stressed that private sector dynamism was even more essential. At the top of
the private sector, such powerful business men as Shibusawa, Iwasaki andGodai provided leadership, and large zaibatsu began to form. At the grass-roots
level, new and old merchants, skilled engineers, proud craftsmen and rich farmers all over the country became the driving force of broad-based technicalabsorption. Without this private sector capability, even good policies would
have failed to produce results.
It should be remembered that many contributing factors to industrialization were inherited from the previous Edo period. They included nationallyunified markets, transportation and distribution networks, a strong merchant tradition, the development of financial services, a well-educated population, and ahistory of industrial promotion by local governments.
The cotton industry was one of the leading industries of the world in
the 19th century. At first, British products dominated the global market. In
Asia, India was the main producer. But Japan absorbed textile technology very
rapidly and effectively. After the opening of ports, Japan first imported British
cotton clothes. Later, it imported cotton yarns and wove clothes for the domestic market. By around 1900, Japan began to export cotton yarns while importing
raw cotton. In the early 20th century, Japan became a major exporter of cotton
clothes. Since today’s dominant view in development economics discredits

56

Meiji (2): Importing and Absorbing Technology

import substitution as a failed policy, Japan’s brilliant success as a latecomer
more than a century ago is all the more striking.
However, the introduction of modern Western technology did notnecessarily drive out traditional technology from the Edo period. In the cotton
industry as well as in other industries, traditional production methods existed
side-by-side with modern machines and factories. Sometimes the two sectors
produced differentiated products for different markets. At other times they werevertically related with one sector producing inputs for the other. New technology influenced traditional methods, but local requirements also modified imported technology.
By the end of Meiji (1912), which was shortly before the outbreak of
WW1, Japan was successfully industrialized in light industries, especially textiles. But heavy and machinery industries were still embryonic. The vigorous
development of these industries started later, during and after WW1.

2. The macroeconomy and the industrial revolution
in light industries
The Japanese economy underwent several stages after the opening ofports in the late Edo period. Let us briefly review this process.
(1) Initial impact of foreign trade (1850s-): foreign technology and products flowed in and shifts in relative prices and industrial structure
occurred. Inflation was high.
(2) Monetary confusion and inflation (late 1870s): inflation accelerated
due to the printing of paper money to finance a civil war initiated by
Takamori Saigo’s uprising in Kyushu in 1877. As the prices of rice andother agricultural products rose, farmers and landlords got rich while
former samurais were generally impoverished.
(3) Matsukata Deflation (early 1880s): Finance Minister Masayoshi
Matsukata adopted a deflationary policy to end inflation and introduce
a modern monetary system. This included the establishment of the
Bank of Japan as a central bank in 1882. Rural income declined and thenumber of landless farmers increased1.
(4) First “company boom” (late 1880s): After inflation subsided and mod-57

Chapter 4

ern banking was installed, there was a rush to establish joint stock companies in the private sector. Exchange rate depreciation, easy money
and low interest rates also encouraged their emergence.
(5) Continued waves of company booms (1890s-1910s): A great number of
additional joint stock companies were established in the late 1890s, late
1900s and during WW1 interrupted by occasional recessions. At first,
these were concentrated in the textiles and railroad industries. Later,company creation spread to all sectors.
(6) Two wars (Japan-China 1894-95; Japan-Russia 1904-05): After eachwar, fiscal activism was adopted. Public investment was undertaken tobuild, for example, railroads and the national telephone network.
Military spending was kept up even during peacetime. Economic management of Taiwan, a colony acquired in 1895, also began throughinstitution-building and public investment. Local governments issued
foreign-currency denominated bonds in order to invest in infrastructure
for water supply, roads, education, and so on. As a result, the size ofgeneral government (the sum of central and local governments)
expanded and the balance of payments deficit widened. Gold reserves(i.e. international reserves) were gradually lost, and the estimated debtto-GDP ratio rose to about 40 percent. Roughly half of the public debt
was denominated in foreign currency.
From the late Meiji period onward, the government of Seiyukai promoted fiscal activism. Seiyukai (full name: Rikken Seiyukai) was a politicalparty established in 1900 with Hirobumi Ito, drafter of the Meiji Constitution
and the first Prime Minister, as the party leader. Seiyukai’s main support basewas rich farmers and landowners who desired active public investment in rural
areas. But fiscal overspending led to mounting balance-of-payments pressure.
Macroeconomic belt-tightening was felt necessary.
In reality, this macroeconomic crisis was suddenly overcome by theoutbreak of WW1 rather than orthodox fiscal austerity. As the European powers
1

58

Using an old-fashioned language, we may say that Matsukata Deflation created the basis ofJapan’s coming capitalism and industrial revolution by bringing out the proletariat classdetached from production capital and establishing the modern banking system which is the bastion of financial capital.

Meiji (2): Importing and Absorbing Technology

Figure 4-1 Development of the Cotton Industry(In million pounds)
700
600
500
400
Production

300
200
Export100
0Import

1880

85

90

95

1900

05

10

14

Source: The National Statistics of Meiji and Taisho, Toyo Keizai Shimposha, 1975.

were engaged in military confrontation, they stopped exporting to the rest of theworld. Suppressed world demand was directed to Japanese products, allowing
the Japanese economy to enjoy an enormous export-led boom. But this occurredin the following Taisho period which will be discussed more fully in chapter 7.
No reliable GDP statistics exist for this period, but we have someestimates. According to them, output was very bumpy and the average growthrate was 2 to 3 percent. By today’s standards, this is not a particularly highgrowth rate for a developing country although there may be a serious problemof data quality. As for the employment structure, the share of agricultural
employment was dominant, at about 70 percent in the early Meiji period, but it
gradually declined.

3. Developments in international trade
Regarding trade structure, silk—silk yarn rather than finished silk
products—dominated Japan’s exports followed by tea, cereals, seafood, minerals and coal. Clearly, Meiji Japan was a primary commodity exporter. Raw silkremained the top Japanese export not just during the Meiji period but in theentire pre-WW2 period. The largest importer of Japanese silk and tea was the59Chapter 4

Figure 4-2 Trade Structure<Early Meiji><Late Meiji>

Europe, US

Europe, US

Silk, tea &other primarycommodities

Finished textile
products,
machinerySilk, tea &other primarycommodities

Machinery,
US cotton

Japan
Japan
Indian cotton

Cotton yarn &cloth, lightindustry goods

China, Korea,
India

United States. Stockings made from Japanese silk were very popular among
American ladies.
It should be noted that the US protected its silk weaving industry withtariff rates of 45 to 50 percent, but the industry needed silk yarn as an input.
The American attempt to increase domestic silk yarn production failed, so the
US was compelled to continue to import Japanese yarn. Generally speaking, asa young developing country the US maintained high import protection throughout the 19th century (see the box at the end of this chapter).
On the import side, dramatic shifts occurred as the cotton industry
succeeded in import substitution as discussed above. Initially, finished products(clothes) were imported. Later, imports shifted to intermediate inputs (cottonyarn) and then to raw materials (raw cotton). In Figure 4-1, we can see a clear
product cycle of this industry moving from import to domestic production andfinally to export. Domestic production shifted from spinning to weaving as well
as from low to high quality products. At first, Britain was the main exporter offinished textile products and machinery to Japan. But over time, Japan effectively increased competitiveness against British textile products and drove them60187680

1886901896001906100187375

187680188690189600190610

Other Asia
India

40
China

US

60

20

80

Europe

80

0

20

40

60

(％)
100

Exports by Country

0

20

Other

(％)
100

0

Materials
Food

20
186870187375188690189600187680188690189600

Imports by Country

187680190610190610China

Other Asia
India

US

Europe

Other

Food

Materials

Intermediate

60
40

Manufactures

80

Other

Manufactures

Imports by Product

(％)
100

Other

Intermediate

186870

Exports by Product

40

60

80

(％)
100

Figure 4-3 Structure of Export and Import

Meiji (2): Importing and Absorbing Technology

61

Chapter 4

out of the Asian market.
In early Meiji, Japan's trade pattern was a “vertical” one typical of adeveloping country. It exported silk and other primary commodities to Europe
and America and imported finished textile goods and machinery from them. Bylate Meiji, Japan developed a more complex trade pattern. Against Europe andthe US, trade remained basically vertical. But with the rest of Asia, which
included China, Korea and India, Japan began to export light industry goods
such as cotton yarn, cotton clothes, matches, umbrellas, clocks, lamps, glass
products, knitwear, and so on, and import materials needed to produce them,especially Indian raw cotton which was short-fiber cotton. Japan also imported
US cotton which was long-fiber cotton. Due to the emergence of Japan’s cotton
industry, India was driven out of the position of an exporter of cotton products
into an exporter of raw cotton.
As the export of cotton yarn and the import of raw cotton both rose,
the government abolished the cotton yarn export tax in 1894 and the cotton
import tariff in 1896. This benefited modern cotton factories which used Indian
cotton as inputs, but hurt traditional producers who spun domestically produced
cotton. In order to establish a monopolistic position in importing Indian cotton,
Japanese textile companies formed a cartel and used only Nippon Yusen (a Mitsubishi-group shipping company) and Menka (cotton) Shosha as the sole carrier
and distributor of Indian cotton to Japan. This secured a stable supply of Indian
cotton at low prices for Japanese textile companies.

4. How Western technology was transferredWestern technology was imported and internalized in three distinct ways.
(1) Hiring of foreign advisors: In early Meiji, new factories and infrastructure were constructed and operated with a significant assistance fromforeign engineers and managers. In the late 19th century, there weremany unemployed British railroad engineers since the British railroad
system had been more or less completed. They often traveled abroad insearch of jobs. The salaries of foreign advisors were very high andsometimes even higher than that of the Prime Minister. This became a62

Meiji (2): Importing and Absorbing Technology

Figure 4-4 Foreigners Employed by the Meiji Government(Persons)
600
500

Factory Workers
Administrators
Engineers
Academics

400
300
200
100
0

1875

1879

1883

1887

1891

1895

Source: Kajima Institute Publishing, Hired Foreign Workers, 1968.
Note: Numbers exclude private-sector employment.

Table 4-1 A Salary Comparison: Foreign Advisors and Prime Minister
PersonPosition

MonthlysalaryMr. Cargill(British)

Advisor to the Railroad Department, Ministry ofIndustry

2,000 yen

Mr. Kindle(British)

Advisor to the National Mint, Ministry of Finance

1,045 yen

Mr. Morrell(British)

Advisor to the Railroad Department, Ministry ofIndustry

850 yenMr. Kiplon(American)

Advisor on the development of Hokkaido

833 yenTomomiIwakuraUdaijin (equivalent to Prime Minister); chief of
Iwakura Mission to US and Europe

600 yenSource: S. Sakamoto and T. Fukuda, eds, Shinsen Nihonshi Zuhyo (New
Selection of Diagrams in Japanese History), Daiichi Gakushusha, 1998.

great financial burden on the government. For example, the salaries offoreign engineers accounted for 34 percent of the current budget of the
Ministry of Industry in 1874. Figure 4-4 indicates the number of foreigners employed by the central and local governments. Their number—especially the number of engineers—declined significantly
toward the end of Meiji. From the mid Meiji onward, foreign teachers,

63

Chapter 4

including language teachers, hired by private organizations (not shownhere) became the dominant form of foreign employment.
Different technological transfer schemes were adopted depending on
the project type, including turn-key contracts, management contracts,
and technical advice. However, unlike today’s developing countries,
there was virtually no foreign direct investment (FDI) in the Meiji period regardless of whether they were 100 percent foreign-invested orjointly managed by foreign and local partners. Since contracts that the
government signed were project-specific and had fixed terms, foreigners returned home when the contract expired. The government tookutmost care to avoid important national projects, such as mines, railroads and shipyards, falling into foreign hands. Japan was even afraidof borrowing from foreigners, especially in early Meiji.
(2) Training Japanese engineers: Since foreign advisors were too expensive, the government vigorously promoted “import substitution” by
Japanese engineers. Excellent students were nominated by the government to go abroad to absorb latest ideas and technology at the first-rate
universities in Europe and America with financial support from theJapanese government (however, the amount of scholarship was notvery large). Domestically, Kobu Daigakko (Institute of Technology)
was established as the highest academic institute for absorbing technology in 1877, where foreign professors taught in English and German.
This institute was originally located where the Ministry of Finance now
stands in Kasumigaseki, Tokyo, but it was later merged into the Faculty of Engineering of Tokyo University. In addition, technical highschools were created all over the country to produce a large number of
mid-level engineers. This no doubt greatly increased the technicalabsorptive capacity of the country. However, according to Konosuke
Odaka (2000—see below), traditional craftsmen were more influential
on the factory floor than newly trained engineers during much of Meiji.
(3) Copying, licensing, technical cooperation: Graduates from Kobu
Daigakko played an instrumental role in selecting and importing newtechnology. In economic ministries and private firms, they took initiative in collecting information, purchasing machines, and adjusting64

Meiji (2): Importing and Absorbing Technology

them to Japanese requirements. Many US and European machines were
copy-produced by reverse engineering (however, this is illegal today
under WTO and TRIPS rules). Trading companies, such as Mitsui Corporation and Takada Shokai, provided customers with product information and technical assistance. Later, in the early 20th century, a numberof automobile and electrical machinery companies signed licensing
agreements and technical cooperation contracts with Western firms.
However, in such cooperation the Japanese partners quickly absorbed
new technology and often dissolved the relationship with the Western
partner shortly after.
Japan is said to be a country of monozukuri (manufacturing things). In
many European countries including Britain, engineers who worked in oily factories did not have high status compared with managers, lawyers and accountants who worked in clean offices. But in Japan, university graduates loved tobuild, adjust and repair machines and manage factories. They had no problem
with working side by side with machine operators. This was true in Meiji aswell as until recent past. Best students chose engineering, rather than law or
economics, as their field of specialization. However, this monozukuri tradition
may be eroding in today’s Japan.

5. Hybrid technology
Professor Konosuke Odaka (1990) of Hosei University argues that
Meiji industrialization was achieved by combining existing traditional technology and imported Western technology in an appropriate manner. He calls this“hybrid technology.” Although Western technology was far superior to Edotechnology, the former did not completely replace the latter. This can be considered as one example of the “translative adaptation” introduced in chapter 1.
According to Professor Odaka, different types of industrial evolution
can be identified. In the Figure 4-5 below, intermediate points such as I* andM* can be called hybrid technology2 (M stands for “modern,” I stands for
2

Takafusa Nakamura (1997), Professor Emeritus at Tokyo University, proposes the concept of
new indigenous industry, which is an indigenous industry modified by Western technology.
This corresponds to I I* in Professor Odaka’s terminology.

65

Chapter 4

Figure 4-5

Technology and Factory Size

Technology

Factory size
Small

Large

IndigenousI

I*

ModernM*

M

Source: Odaka, 1990, p.336.
Note: * indicates hybrid status.

“indigenous” and the asterisk means modified).
M

M

For a completely new technology, the Western model
must be imported as a whole; there was no corresponding
traditional technology (e.g. railroads, telephone system,
electrification)

I

I*

M

Indigenous technology was first adjusted and expanded.
Later, there was a switch to a new Western method (e.g.
shipbuilding, sake making)

I

M*

M

Indigenous technology was first replaced by Western technology but at a small scale that fitted Japanese reality.
Later, the size was expanded (e.g. printing, machinery)In addition, indigenous and modern technology often co-existed
because they played complementary roles in vertical industrial linkage, namely,
one industry producing the input to the other, or because their markets were differentiated, for instance, modern plants producing for export while traditional
ones serving the domestic market. As Figures 4-6 and 4-7 illustrate, despite thesteady growth of modern industries from Meiji to early Showa measured byoutput, it was not the largest part of the Japanese economy as far as employment was concerned. The largest absorber of labor force still was the primaryindustry whose share, however, was gradually declining. The share of employment of indigenous manufacturing and service remained relatively stable atslightly over 30 percent.

66

Meiji (2): Importing and Absorbing Technology

Figure 4-6 Manufacturing Output in Pre-war Japan(%)
100

Indigenous
industries

80
60
40
Modernindustries

20

1935-40

1930-35

1925-30

1920-25

1915-20

1910-151905-10

1900-05

1895-00

1890-95

1885-900

Source: Matsumoto and Okuda, 1997.

Figure 4-7 Employment Structure of Prewar Japan(%)
100
Indigenous(trade & service)

80

Indigenous(manufacturing)60
Modern industries
40
Agriculture, forestry,
fishery20

1930-35

1925-30

1920-25

1915-20

1910-151905-10

1900-05

1895-00

1890-95

1885-900

Source: Matsumoto and Okuda, 1997.

67

Chapter 4

Meiroku Zasshi
Mei is the first syllable of Meiji. Roku means six. Zasshi means journal. Meiroku
Zasshi (Journal of the Sixth Year of Meiji) was a series of publications by
Meirokusha (Society of the Sixth Year of Meiji) in 1874 and 1875. Meirokusha, inturn, was a free discussion forum founded in 1873 by Arinori Mori, who later became
the first education minister. Meiroku Zasshi was a collection of relatively short essays
covering a wide variety of issues, such as lessons from Western history, proposals forreforming the Japanese language, religious questions, social policy, and economics.
At the outset of each issue, the following message was printed in archaic Japanese:
Recently, we friends gathered to discuss social issues and foreign situations in order todeepen our knowledge and enjoy high spirits. As meeting records have accumulated, we
have decided to publish and share them with our colleagues at large. While it is only asmall booklet, we would be happy if it helps to improve the knowledge of the Japanesepeople.

As an example, here is the summary translation of “The Argument Against Tariff
Protection” by Mamichi Tsuda (1829-1903), a scholar in Western studies. This article
was published in the fifth volume of Meiroku Zasshi on April 15, 1874.
Our trade deficits were 8 and 7 million yen in 1872 and 1873, respectively. In addition,
we pay 2 million yen annually as salary for foreign advisors and teachers. This meansthat gold and sliver flow out of Japan at the rate of roughly 100 million yen every
decade. Our international reserves may be exhausted in one or two decades.
Pessimists say, “If we lose precious metals like this, how can Japan survive? We muststop this outflow. Europe used tariff protection in the past. The US is still practicing it.
We must also adopt this policy.”
I disagree with this idea. European economists state clearly that protection is the worst
policy which harms the nation’s welfare. The US is still resorting to tariff protection
because American industries are less developed than European, with higher cost. Therefore, Americans levy high tariffs on imported goods to promote domestic industries.
But the development level of Japanese industries is far below that of American. Needless to say, comparison with Europeans is out of question. It is like a small baby trying

68Meiji (2): Importing and Absorbing Technology

to compete with a giant. That is why we have to pay 2 million yen for foreign teachers.
Evidently, copying American policy is not suitable for Japan. More specifically, there
are several reasons why tariff protection is undesirable.
First, commercial treaties with the West prohibit raising our tariffs.
Second, there is a huge gap in technology between Japan and Europe. For example, theprice of domestic steel is higher than imported steel even after paying the transportation
cost. Protection is not enough to narrow this gap.
Third, Japanese people now like to consume a wide variety of imported products such as
food, clothes, household goods, and so on, for which domestic supply is nonexistent.
For many goods, no Japanese factories can produce them.
Fourth, under the policy of rapid Westernization, a large amount of imports is hardly
avoidable.
Fifth, Japan is a student learning Western knowledge and technology. To study more
and faster, we need to pay high tuition.
Some say, “If we do nothing, we will lose all international reserves soon.” But don’t
worry. The trade balance may be in surplus or in deficit in the short run, but there will
be no great imbalance on average. The movement is natural and cyclical. When we first
opened our ports, we had trade surpluses for a few years. Then, imports exceededexports for the next three to four years. It is certain that we will have surpluses again in
the near future. The natural balance is always maintained, and this is the condition underwhich technology and civilization should progress.

Meiroku Zasshi was Japan’s first modern scholarly journal which greatly stimulated policy debate among intellectuals. However, the journal was terminated by thegovernment order under the tightened speech control in November 1875. Its publication lasted only one and half years.

69

Meiji (3):Development of Major Industries

The model of the traditional, manually operated Garabo spinning machine, 1873.

Modern Ring spinning frame made by Platt, U.K., 1896.

Chapter 5

In this chapter, we will examine three important industries in detail.
As noted earlier, raw silk was the top export commodity throughout Meiji andbeyond. The cotton industry was the most dynamically emerging manufacturingindustry; it successfully achieved import substitution and became Japan’s majorindustry far beyond Meiji. Meanwhile, the machinery industry was taking root
but still relatively weak. During Meiji, Japanese machines were cheap but inlow quality, and could hardly compete with American or European products.

1. The silk industry
Silk production has been a traditional industry in Japan dating back toancient times, perhaps to the 4th or 5th century AD. During the Edo period,
many hans produced cloth and kimono made of high quality silk. When Japan
opened its ports and resumed foreign trade in the mid 19th century, Japanesesilk suddenly found an enormous overseas demand, especially in the UnitedStates. This silk boom had several important effects.
First, naturally, silk production—mulberry cultivation, silkworm raising and silk spinning—was greatly stimulated and spread to all over Japan,
especially in the eastern regions. Virtually all farmers and villages which could
produce silk tried to do so. This raised rural income significantly. Today, you
can hardly see mulberry trees or silk production in Japan. But in those days,
they were observed everywhere.
In many developing countries today, rapid industrialization and external liberalization often impoverish farmers and widens the income gap between
urban rich and rural poor (UNCTAD, 2004). In the case of Meiji Japan, however, international integration did not increase the income gap thanks to the silkboom. The tea export boom and rice inflation also contributed to this trend. But
at the same time, rural prosperity now depended critically on the price trends ofprimary commodities such as silk and rice. When these prices were high,enriched farmers and landowners enjoyed higher consumption, low tax rates(since the amount of land tax was nominally fixed) and staged a political movement demanding a national constitution and criticizing the government. Whenthese prices plummeted, however, their movement lost momentum and many
indebted farmers became landless. This can be called the risk of international

72

Meiji (3): Development of Major Industries

integration arising from domestic and global market fluctuation, which is present in any country even today.
Second, a new class of merchants emerged. As foreigners were confined to the designated foreign settlements and their surrounding areas (thelargest foreign settlement was Yokohama), they could not build their own distribution network in Japan (this would violate the requirement of national treatment under WTO today). Thus they had to rely on Japanese merchants to procure silk and tea for export and supply British clothes to local markets. Japanesemerchants who played this role were often new people unconnected with big
merchant families in the Edo period. They communicated price information,
provided short-term trade credit to producers, established marketing channels,
and even assisted in installing new machines and acquiring new technology.
Those who did business directly with foreigners were called Yokohama merchants, but there were also other types of new merchants as well. Renownedsilk-producing localities included Nagano, Yamanashi, Gunma and Tohoku
Region (all Eastern Japan) where merchants played critical roles in restructuring the producers. When successful, merchants made huge profits together withproducers. Quick and spontaneous emergence of a merchant class with highly
productive functions as described above, instead of simply exploiting producers, was a unique Japanese feature not always visible in other countries.
To be fair, however, it must be said that Meiji merchants were far
from perfect. Foreigners often bitterly complained about the dishonesty andcorruption of some Japanese merchants. Silk was sold by weight, so water wasoften added before weighing. Foreigners had to check if the merchandise wasdry inside. At one time, the quality of Japanese silk became so low that its
demand and price fell significantly in the global market. In response, the government was forced to impose quality standards.
Third, continued silk exports were accompanied by the transformation of production methods and organization. Manual labor was graduallyreplaced by machine spinning (IM*; see chapter 4 for notation). At first, silk

production used to be farmers’ side job, but later it was undertaken by factories(M*M). More precisely, silkworm raising still remained family-based anddecentralized across the country, but silk spinning became automated in modern
factories.

73

Chapter 5

Silk remained the top export item for nearly a century. Silk exports
were a stable source of foreign exchange for Japan, contributing to industrialization.

2. The traditional cotton industry
Roughly speaking, the production of cotton contains the following
steps: (i) cotton harvest; (ii) ginning and cleaning; (iii) spinning (yarn); (iv)weaving (cloth); and (v) sewing and cutting (garment). Other processes such as
dyeing may be added. As Konosuke Odaka emphasized (chapter 4), indigenous
and modern sectors often co-existed in Meiji industrialization, and the cotton
industry was no exception. For this reason, we will discuss the traditional andmodern cotton industry separately. This section looks at the traditional production.
Like silk, the cotton industry has a long history in Japan. But theindigenous method of using wooden looms and household labor was far lessproductive than Western technology. The traditional production was often
organized as a putting-out system, where a merchant had contracts with individual farm households to produce specified goods. The merchant provided allmaterials and sometimes even tools, received finished products and paid commission. Production took place in each farmer’s house using family labor (usually that of the wife). The question is: how could this antiquated mode of production survive the onslaught of British imports and modern technology? Why
were they not wiped out?
There are several reasons. First, domestic demand for cotton productsrose so fast that, while imports increased, domestic production could also
expand. Domestic demand was rising because (i) farmers were enriched by thesilk and tea booms as noted earlier, and they switched from homemade or second-hand clothes to external purchase; (ii) new merchants succeeded in establishing a nationwide sales network; and (iii) the price of clothes relative to thegeneral price level declined, which further stimulating demand.
Another important reason was that Japanese and British cotton products were differentiated and not easily substitutable. Japanese cotton used lowcount fibers and was thicker, while British cotton used high-count fibers and74

Meiji (3): Development of Major Industries

was thinner. These products had different uses and did not compete directly.
This is a point much stressed by Kawakatsu (1991).
However, even though the traditional cotton industry survived, theimpact of international integration significantly reorganized its production. Vertically integrated producers which combined the production of raw cotton, yarn
and fabric declined, while specialized weavers using imported yarn prospered.
Demand for plain white cloth fell while high-value, more differentiated products such as creased, patterned and colored cotton found a larger customer base.
Some cotton villages disappeared while new ones popped up. Whether or not
traditional cotton regions survived the integration shock depended very muchon the existence of helpful merchants who introduced imported materials anddeveloped new domestic markets for the producers (Saito and Tanimoto, 1989).
Again, the merchant’s role was essential in adjusting to a new environment.
Toward the end of the Meiji period, machines began to be introduced
even in the traditional sector. This was prompted by the need to improve efficiency in the face of (i) rising wages; (ii) the worsening of the terms of trade,
namely, the falling price of output (fabric) relative to input (yarn); and (iii) textile recessions. Even though machines were introduced, they were not exactly
the same as the Western original. Production scale was smaller and modifications were often made, including the use of as much wooden parts as possible inplace of steel. These can be considered modifications of the indigenous method
(I

I*).

3. Modern cotton industry
We now turn to the modern cotton industry. This industry had to be
introduced as an entirely new technology (MM).

In early Meiji, Japan imported a large amount of cotton yarn as an
input to domestic cotton cloth production. The government considered yunyu
boatsu (import substitution) of cotton yarn to be an important national goal.
Model factories in cotton spinning were established in the 1870s, but thesestate-owned enterprises (SOEs) did not succeed commercially. The reasons forthe failure included: (i) lack of capital; (ii) small capacity of only 2,000 spindles; (iii) use of water power which was constrained by location and operation75

Chapter 5time; and (iv) lack of expertise.
The turning point came when the private Osaka Spinning Company(Osaka Boseki Kaisha) was established in 1883 by the strong initiative of Eiichi
Shibusawa, the super businessman (chapter 3). Worried about rising cotton yarn
imports, Shibusawa decided to create a new company that could overcome thedefects of SOEs. In particular, Osaka Spinning Company introduced the following innovations (Abe, 1990):
It was a joint stock company subscribed by big merchants and former
daimyos who were personally persuaded by Shibusawa to invest. As toworking capital, loans from the First “National” Bank, at which
Shibusawa was the president, were made available.
It boasted a sufficiently large capacity of 10,500 spindles to enjoy
economies of scale.
Use of the steam engine which permitted 24-hour operation.
Located in an urban area, which facilitated worker recruitment.
Takeo Yamanobe was hired as chief engineer (see box below).
Use of low-cost Chinese cotton instead of domestic cotton.
Use of more advanced machinery, especially the adoption of the Ringmodel rather than the Mule model.
Osaka Spinning Company was an instant success. Although 1883, theyear of its establishment, was a recession year (Matsukata Deflation, chapter 4),
the company was profitable from the outset. The lesson we can draw from theexperience of Osaka Spinning Company is that competitiveness depends critically on the choice of appropriate technology which includes the size, locationand mode of operation. In addition, the combination of strong managerial leadership (Shibusawa) and deep practical knowledge (Yamanobe) was instrumental. Without these, purchasing expensive machines alone would not haveachieved efficiency.
The success of Osaka Spinning Company had a powerful demonstration effect. Soon, several spinning factories modeled after Osaka Spinning
Company were established. Largest among them were the spinning companies
of Hirano, Amagasaki, Settsu, and Kanegafuchi (later renamed to Kanebo).
These large-scale cotton spinning factories were concentrated in the Kansai areain Western Japan. Initially, the product of these companies (i.e. yarn) was sold76

Meiji (3): Development of Major Industries

Modern Spinning—The Sangenya Factory of Osaka Spinning Company in late Meiji.

to domestic traditional weavers and contributed to import substitution. Later,
their product was also exported, as well as used internally to weave cloth withinthese factories. Young female workers were recruited to work in these factories
often under inferior working conditions. Factories competed fiercely to hire andkeep these workers. As to competent engineers, they were in even greater shortage.
As the modern cotton industry became the pillar of Japanese manufacturing, it faced two problems. The first was the recession which peakedaround 1900 forcing even large factories to restructure, merge or even close.
The number of modern spinning factories declined from 78 in 1899 to 49 in
1904. After the shakeout, the three largest spinners, Osaka, Toyobo and Dainihon, began to dominate the industry.
Another problem was the conflict of interest between ownership andmanagement. The shareholders of spinning companies were rich merchants andformer daimyos who were not interested in the textile business per se and only
wanted quick and high returns on their investment. By contrast, top managers
and high-level engineers were well-informed about technology and market conditions. Their priority was to expand the business in the long run throughinvestment and technical innovation. Thus, the former demanded large dividends while the latter preferred retained profits for re-investment. This tension
sometimes escalated to the level where shareholders demanded the resignationof the management.

77

Chapter 5

4. The machinery industry
Meiji industrialization was basically light industry industrialization,
especially in textiles, while the machinery industry was still feeble and internationally uncompetitive. Japanese machines were imitations of western models.
In Meiji, “Made in Japan” meant low price and low quality. The machineryindustry still heavily depended on foreign technology and imports. During
Meiji, machinery was only imported; there were virtually no exports. Nevertheless, technology was being absorbed, and preparation for the giant leap in the
Taisho and Showa periods was being made (Sawai, 1990).
Initially, military SOEs dominated the machinery industry. Backed by
the government, they were large in size and equipped with the newest machinesimported from Europe and America. By contrast, private companies were
smaller and less modern, and used second-hand or Japanese machines.
But private-sector manufacturing was also growing, albeit gradually.
Largest among private companies were shipyards and railroad carriage factories. Medium-sized ones included electrical companies such as Shibaura (nowToshiba), NEC, Oki and Hitachi. Meanwhile, small companies produced various parts and devices. The input-output linkage between large and smaller firms
was still weak. Large factories imported most machines and produced theremaining machines and inputs internally. Domestic procurement from otherJapanese companies was insignificant at first. In other words, supporting industries did not exist during Meiji.
Engineers preferred to move among factories for experience and skillbuilding. Inter-firm migration of engineers facilitated technology transfer andabsorption. Graduates from the Institute of Technology and technical highschools (chapter 4) first worked at SOEs or at relatively large private companies. After acquiring skills and knowledge, many of them moved to smaller private companies or established their own factories. In this way, Western technology was diffused widely within the machinery industry.
In Tokyo and Osaka, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) began to
be concentrated in certain areas and formed industrial districts. They tended togather around large factories. In Shiba area in Tokyo, near Tokyo Tower andHamamatsu-cho Station today, large factories such as Shibaura Engineering78

Meiji (3): Development of Major Industries

Table 5-1 Largest Factories by Employment Size (1902)
RankingEnterprise

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
----

Kure Naval Factory
Yokosuka Naval FactoryTokyo Military Factory
Mitsubishi Shipbuilding
Sasebo Naval Factory
Osaka Military Factory
Kawasaki Shipbuilding
Shimbashi Factory (railroad cars)
Japan Railroad Omiya Factory
Osaka Steel
Kobe Factory (railroad cars)
Uraga Shipbuilding
Naval Weapons Factory
Shibaura Engineering Works (Toshiba)
Seikosha (Seiko Corporation)
Nippon Electric Company (NEC)

Numberof workers
12,378
6,761
6,452
5,058
3,612
3,120
3,060
1,721
1,700
1,623
1,566
1,522
1,521
502
211
150

Ownership
State
State
State
PrivateState
State
PrivateState
PrivatePrivateState
PrivateState
PrivatePrivatePrivateSource: Sawai, 1990, p.221.

Works (private; “Shibaura” means Shiba Beach), Naval Weapons Factory(SOE) and Mita Manufacturing (SOE) were located. Around them, private companies were established to produce mechanical devices and parts1. Anotherindustrial district in Tokyo was the Honjo-Fukagawa area on the left bank of
the Sumida River. This district specialized in metal products like nuts, bolts,
springs and so on. In these industrial districts, SMEs not only competed but also
cooperated with each other. If one factory did not have the right machine to doa certain work, it was possible to ask the neighbor to do it, and vice versa. Someof the SMEs became subcontractors of larger firms. However, the accounting
method of SMEs long remained imprecise and pre-modern.
Japanese managers and engineers were generalists rather than specialists, and job-hopping was very common. Workers were also characterized bytheir lack of discipline and low savings. The Japanese labor force at that time
was more “neoclassical” and quite different from the labor force in the post
1

Later, in 1939, Toshiba was created by merging Shibaura Engineering Works and Tokyo
Electric. Even today, one can see Toshiba Head Office from Yurikamome train; that is where
Shiba industrial district used to be. However, the area was completely destroyed by the earthquake in 1923 and the US aerial bombing in 1945, so no sign of Meiji industrialization remains.

79

Chapter 5

Figure 5-1 Duration of Male Employment in Manufacturing
(%)
35
30

1902
1912

25
20
15
10
5
0
1

2

3-4

5-6

7-9

10
(Years)

Source: Sawai, 1990, p.218.

WW2 era. To further promote industrialization, Japan had to transform theselight-footed engineers and workers to stay in one factory in order to absorb anddevelop firm-specific knowledge and skills. Japan later succeeded in doing thisduring war time (1937-45)—see chapter 9.
Let us look at some of the large private firms.

5. Railroad carriages and locomotives
Railroad carriages and locomotives are quite different in theirrequired technology. The latter are far more difficult to manufacture than theformer. As for carriages, about 25 percent was imported and the rest was
domestically produced throughout Meiji. Among domestic producers, Shimbashi Factory (SOE) and Kobe Factory (SOE) were the largest, which together
accounting for 64 percent of domestically produced carriages.
As for locomotives, all had to be imported at first. The government
wanted to promote domestic production (i.e. import substitution). In 1900, thefirst locomotive was test-produced through the cooperation of the state and private sector. Shimbashi Factory, an SOE, provided the blueprint to Japan Railroad and Kansai Railroad (two private companies), and engineers were mutually exchanged. In 1912, the Railroad Agency nominated four private companies

80Meiji (3): Development of Major Industries

to copy-produce locomotives. But since these companies were still technically
incompetent, the government provided them with technology, material inputs,
production management, training (which included opportunities to study
abroad), and the promise of official procurement. Hence the market was
secured. In this way, the government pampered the burgeoning railroad industry
which, thanks to such assistance, eventually came to possess world-leading
technology during the inter-war period.
During the Meiji period, both state-owned and private companies laid
railroads. However, in 1906, the government nationalized virtually all railroad
companies. Nationalization was carried out partly for military reasons and partly because many of the private railroad companies were unprofitable. One serious problem with railroads was over-building; local politicians maneuvered toconstruct too many railroads to please rural voters for the next election. Thiskind of vote-buying remains a big problem even today.

6. Shipbuilding
Among domestic shipyards, Mitsubishi Shipbuilding in Nagasaki(private) and Kawasaki Shipbuilding in Kobe (private) dominated. Both wereformer SOEs sold to influential businessmen. In the early days, ship repairing
was more profitable than building new ships.
About half of the newly built ships were purchased by domestic private customers. The rest were produced for the navy or exported to China,
Thailand, and other countries. The government supported the shipbuilding
industry by offering subsidies for building large-sized ships above 700 tons
(later, above 1,000 tons). The construction of naval ships was not very profitable but the government supplied materials for them. Due to the lack of supporting industries, shipbuilders produced most parts internally.

7. Electrical machinery
Shibaura Engineering Works (later Toshiba) was founded by Hisashige Tanaka, the inventor. Initially, it was a relatively small operation with 502
workers, producing military goods. When naval factories stopped procuring81

Chapter 5

from Shibaura since they now could produce the parts internally, Tanaka’s factory shifted to the production of electrical machines for private use such as generators and transformers. When Shibaura Engineering Works faced a financial
crisis, Mitsui Zaibatsu came to the rescue. Shibaura also established businesscooperation with General Electric (USA). Similarly, Mitsubishi Electric Company cooperated with Westin House (USA) and Furukawa Electric Company
cooperated with Siemens (Germany).
Even with efforts for domestic production, imports still dominated theJapanese market of generators and transformers. Foreign products, mainly fromthe US, accounted for about 75 percent of the total in 1911. Toshiba’s market
share was 16 percent and concentrated in low capacity generators comparedwith US products.
There was a debate within the Japanese government as to whether thenational telephone network should be laid privately or publicly. The government finally decided to build it by itself. The supply of telephone equipment
was considered highly lucrative. To win this business, Oki Electric wasapproached by Western Electric to produce needed equipment but Oki refused.
Western Electric then set up Nippon Electric Company (NEC), a joint venturewith Japanese partners, in 1898 with the capital share of Western Electric being
54 percent. Oki and NEC subsequently competed for the official procurementof telephone equipment.
NEC was initially only a sales agent for Western Electric products,
but soon began to produce its own products and became more independent from
Western Electric. NEC’s success was due to foreign technology and capital,
secured markets through government procurement of telephone equipment, andthe company’s high technical absorptive capacity.

82Meiji (3): Development of Major Industries

Shibusawa and Yamanobe
In 1877, Takeo Yamanobe was a 26-year-old student majoring in economics andinsurance theory in London. One day he received a letter from an unknown gentleman
in Japan. The sender’s name was Eiichi Shibusawa. The letter said something like
this: “Dear Yamanobe, your name was mentioned by a friend of mine. Japan imports
too much cotton yarn today. We need to establish a domestic spinning industry. We
need people who know both management and technology. Will you please study the
cotton industry? I will create a company.”

Eiichi Shibusawa (1840-1931)

Takeo Yamanobe (1851-1920)

Perhaps Yamanobe was annoyed. Who is this man to tell me to change my subject? But after thinking a bit, he decided to follow Shibusawa’s advice. He went toKing’s College where he studied textile industry theory. But theory alone was notenough. He moved to Manchester, the capital of global textile industry. He posted ads
in newspapers: HIRE ME AS COTTON INDUSTRY TRAINEE, WILL PAY, but nocompany responded. Finally, he met Mr. W. E. Braggs who allowed him to work andabsorb practical knowledge in his factory for eight months. Learning included technology, marketing and shipping. He worked very hard. Shibusawa sent him 1,500 yen
to support the study. Shibusawa later recollected that this was a huge sum even for
him and he sent it as if he jumped off the stage of Kiyomizu Temple (a phrase implying a bold and risky decision).
When the study ended, Yamanobe placed an order to buy textile machinery and83

Chapter 5

steam engines from manufacturers such as Platt and Hargreaves, and returned toJapan. In 1882, Shibusawa and Yamanobe selected an appropriate factory site. To
establish the company, 250,000 yen was collected from rich merchants and friends of
Shibusawa. Shibusawa’s bank, First National, would lend working capital. Osaka
Spinning Company was successfully launched in 1883. Yamanobe became the chiefengineer of the factory.
Around 1900, there was a severe textile recession. Shareholders demanded higher
and quicker returns. But Yamanobe insisted on long-term development of the company. Even the General Director criticized him. Being desperate and wanting to quit,
Yamanobe visited Shibusawa’s residence. Shibusawa assured that he would support
Yamanobe 100 percent and requested him to continue to work for the company. So
Yamanobe stayed. After a while, the recession ended and Yamanobe was promoted to
the President of Osaka Spinning Company.
Let us introduce one more person. Masazumi Fuji was a super factory manager ofKanegafuchi Spinning Company (Kanebo). He graduated from Keio University andworked in the sales department of Suminodo Factory of Kanebo. This factory wasfacing obsolete machines, lack of work discipline and low capacity utilization. He
worked 18 hours a day to replace or repair old machines and recruited 500 new workers. He restored the factory to full operation in three months. He was then promoted to
the Managing Director of Kanebo’s Tokyo Factory. This factory was another disaster.
He repaired, invested, and improved. He reduced the work force from 4,000 to 1,620.
After three years, the factory became very profitable. If Mr. Fuji were still alive, I
would like to send him to your country as a JICA expert.
What do we learn from these stories? Meiji industrialization was achieved bythese powerful and risk-taking individuals with energy, vision and leadership. Meiji
was full of such people, and Japan relied on them for industrial revolution. New laws,
deregulation and level playing fields are perhaps not enough. If Shibusawa did notwrite the first letter to Yamanobe, Japan’s textile industry may not have started. If so,
the real question is, how can we generate such wonderful people continuously in asociety?

84

Meiji (4):Budget, Finance and the Macroeconomy

The picture of the completed Bank of Japan building.

Chapter 6

1. Two wars and Postwar Management
One of the national goals of Meiji was external expansion. To be
more precise, Japan felt it necessary to create an area of influence around its
territory to protect its interests against the West. During Meiji, the greatest
potential threat to Japan was the eastward expansion of Russia’s Romanov
Empire. To guard its national interests, Japan wanted to construct its “line ofinterest” beyond its national border. That specifically meant placing Korea
under Japanese influence.
In his famous speech at the first imperial parliament (1890), Prime
Minister Aritomo Yamagata argued as follows:
There are two ways to secure national independence and defense. The first is
to protect the line of sovereignty. The second is to protect the line of interest.
The line of sovereignty means the nation's border and the line of interest
includes the area closely related to the safety of the line of sovereignty. Thereis no country that does not try to defend both lines. Under the present circumstance, to maintain our independence and stand against the Western powers,
defending the line of sovereignty is not enough. We need to protect our lineof interest as well.

But China’s Qing Dynasty considered Korea as its protectorate.
Japan’s ambition over Korea naturally clashed with Chinese interests. In Korea,
the political situation became unstable, as the Japanese army staged military
provocation and the assassination of a Korean queen. Finally, Japan and China
opened fire over Korea (Japan-China War, 1894-95). Japan’s new battleships
and military strategy won over China's older method of fighting. Although the
Chinese equipment was also modern, its strategy was poorly designed. After
this victory, Japan obtained reparations amounting to 310 million yen in gold,
the territory of Taiwan as Japan’s first major colony, and China’s Liaodong
Peninsula. But shortly after, Japan was forced to return the Liaodong Peninsula
to China under the joint pressure from Russia, Germany and France. Japan felt
deeply humiliated at this because it meant it was still a weaker power than theWest.
Even after Japan’s victory over China in 1895, Korea and the Northeastern region of China remained under Russian influence. This inevitably collided with Japan’s expansionist policy and, within ten years, the Japan-Russia

86Meiji (4): Budget, Finance and the Macroeconomy

The Japanese Colonial Administration in Korea, located in the center of Keijo (Seoul).

War broke out (1904-05). Most foreign observers predicted an easy Russian
victory. But surprisingly, the Japanese navy decisively defeated Russia’s Baltic
Fleet. Immediately after this naval triumph, the Japanese government asked theUnited States to mediate a peace treaty between Japan and Russia since the continuation of the war would surely lead to a fiscal crisis (the approach to the US
government had been made in advance). The victory over Russia was considered to be a proof that Japan had finally become a first-class country on a parwith the West. National pride ballooned. But at the same time, the Japanesepeople and media were infuriated because Russia paid no reparations. By contrast, the Japanese government was happy simply because the war ended before
Japan went bankrupt.
Japan annexed (colonized) Korea in 1910. Meanwhile, Russia’s
Romanov Empire collapsed in 1917 and a communist regime was established(Russian Revolution).
What impact did the two wars have on Japan’s macroeconomic policy
stance? To consider this, we need to look back a little.
When the first imperial parliament was convened in 1890, the key

87

Chapter 6

Figure 6-1 Structure of Gross Domestic Expenditure

Japan-China War

Japan-Russia War

(%)
80
75
Householdconsumption

(%)
25
20

70

Total
government
expenditure

Private fixed
capital formation

15
10
5
0

Government fixed
capital formation

Government
consumption

(%)
25
20

Import15
10

Export

5
1885

90

95

1900

05

10

0
14
(year)

Source: Nishikawa and Yamamoto, eds, 1990, p.5.

issue was whether Japan should adopt fiscal expansion or fiscal austerity. The
government wanted to accelerate spending for industrialization and militarybuildup, but the opposition parties demanded tax and spending cuts. The latterreflected the voice of voters, most of whom were rich farmers obliged to pay
the land tax. But gradually, some opposition parties changed tactics and began
to cooperate with the government. Instead of demanding a small government,
they asked for more rural public spending (in their constituencies).
During the two wars, military spending sharply increased. In the caseof the Japan-Russia War, foreign bonds were floated in America and Europe tocover roughly half the war expense. This practically terminated the debate over88

Meiji (4): Budget, Finance and the Macroeconomy

In 1896 the parliament approved the budget for building a modern
state-owned steel plant. Yahata (also pronounced Yawata) Steel wascompleted in 1901. Initial technical difficulties were overcome byadjusting German technology to local requirements. Yahata Steel waslater merged several times to become Nippon Steel Corporation.

the fiscal policy stance as budget spending increased in reality. Fiscal activism
became generally acceptable.
Moreover, after each war, fiscal activism was adopted instead ofmacroeconomic contraction. For this reason, the size of government did notshrink after each victory but continued to expand (the fiscal ratchet effect). The
term Postwar Management refers to the aggressive public investment andspending programs of the central and local governments after the Japan-China
and Japan-Russia Wars, which included:
Continued military spending, especially battleship construction
Railroad construction
Integrated steel works in Yahata (SOE, established in 1901—see photo)
Building of the national telephone network
Taiwan Management—administration of and investment in the newly
acquired colony
Infrastructure building, such as roads and water supply, which was undertaken mainly by local governments
Education spending undertaken mainly by local governments
As a result of continued fiscal expansion, the balance-of-paymentspressure mounted and the Bank of Japan quickly lost gold reserves. It can besaid that Japan prior to WW1 was facing an increasingly serious macroeconomic crisis.

89

Chapter 6

2. Exchange rate policy
Britain adopted the gold standard in 1821 and all other major Westerncountries, including the United States, shifted to the gold standard by the end of
1870s. While the West was on the international gold standard, Japan remained
externally on the sliver standard—gold, silver and copper coins circulated internally but silver was the means of international settlement. This in turn was
mainly because the silver standard was dominant in East Asia. Shanghai(China) was the center of Asian foreign exchange markets.
The price of silver gradually declined against gold in the late 19th
century. This meant that the Japanese yen, tied to silver, automatically depreciated against the world’s major currencies, which provided a favorable condition
for export promotion. However, Finance Minister Matsukata, the man who previously generated what was called Matsukata Deflation in the early 1880s, now
insisted that Japan should adopt the gold standard as soon as possible because it
was the standard practice among first-class countries. Ignoring opposition, Matsukata introduced the gold standard in 1897. The initial gold reserves weresecured by the reparation gold paid by China after the Japan-China War. Fromthen on, the Japanese yen was fixed against major currencies at the parity of 2
yen to the US dollar.

Figure 6-2 Yen-Dollar Exchange Rate
(USD per 100 yen)
120
100
80
60
40
Yen depreciation
20
1940

1935

1930

1925

1920

1915

1910

1905

1900

1895

1890

1885

1880

1875

0

Source: Management and Coordination Agency, Historical Statistics of Japan, Vol. 3, 1988.
Note: Two lines indicate highest and lowest for each year.

90

Meiji (4): Budget, Finance and the Macroeconomy

As a consequence, the automatic depreciation of the yen ended.
Japanese inflation converged to world inflation, which was close to zero. Due tothe absence of the exchange risk, it became easier for the central and local governments to issue foreign currency-denominated bonds.

3. Creating modern banking
In early Meiji, the Japanese banking system was chaotic, to say theleast. The initial policy of creating “national” banks (1872), copied from the US
system, was not very successful (“national” here means “chartered by thestate”; these banks were actually private). This decentralized system had nocentral bank, and each “national” bank could issue bank notes with the backingof gold reserves. But holding gold reserve was costly and only four banks were
set up. Later, the gold reserve requirement was relaxed and the total of 153
banks were created. But eventually, this system was regarded as ineffective andlater abolished.
The modern banking system began to take root with the creation of acentral bank (Bank of Japan) in 1882, which became the only entity to issue thenational currency. In addition to commercial banks, the following specializedbanks were created to fund investment projects:
Japan Kangyo Bank (later, Daiichi Kangyo Bank; now part of the merged
Mizuho Financial Group created in 2000. Kangyo means industrial promotion.)
Hokkaido Takushoku Bank (bankrupted in 1997; Takushoku means opening new land for cultivation)
Industrial Bank of Japan (now part of the Mizuho Financial Group)
Agricultural and Industrial Bank (set up in each prefecture; merged into
Japan Kangyo Bank by 1944)
In addition, postal savings began to collect people’s savings. Insurance companies, agricultural credit unions and urban credit unions also functioned as financial intermediaries.
But until late Meiji, Japanese banks were not true financial intermediaries in the sense of taking deposits and making loans. At first, paid-in capital,
reserves and government deposits dominated the liabilities of the banks. For

91

Chapter 6

Table 6-1 Sources of Borrowing by Farm Households
and Manufacturing Enterprises(%)
Borrowing from:
Modern financial institutions
Banks
Cooperatives
Official low-interest credit
Traditional institutions
TOTAL

1888
7.2
7.2
--92.8100.0

Farmers
1911
35.7
32.7
2.5
0.5
64.3
100.0

1932
47.3
26.7
16.0
4.6
52.7
100.0

Manufacturers
1932
60.8
59.8
1.0
-39.2
100.0

Note: Prof. Juro Teranishi’s estimates (1990). Manufacturers’ data are for Tokyo and Kobe only.
Traditional institutions include money lenders, merchants, relatives, and mutual financing.

early banks, designation as the government’s fiscal depository was very profitable, because they did not have to pay interest on official deposits between thetime taxes were collected and the time they were transferred to the government.
Only towards the end of Meiji, banks began to rely more on private-sector
deposits. But even then, many banks remained unsound with the general lack of
information disclosure, risk management, portfolio diversification or project
evaluation. Banks were often captured by one or a few business enterprises,
providing financing exclusively for them. Such banks were called kikan ginko,
which literally means “institution banks.” This situation subsequently caused anenormous bad debt problem in the 1920s (chapter 8).
All this points to the fact that creating a sound banking system in adeveloping country is a very difficult and long-term endeavor. New banking
laws and financial deregulation will not be enough to achieve this.
As for the capital market, stock exchanges were created in Tokyo andOsaka in 1878. But initially, few stocks were traded and these exchanges functioned mainly as a secondary market for government bonds. Former samurais
who received government bonds in exchange for the previous rice salary often
wished to sell them as they faced financial distress. In the 1880s, as many railroad companies were established, railroad bonds gradually became the mostimportant instruments for trading. In the 1890s, the shares of maritime transportation companies became popular. After 1906, when private railroads were
nationalized, the shares of textile and food companies replaced railroad stocks.

92

Meiji (4): Budget, Finance and the Macroeconomy

4. Savings mobilization
Where did the funding for Meiji industrialization come from? Data
are incomplete, economic historians are still debating, and we do not have adefinite answer. Here, let us look at the estimates provided by Juro Teranishi(1990).
Teranishi estimates the savings-investment balance of Japan from
1899 to 1937. He does not have data for early Meiji, before 1899. He classifies
the economy into four sectors: private farms, non-farm private enterprises, government, and the external sector. He additionally estimates the size of agricultural taxes. The following interpretation by Teranishi is consistent with his estimates (although other interpretations may be possible).
First, in pre-WW2 Japan, the largest funds for industrialization camefrom private enterprises themselves. Retained profits, family savings, and theresources of rich merchants seem to have financed private investments within
the business sector through self-finance, the creation of joint stock companies
and so on. The role of banks as a financial intermediary did not appear very
great, especially in the early periods.
Second, in addition, the fiscal transfer mechanism from agriculture toindustry must have played an important role to the extent that land taxes paid byrural communities were used to finance public investment and various subsidies. But Teranishi somewhat downplays the role of landlords as major contribTable 6-2 Savings-Investment Balance by Sector(In millions of yen)
1899-1902 1903-1907 1908-1912 1913-1917 1918-1922 1923-1927 1928-1932 1933-1937
Private farms
Savings
Investment
Non-farm private sector
Savings
Investment
Government
Savings
Investment
External sector

1
121
120
62
180
118
-59
24
83
5

13
159
146
123
310
187
-233
-142
91
-97

4
175
171
-87
212
299
15
205
190
-68

43
240
197
175
752
577
120
317
197
338

207
657
450
81
1724
1643
-146
441
587
143

23
523
500
-290
858
1148
-112
801
913
-380

-12
402
414
631
1498
867
-626
251
877
-6

222
580
358
931
2637
1706
-1162
-298
864
-10

Memorandum item:
Agricultural taxes

104

115

154

166

290

291

188

145

Note: Prof. Juro Teranishi’s estimates (1990). Private farms’ S-I balance shows transfer of surpluses
to the non-farm sector through the financial system while agricultural taxes are transfer of surpluses
through the government budget.

93Chapter 6

utors to saving mobilization since the ratio of agricultural tax to total investment declined over time. Nevertheless, such fiscal transfer may well haveplayed a crucial role in early Meiji, for which Teranishi does not have data.
Third, foreign savings played some role toward the end of Meiji asforeign-currency denominated bonds were issued by the central and local governments—see the next section.

5. The role of external funds
Quantitatively speaking, the contribution of foreign savings to industrialization was relatively small during the Meiji period. Almost all necessary
funds were raised domestically. Meiji Japan did not welcome FDI or foreignloans for industrialization, except for the public-sector borrowing in late Meiji
for the purpose of war execution and Postwar Management as mentioned above.
Initially, as a matter of principle, the government rejected external liabilities forfear of foreign control. This was in sharp contrast to other latecomers, such as
Russia and Italy. Russia borrowed heavily from London’s financial markets tobuild railroads during the 1860s and 70s. Italy also accepted large amounts offoreign investment in all sectors in the late 19th century.
However, the reliance on foreign saving did increase in late Meiji. Let
us see what happened step by step.
In early Meiji, the government issued foreign bonds twice. After that,
there was some internal debate on the desirability of further borrowing for the
purpose of creating a modern monetary system. But actual borrowing was notconsidered or made until the mid 1890s.
After the victory in the Japan-China War (1894-95), the situation
changed. With the introduction of a fixed exchange rate and the gold standard
which was made possible by the receipt of reparation gold from China, it
became easier for Japan to issue foreign bonds. The policy of fiscal activism
also required additional financial sources. The establishment of the Rikken
Seiyukai Party, which strongly supported spending policy, and its assumptionof power in 1900 accelerated this trend. In order to ameliorate financial crises
and credit shortage, the business community also began to call for external borrowing.

94

Meiji (4): Budget, Finance and the Macroeconomy

During the seven years following the end of the Japan-China War, theJapanese government issued foreign bonds in three installments, totaling 190
million yen ($95 million) to fund its public investment. During the Japan-Russia War (1904-05), the government again issued foreign bonds worth 800 million yen ($400 million) in four quick installments to execute the war. Thesebonds were denominated mainly in British pound or US dollar (the exchange
rates were 2 yen per dollar and 4.87 dollars per pound). Between this war andthe outbreak of WW1, the bond issue was repeated seven more times, mainly toredeem domestic government bonds and release more funds for domestic industries.
After the Japan-Russia War, local governments also began to actively
borrow abroad. Local government bonds and corporate bonds issued by local
SOEs were the two major forms of such borrowing. Funds raised through these
instruments were used for building infrastructure, such as railroads, gas andwater supply, electricity and so on.
Both Teranishi (1990) and Kamiyama (2000b) interpret the external
public borrowing of this period as a way to finance the balance-of-payments
deficit while continuing fiscal activism. Without it, macroeconomic policies
had to be tightened but Japan did not want to do this.
As for FDI, inflow remained negligible in terms of both establishmentof new enterprises and purchases of existing stocks by foreigners. As theunequal commercial treaties with the West were revised, foreigners wereallowed to invest in Japan. The restriction of foreign investment to the designated foreign settlements was lifted in 1899. But that did not cause any increase in
FDI inflow. There were only two companies in which foreign ownershipexceeded 50 percent.

95

Chapter 6

After successful modernization, Japan becomes a new
threat to East Asia and the world
By the 1910s, the three national goals of early Meiji—namely, industrialization,
political reform, and military expansion—were more or less achieved, and Japanbegan to consider itself to be part of the first-class world. Achievements by the end of
Meiji can be summarized as follows:
Industrial revolution was achieved in light industries, especially cotton textiles, although machinery and chemical industries were still embryonic.
Japan now had a Western style legal system equipped with a constitution,necessary laws, and a functioning parliament.
As the unequal treaties were revised step by step, Japan regained tariff rights
and the right to judge foreign criminals. Taiwan and Korea were colonized,
and the threats of China and Russia were repelled.
After WW1, Japan began to attend important international conferences as a member of the “Big Five.” The other members were US, Britain, France and Italy. But
Japan’s accomplishments and emerging assertiveness created new doubts among boththe West and the Asian neighbors. For the West, Japan was now a dangerous military
power which might imperil their interests. For the rest of East Asia, Japan acted as a
new imperial invader in the region threatening their independence.
During WW1, while Europeans and Americans were absorbed in fighting, theJapanese government issued the “Twenty-One Demands” to China in 1915. These
included the demand for transferring German-occupied Chinese territory (Shandong
Peninsula) to Japan, expansion of Japanese interests in Southern Manchuria and Eastern Inner Mongolia, a new industrial joint venture, prohibition of yielding Chinese
territories to other countries, acceptance of Japanese advisors, and others(“Manchuria” is a term then used to refer to the Northeastern Region of China). The
Chinese government first resisted the Twenty-One Demands, but with an ultimatumfrom Japan, it finally accepted them. When China’s protestations against the Japanesedemands were rejected at the Paris Peace Conference, a large-scale anti-Japanese
movement erupted in China in 1919 (May 4 Movement).
After the Russian Revolution, the major powers sent troops to topple the newcommunist government, but the attempt was eventually unsuccessful. Japan sent the96

Meiji (4): Budget, Finance and the Macroeconomy

largest number of troops to Siberia and kept them there the longest, after all othercountries ended intervention.
These actions increased global suspicion against Japan. Even the United States, a
traditional ally and the largest trading partner of Japan, began to express displeasure.
Another thorny issue with the United States was the mistreatment of and discrimination against Japanese immigrants in the United States. Thus, during the 1920s and
30s, Japanese diplomacy was facing a grave choice: whether to restore friendship with
the West and East Asia or continue to assert its way against global criticism.

Figure 6-3 Japan’s Territorial Expansion
110°

120°

130°

140°

150°

Siberia
RussiaMongolia

China

Manchuria

Sakhalin
50°
1905
Kurile Islands
1875

Liaodong
Peninsula
1895

40°

Guandong
Korea 1910
Seoul

30°

1875 The Sakhalin-Chishima Exchange Treaty

Taiwan1895
Peng Hu Islands
1895

1895 The Treaty of Shimonoseki
1905 The Treaty of Portsmouth
1910 The Japanese-Korean Annexation Treaty

Note:
After the Japan-China War, Japan received Liaodong Peninsula from China in 1895 but wasforced to return it in the face of diplomatic pressure from Russia, Germany and France in thesame year. After the Japan-Russia War, Japan obtained the southern half of Liaodong Peninsula from Russia, and named it Guandong (Kanto-shu). Guandong included the military portof Lushun and the commercial city of Dalian.

97

World War I and the 1920s:
Export-led Boom and Recession

Taisho Democracy – An open-air speech meeting demanding universal suffrage in Ueno Park, 1919.

Chapter 7

1. Impact of World War I
When the First World War erupted in July 1914, its consequences for
the Japanese economy were at first uncertain. As the European major powers
began to fight each other, their international trade was suspended, which meantthat Europe could no longer supply textiles, machinery and chemicals to the restof the world. It was feared that Japanese investment would be adversely affected. In reality, Japan did experience severe shortages of high-quality machines
and industrial materials as domestic demand for them surged.
But it soon became clear that WW1 would bring a huge bonanza to
the Japanese economy, at least in the short run, because of the sudden increasein global demand for Japanese products. An enormous export-led boom was
generated because global demand shifted from Europe to Japan and also
because the US economy was expanding. Japanese manufactured products werestill of inferior quality but could substitute for European products which now
became unavailable.
The Japanese macroeconomy, which previously faced a mounting
trade deficit and gold reserve loss, was greatly stimulated by this sharp rise inforeign demand. During WW1, the domestic price level more than doubled andreal GNP surged, with an estimated annual growth close to 10 percent. In termsof GNP expenditure, exports rose, imports were slightly suppressed, investment
only moderately increased and with a lag (due to the shortage of machinery),and private consumption fell (Figure 7-1). What happened was a sharp rise in
output without a corresponding capital stock accumulation, pushing up theapparent operation ratio and “efficiency” of captial. Domestic consumption was
crowded out by foreign demand, mainly through forced saving under temporary
inflation. Business profits jumped and gold reserves accumulated. This is how
Japan got out of the pre-WW1 balance-of-payments crisis—as a result of a
sharp rise in export demand caused by a foreign war rather than through macroeconomic austerity1.
The export-led boom was a broad-based one in which all industries

1

We will see in chapter 10 that a similar situation will rescue the Japanese economy out of crisis
in 1950 when the Korean War occurred.

100

World War I and the 1920s: Export-led Boom and Recession

Figure 7-1 Price Movements and Gross National Expenditure① Price Levels

200

Manufactured product prices

150
100
GNE deflator

50

Agricultural product prices0② Composition of Gross National Expenditure (at current prices)
(%)

80
70

Household consumption (left scale)

60

(%)
30

Import (right scale)50

20
Export (right scale)

40

10

30

0
Gross fixed capital formation (left scale)

20
10
0

Gov’t consumption(left scale)1912 14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36 37

Source: Ohkawa and Shinohara, eds, Patterns of Japanese Economic Development: A
Quantitative Appraisal, Yale University Press, 1979, Appendix Table A50.

benefited. Among them, marine transportation and shipbuilding were extremely
profitable and expanded most rapidly. Between 1913 and 1919, overall manufacturing expanded 1.65 times, while specific industries enjoyed the following
output increases: machinery (3.1 times), steel (1.8 times), chemicals (1.6 times)
and textile (1.6 times).
Clearly, this export-led boom was temporary—only as long as WW1
continued, which meant about four years. Despite inferior quality, Japanese
products were capturing overseas markets with unusually strong demand andhigh prices under the special conditions of the European war. Domestically,
import substitution accelerated artificially because European goods did not101

Chapter 7

arrive. In retrospect, most of the business expansion during WW1 was inefficient, excessive and unsustainable. Because of this historically unprecedented
boom, mediocre merchants and inefficient producers became suddenly rich andsuccessful. They rapidly expanded their businesses. A class of nouveau riche
called narikin emerged (in Japanese chess, narikin means a pawn becoming agold general). They were often without culture or taste and fond of showing off
their material wealth.
For Japan, WW1 required very little military involvement. Japan did
not engage in any serious combat. But since Japan had a military alliance treaty
with the Britain (1902-1923, with Russia as the potential enemy), the government used this as an excuse for capturing German-occupied territories in
Jiaozhou Wan (including Qingdao) in China and a number of islands in theSouthern Pacific.

2. Collapse of the bubble
In 1918, when WW1 ended, a small business setback occurred. But
the Japanese economy continued to do well in 1919. Then came the big crash of1920. The beginning of the postwar recession meant that the bubble had finallycollapsed. The prices of many commodities fell sharply. Within the year of1920, the price of cotton yarn fell by 60 percent, that of silk by 70 percent, andthe stock market index plunged 55 percent. There was no downward price rigidity in those days. Macroeconomic adjustment was brought about mostly
through price changes rather than output fluctuation. When the bubble ended,
the lack of competitiveness and overcapacity of the Japanese economy, previously hidden under unsubstantiated exuberance, was exposed. Most narikin
were bankrupted. Their happy days were short.
After this and throughout the 1920s, Japan went through a series ofrecessions and banking crises. The most serious bank runs occurred in 1927
(chapter 8). The economy slowed down significantly compared with the WW1
period, but no severe fall in output was recorded. Domestic demand was notbuoyant but steady. Recessions were frequent but short-lived. Prices remained
flexible. Trade deficits returned and persisted, which was financed by the drawing down of the previously accumulated gold reserves. During the 1920s, the102World War I and the 1920s: Export-led Boom and Recession

Figure 7-2 Gold Reserves(In millions of yen)2500
Held abroad

2000

At home
1500
1000
500

1903
1905
1907
1909
1911
1913
1915
1917
1919
1921
1923
1925
1927
1929
1931
1933
1935
1937
1939
1941

0

Source: Management and Coordination Agency, Historical Statistics of Japan, Vol. 3, 1988.

sky above the Japanese economy was neither sunny nor pouring. It was as if
thick clouds gathered and stayed above the economy depressing the economic
mood of the country, somewhat like the 1990s to the early 2000s.
Faced with the onset of a long recessionary period, it is worth noting
how the Japanese government reacted. It had two policy options: the one was torescue weakened industries and banks saddled with bad debt, and the other wasto eliminate inefficient units in order to streamline the economy despite transitional pain. The Japanese government opted for the first. In particular, the Bankof Japan provided emergency loans to ailing banks and industries to avoid further bankruptcies and unemployment. This policy eased the short-term pain but
implanted a time bomb in the Japanese economy which exploded several years
later.

3. Development of heavy and chemical industries
But even under the cloudy sky of the 1920s, manufacturing industries
were growing. Heavy and chemical industries (HCI) were expanding strongly,
despite the relatively weak aggregate demand. HCI growth was broad-based
and included steel, chemicals, electrical machinery, general machinery, andartificial silk (rayon). For these products, import substitution proceeded rapidly.
By the 1930s, Japan could produce most machinery domestically. This was a
big achievement in comparison with the Meiji period.

103

Chapter 7

There were several reasons for HCI growth.
Initially, the WW1 boom ignited these industries under artificial protection from European products, as explained above.
Second, policy support was available. Fiscal activism, including military buildup, continued to be pursued by the Seiyukai Party governments(chapter 9), and tariff protection for emerging HCIs was adopted. The government also promoted the formation of industrial cartels to avoid excesscompetition and overcapacity.
Third, electrification proceeded considerably with the growth ofhydraulic power generation. Construction of hydraulic power plants occupied the largest share of private investment (another buoyant area of private
investment was railroad construction). In the Kansai area in Western Japan,
electricity surplus emerged. Power companies resorted to discriminatory
pricing by charging very low prices to large corporate customers. Once thedam, the power plant and transmission lines were completed, the marginal
cost of producing additional electricity was virtually zero. Discriminatory
pricing helped to raise the operation ratio and increase the revenue. This
stimulated the growth of electricity-intensive industries such as ammonium
sulfate, fertilizer, rayon and aluminum refinery.
Fourth, foreign technology was absorbed through FDI. Japanese companies including NEC, Shibaura, Mitsubishi Electric, Furukawa, and Nissan(see below) tied up variously with American and European giants such as
General Electric, Westinghouse, Siemens, Ford, GM, Dunlop and Goodrichin the fields of electrical machinery, automobiles, rubber tires, and so on.
The business relationships took many forms, including creation of aJapanese subsidiary, joint venture, equity participation and technical cooperation.
Fifth, industrial linkages were created. For instance, growth of thesteel industry stimulated and supported the steel-using industries like shipbuilding and machinery, and vice versa.
As a result of the development of HCI, a new type of zaibatsu
emerged in the 1920s and the 1930s. The largest among them were Nissan, Nicchitsu and Mori. Compared with the old zaibatsu such as Mitsui and Mitsubishi,

104

World War I and the 1920s: Export-led Boom and Recession

Figure 7-3 Gross Capital Formation
Local
gov’tsPrivatePower

Railroads

Other

Central
gov’t
Civilian Military

1913-151916-18
1919-21
1922-24
1925-27
1928-30
1931-33
1934-36
1937-39
0

20

40

60

80

100 (%)

Source: Koichi Emi, Long-term Economic Statitics, Vol.4, Capital Formation,
Toyo Keizai Shimposha, 1971.

new zaibatsu had the following characteristics: (i) HCI-based, without muchreliance on textile and commerce; (ii) not having a bank as their core business;and (iii) heavy dependence on official support and political connection. They
also invested aggressively in the Japanese colonies of Korea and Manchuria(Northeastern China).
Nissan was established in 1928 by Yoshisuke Ayukawa. The company’s
full name was Nihon Sangyo (Japanese Industry). Raising capital from thestock market, business was diversified into mining, machinery, automobile,
chemicals and fishery. Nissan invested heavily in Manchuria. Hitachi andNissan Motors belonged to this group.
Nicchitsu was established in 1908 by Shitagau Noguchi. Its full name was
Nihon Chisso Hiryo (Japan Nitrogen Fertilizer). The group’s main business
was electricity-intensive chemical industries such as fertilizer, rayon, medicine, explosives and metal refining. Micchitsu invested heavily in Korea.
Mori was established during the 1920s by Nobuteru Mori, who worked together with Saburosuke Suzuki, the founder of Ajinomoto. Its main business included iodine, fertilizer, aluminum refining, electrical machinery and explosives.

105

Chapter 7

4. Exchange rate volatility
During the pre-WW1 period, from the 1880s through 1914, the world
economy enjoyed price stability and free trade under the international gold standard. Japan joined the gold standard and fixed its exchange rate to the major
currencies in 1897. Soon, Japanese prices converged to the world level. But this
fixed exchange rate regime was smashed by the outbreak of WW1, and theJapanese yen started to float, in 1917.
After WW1, major countries made a number of attempts to restore theprewar gold standard system without much success. Britain returned to gold in
1925 but abandoned it again in 1931. The gold standard could not be re-established partly because there was less free trade and more protectionism in theworld than before—in other words, the global goods market was less integrated;and partly because governments now cared more about the domestic macroeconomy, especially unemployment, than the external commitment of gold convertibility. As a result, international monetary cooperation was hardly possible.
Japan also tried to return to the gold standard at the prewar parity of
two yen to the dollar. The government seriously considered restoring a fixedexchange rate in 1919, 1923 and 1927 but failed to do so for various reasons.
Throughout this period, “return to gold” (kinkaikin, literally, lifting the restriction on gold exports) became a national economic goal. Each time the government announced such a policy intention, expectations drove up the yen because
the actual yen was more depreciated than the prewar parity. But the yen fellback when the policy was not realized. The business community blamed
domestic banks and foreign exchange traders, especially those in Shanghai, forspeculation. This exchange instability may have further damaged the Japanese
economy faced with slow growth.

5. Shidehara Diplomacy in the 1920s
As noted at the end of chapter 6, Japan began to emerge as a serious
threat to both the West and East Asia by the end of the Meiji period. After
WW1, Japan tried to allay these fears and rebuild good relationship with theWest, especially the US, and East Asia. Kijuro Shidehara repeatedly served as106World War I and the 1920s: Export-led Boom and Recession

Japan attended the Washington Conference (1921-22) with bothhope and concern. Global reduction of naval capacity was welcome for Japan which was facing a fiscal crisis. But Japan alsofeared that the other big powers might harm Japan’s interests.

Kijuro Shidehara (1872-1951) was
Foreign Minister in much of 1924-31;
and Prime Minister in 1945-46.

Foreign Minister when Minsei Party governments were in place, in 1924-1927
and 1929-1931. In what was called Shidehara Diplomacy, he vigorously promoted a reconciliation policy. As a result, Japan’s external policy in the 1920s
was less belligerent compared with before or after.
In 1921, the Washington Conference for Naval Disarmament wasconvened by the US, and Japan was invited to attend. This conference put upper
limits on principal battleships of the major countries. In terms of tonnage ratios,
the possession of principal battleships was restricted as follows: US (5), UK (5),Japan (3), France (1.67), and Italy (1.67). The Japanese delegation willingly
signed this agreement because of fiscal pressure; the navy wanted more ships
but the national budget was out of balance. In addition, through this, Japan also
wanted to show good faith to the Western powers.
The signing of the Nine Powers Treaty was another important result
for Japan coming out of this Conference. This treaty recognized the sovereignty
of China, prohibited territorial invasion of China through military means by any
country, and agreed to share economic interests of major powers in China under
the policy of “open door and equal opportunity.” Japan welcomed this treaty as
it was interpreted to implicitly recognize Japan’s special interests in Manchuria
and Mongolia. The infamous Twenty-One Demands to China were also accepted, albeit with some modifications, by the international community. However,these “acceptances” were valid only so long as Japan refrained from using mili-107

Chapter 7tary force to invade China or rob interests of other powers in China.
Shidehara believed that a good relationship with the US was criticalto Japan. Moreover, he felt that Japan, as a first-class country and a member ofthe Big Five, had the responsibility to strive for global peace and prosperity. As
for China, he wanted to protect Japanese economic interests by non-militarymeans. Shidehara’s idealism is evident in his parliamentary speech delivered in
January 1925.
At present, there is clearly a global movement toward solving all international
issues through understanding and cooperation among concerned powers, andnot by narrowly self-serving policies, excessive use of militarism or interventionism ... Japan is no longer permitted an isolated and independent existencein the Far East, interested only in its own affairs. As a major member of the
League of Nations, Japan now bears a heavy responsibility for promotingworld peace and happiness of the human race. Japan must participate in thediscussion of all these important issues, even if they have only indirect influence on Japan’s own interest. The fact that Japan must bear such responsibilities is beyond question; it is necessitated by the force of history. The great
progress of history is making us to take up these responsibilities.

But the Japan-US relationship gradually deteriorated due to the problem of Japanese immigrants on the US Pacific Coast, especially in the States ofCalifornia, Oregon and Washington. Because Japanese (and to some extent Chinese) immigrants worked too hard and had different cultures, they were discriminated against by Americans. Their schools were segregated, their freedom
was restricted and, finally, their property was confiscated. The Japanese government agreed to stop sending new immigrants to the US but demanded fairtreatment of the Japanese already there. This issue soured the bilateral relationship.
Shidehara’s policy of no military intervention in China was severely
criticized by the military and the hardliners as a “coward’s diplomacy.” Itshould be noted that even the mass media echoed these sentiments and blamed
Shidehara for being too soft on China. During 1927-1929, when the Tanaka
Cabinet was in place and Shidehara was out, Japan sent troops to China. Tanaka
belonged to the Seiyukai Party and Shidehara belonged to the Minsei Party.
Finally, in 1931, the Manchurian Incident broke out. Kantogun, theJapanese army stationed in China, began to invade Northeastern China. This108

World War I and the 1920s: Export-led Boom and Recession

action was undertaken independently from Tokyo, and the Japanese government could not restrain its army. Shidehara’s call for immediate peace wasignored. Shidehara Diplomacy ended this way.

109

Chapter 7

Taisho Democracy
Roughly coinciding with the Taisho period (1912-1926), various social movements demanding more democracy and human rights became active. This included
protests against unelected governments, women’s liberation, equal rights for the discriminated class (the progeny of the eta and hinin people—see chapter 2 and the Q &A section in the appendix), universal suffrage, cultural freedom, and so on. Thesemovements were collectively called Taisho Democracy.
One of the most eminent intellectual leadersof Taisho Democracy was Sakuzo Yoshino, Professor of Political Science at Tokyo University.
He published many articles in popular journals
and promoted his version of democracy called
minpon shugi. It demonstrated that democracy
could be installed and fostered even under the
Meiji Constitution which bestowed sovereignty
to the emperor. Yoshino argued that establishingdemocratic institutions was not enough and that it

Sakuzo Yoshino (1878-1933)

was essential to constantly improve the actual implementation of constitutional government. For this purpose, he stressed the role of the elite class in guiding people.
Yoshino also supported universal suffrage. By expanding the voter base from a few
rich to the general public, he argued that corruption and money politics would ceaseand politics based on a broader national vision would begin (it must be admitted that
Prof. Yoshino was a bit too optimistic in this).
On the role of the elite, Yoshino wrote:
Some may argue wrongly that the elite class has no place in democracy. But this is not
so. Of course, if a small number of people form an exclusive class and monopolize politics independently from the people, it will produce many bad results. But if the elite
humbly mingle with the general public, nominally serving and following them but in substance guide them spiritually and for the public good, they will play the role of the truly
wise. ... Democracy will not develop in a sound way if uninformed people literally rule.
Formally speaking, the majority must always be the basis of political activities. But theyneed intellectual leaders in their minds. They must rely on a small number of wise and110World War I and the 1920s: Export-led Boom and Recession

capable people. A great nation will emerge when the majority is guided intellectually by
the few who are wise. The elite have this responsibility in a modern state. (“Discourseon the Principle of Constitutional Government and the Way to Fully Develop its Potentiality,” 1916)

In 1925, the Universal Suffrage Law was enacted, extending voting rights to all
males at 25 years of age and above, without income restriction. But in the same year,
the Peace Preservation Law was also passed in order to crack down on communists
and anarchists. It should however be noted that other major powers had similar laws
as well; it was not a uniquely Japanese law. The extension of suffrage to women had
to wait until 1945.
In the actual political process, the great achievement of Taisho Democracy was
the succession of party cabinets from 1924 to 1932. The leader of the political party
having the largest number of parliamentary seats formed the government (instead of
appointed old politicians or military generals). When his policies failed, the leader ofanother party replaced him. This system was not formally institutionalized but actually practiced (called kensei no jodo, or the normal way of constitutional government).
But this practice was later terminated by pressure from the military and a series ofpolitical assassinations.

111

The Showa Financial Crisisof 1927

A bank run – Depositors queue up in front of Tokyo Savings Bank after the inadvertent speech by Finance Minister Kataoka.

Chapter 8

1. Kikan Ginko problem
Kikan ginko (literally, institution bank) is a term describing a bank set
up to serve only one or a few firms. It is captured and subordinated by the parent firm and has no management independence. Naturally, it has many weaknesses such as:
Non-separation of ownership and management (the same boss often
owned and managed the firm and the bank)
No information disclosure
No portfolio diversification
No capability of risk assessment or project evaluation
Why were such banks created? Consider a situation in which afamous family in a certain local district wants to start a business. The family
establishes a company but wants to keep it under its full control, without going
public or borrowing from someone else. To finance its activities, a bank is set
up by the same family. Since the family has a good name locally, many people
deposit their savings with this bank, believing it is safe and without knowing its
financial situation. In this fashion, many kikan ginko were established throughout the country. There were over 2,000 banks in Japan in the 1900s and1910s—this was a bit too many.
When the economy boomed, even dubious banks prospered. But
when it slowed down after WW1, kikan ginko started to have a mounting bad
debt problem. Since their balance sheets were not open, outsiders could notjudge the size of the problem. As noted earlier, during the 1920s, the government and the Bank of Japan (BOJ) supported weak banks and firms with emergency loans, rather than closing them immediately. Overcapacity and bad debt
continued.

2. The Great Kanto Earthquake and the earthquake bill problem
On September 1, 1923, the Kanto Region was shaken by a huge earthquake. It recorded 7.9 on the Richter scale. Tokyo and Yokohama were very
badly damaged. The largest cause of destruction was by fire. Japanese houses

114

The Showa Financial Crisis of 1927

were mostly wooden and the quake hit slightly before noon, when most families
were cooking lunch. 100,000 people were killed while another 43,000 were
missing. Housing damage totaled 700,000 units. Foreign observers praised
Japan for remaining calm and orderly in this calamity, but actually many Korean residents were murdered based on false rumors.
Japan is an earthquake country. It is impossible to avoid earthquakes
anywhere in Japan. Earthquakes are also related to volcanoes and hot springs.
The main reason for all this is because the Japanese Archipelago is situated
where four moving plates meet on the earth’s crust. There are basically two
types of earthquakes. First, when these plates run into each other and one ofthem sinks slowly toward the inside of the earth, enormous strain is accumulated and when it is released, a big earthquake occurs. These inter-plate earthquakes occur deep down and affect a large area. Second, there are many active
faults near the surface and when they move, an earthquake occurs. They aresmaller in magnitude and impact a smaller area, but since it is shallow, local
damage could be immense. The Great Kanto Earthquake was of the first type.
Recent quakes in Kobe and Taiwan were of the second type.
Back to 1923. Immediately after the Great Kanto Earthquake, theBank of Japan extended special emergency loans to banks affected in the Kanto
Region. This was done in the form of rediscounting earthquake bills.
Earthquake bills (commercial bills originating in the designated area
affected by the quake) were first taken to banks for “discounting” (banks buy
the bills from firms and pay cash after subtracting interest between now and thematurity date). In this way companies could receive immediate liquidity. The
banks in turn took these bills to the BOJ for “rediscounting” (the BOJ buys
them for cash), so banks too could get liquidity. In this way, the BOJ tried to
inject liquidity and sustain economic activity after the earthquake. With thisrediscounting facility, even if many firms failed to settle commercial debt
because of earthquake damage, the financial system would not seize up.
While this temporary rescue protected the Japanese financial market,
it also created a new problem. Since the BOJ rediscounted commercial bills
originating in the Kanto Region without discrimination, firms and banks saddled with bad debt unrelated to the earthquake happily brought their non-performing bills to the BOJ. They took advantage of this policy to exchange bad

115

Chapter 8

debt for good cash.
If the companies’ problems were truly caused by the earthquake,some of them may have had to close business but most of them could resume
operation after a while, and the BOJ should have been able to redeem most of
the earthquake bills. But in reality, after two years, only about half the amount
was settled by the issuing companies. The rest was a stock of non-performing
debt unrelated to the Great Kanto Earthquake with little chance of repayment. If
the BOJ continued to hold them, it would incur enormous losses. This was theso-called “earthquake bill problem.”
In order to “normalize” the earthquake bills, the government prepared
two draft laws. The first law would permit bad bills held by commercial banks
be rescheduled for 10 years with government bonds as collateral. The second
would allow the government to provide the BOJ with the maximum of 100 million yen to write off BOJ losses related to the earthquake bills. In other words,
the bad earthquake bills would partly be converted into long-term debt withdelayed repayment and partly be forgiven using public money. Parliamentary
debate on these laws began in January 1927.

3. The initial wave of the banking crisis
Finance Minister Naoharu Kataoka was very eager to pass the earthquake bill laws, but the opposition parties criticized the government for bailingout big banks and businesses with taxpayers’ money. They demanded that the
government disclose the amounts of bad bills and the names of banks which
held them (very little was disclosed at that time; there were only rumors). They
even argued that the government’s true intention might be to help politicalfriends. In the debating process, the size of the bad debt gradually became
known. People were shocked at the large size of non-performing loans.
On March 14, 1927, Minister Kataoka was answering pestering questions in the Budget Committee of the House of Representatives. He was frustrated that the opposition did not understand the seriousness of the problem andwanted to debate endlessly. To make the point that the situation was critical, heannounced the latest news that crossed his desk: “Today, at around noon, Tokyo
Watanabe Bank finally went bankrupt.” This news was an unexpected bomb-

116

The Showa Financial Crisis of 1927

shell for the financial market, as well as the people at large. Immediately,
depositors queued up in front of banks to withdraw their money. Many banks in
the Tokyo area closed. This was the first shock wave of bank runs. However, it
was a relatively small financial crisis in the Tokyo area only. The worst was yet
to come.
In reality, Tokyo Watanabe Bank was not bankrupt, technicallyspeaking. It was having trouble getting liquidity but the problem was solved
quickly. But the bureaucrat carrying news to the Finance Minister forgot to cancel the first report. Some suspected that Tokyo Watanabe Bank must have been
happy with the Finance Minister’s statement. The bank actually wanted to close
but needed a good excuse. Now the bank management could blame Minister
Kataoka instead of themselves.
Many people criticized Minister Kataoka for the slip of the tongue
which ignited the 1927 financial crisis. But it is very clear that, with or without
his improper statement, the Japanese financial system was facing a huge bad
debt problem. The true cause of these bank runs was structural, and we cannot
blame just one individual for everything.

4. Suzuki Shoten and the Bank of Taiwan
Suzuki Shoten was a new trading company of the narikin type, growing rapidly during WW1 through speculative businesses. Suzuki is the name of
the founder and “shoten” means store. Its main office was in Kobe and its general manager was Naokichi Kaneko. At one time, its sales turnover even surpassed those of big zaibatsu trading companies like Mitsui and Mitsubishi. It
had strong connections with Taiwan, especially Taiwan Colonial Administration, the Bank of Taiwan, and the Taiwanese sugar business, and was given
monopoly rights to market Taiwan-made camphor.
But after WW1 and the burst of the bubble, Suzuki Shoten faced abad debt problem like other narikin businesses. It asked the Bank of Taiwan, its
main bank, to extend rescue loans. The Bank of Taiwan was a special bankplaying the double role of Taiwan’s central bank as well as a commercial bank.
Despite its semi-official status, it actively extended loans to mainland Japan,
including Suzuki Shoten. As its loans to Suzuki became overdue, it could not117Chapter 8

The headquarters of the Bank of Taiwan.

terminate its relations with the company because it occupied too large a part ofits loan portfolio. So it continued to lend to Suzuki by rolling over existing debt
and providing new loans, delaying the final solution and accelerating the debt
snowball. This was the kikan ginko problem writ large. As the saying goes, if
you have a small debt to a bank and your business fails, you are in trouble; if
you have a huge debt that goes bad, the bank is in trouble.
By the end of 1926, the largest part of the unsettled earthquake bills
were attributable to the Bank of Taiwan and Suzuki Shoten (48.4 percent).
Thus, normalizing the earthquake bills meant solving the Bank of TaiwanSuzuki problem.
On March 26, 1927, the Bank of Taiwan finally refused any more
lending to Suzuki Shoten. This news was a big shock because it revealed thedesperateness of the situation, which was beyond anyone’s imagination. Previously, people had expected that the government would somehow manage thisproblem, since the Bank of Taiwan was a special bank and Suzuki was too big
to fail (a moral hazard problem!) Naokichi Kaneko, the Suzuki’s general manager, even said, “Don’t worry, the government will never fail us.” No one
thought the government would abandon them and let the Bank of Taiwan giveup on Suzuki. When that became reality, the second chain of bank runs started,
this time in the Kansai area because Suzuki’s main activity was in Kansai,
which included the cities of Osaka, Kobe and Kyoto.

118

The Showa Financial Crisis of 1927

Figure 8-1 Unsettled Earthquake Bills

Other
29.4%

Total
207 mil. yen
End 1926

Bank of
Taiwan48.4%

Omi Bank
4.5%
Murai Bank
7.4%
Bank of
Korea
10.4%

Source: Takahashi and Morigaki, 1993, p.146.

5. The BOJ demands government guarantee
The Bank of Taiwan’s balance sheet was irregular. On the asset side,
bad loans to Suzuki loomed large. On the liabilities side, instead of demand andsavings deposits, the bank relied very heavily on short-term interbank “call”
loans, as well as borrowing from the Bank of Japan. As soon as the breakup
between the Bank of Taiwan and Suzuki was announced, other commercial
banks naturally pulled their call loans out of the Bank of Taiwan. The only way
for the Bank of Taiwan to survive now was to ask for more BOJ loans.
At this time, even the BOJ refused to extend additional loans unless a
new law was enacted to cover BOJ’s future losses. For a long time, under political pressure, the BOJ had been generously helping troubled banks. But thisundermined the BOJ’s own financial soundness. Now at this critical moment,
for the first time the BOJ as a central bank became more independent from thegovernment and refused to play the role of the “lender of last resort.” The government was forced to quickly issue a special law (an emergency imperial edict)119Chapter 8

to satisfy the BOJ’s demand. The content of the proposed edict was as follows:(i) the BOJ could extend special loans to the BOT without collateral until May
1928; (ii) the government would compensate the BOJ for losses related to theseloans up to 200 million yen.
An imperial edict must be approved by the Privy Council and signedby the Emperor. The government expected it to pass easily. But the Privy Council, under the strong influence of conservative politicians, unexpectedly rejected
the proposed edict. They did so because the members did not like the government’s conciliatory diplomacy toward China (“Shidehara Diplomacy,” chapter
7). When the edict was rejected, the BOJ refused to lend to the Bank of Taiwan.
This forced the Bank of Taiwan to close on April 18, 1927. On the same day,another bank—Omi Bank, specializing in the cotton business—also closed.
The closure of the Bank of Taiwan and Omi Bank started a chain
reaction of bank runs all over Japan. This was the third and most severe financial panic of 1927. On April 22, the government ordered all banks to “voluntarily” close for two days, and simultaneously issued a three-week “moratorium”
on virtually all financial obligations. These measures were intended to protect
banks against deposit withdrawals (except for small amounts to cover people’s
living expenses). Meanwhile, banks showed off tall stacks of currency notes todepositors. Calm was restored and things went back to normal when the moratorium expired—except, of course, for the banks that disappeared and thedepositors who lost their savings.

6. The consequences of the banking crisis
The Financial Crisis of 1927 was basically a banking crisis. Its
macroeconomic impact was negative but not catastrophic. The worst macroeconomic downturn would arrive a few years later, for other reasons (chapter 9).
The most significant consequence of the 1927 banking crisis was
financial concentration. After the crisis, the government liquidated or merged
unsound banks into about two dozen new banks within a year. In the process,typical depositors at a bankrupted bank lost 35-50 percent of their savings. The
government further encouraged mergers of the remaining small banks by
imposing a minimum capital size and other requirements. Naturally, people also120

The Showa Financial Crisis of 1927

Figure 8-2 The Number of Banks
Japan-China War & WW 2

2500

World War 1

2000
1500
1000
500

1980

1970

1960

1950

1940

1930

1920

1910

1900

1890

1880

1870

0

Source: Management and Coordination Agency, Historical Statistics of Japan, Vol. 3, 1988.

shifted their deposits from small local banks to large banks with big names. The
number of commercial banks fell from more than two thousand in 1919 to 625
in 1932. Deposits were increasingly concentrated in the “Big Five” banks: Mitsui, Mitsubishi, Sumitomo, Yasuda and Daiichi. This reduced the supply ofbank credit to small and medium enterprises. But it can also be said that theelimination of small kikan ginko was a good thing, contributing to the modernization of the Japanese banking sector.
Clearly, the financial framework of the 1920s was inadequate compared with today. Deposit insurance did not exist, proper bank supervision andregulatory measures, such as the BIS capital adequacy rule, were not in place,and the BOJ did not fulfill its role as the lender of last resort.
But on this last point, some questions remain. Should the BOJ be
blamed because it did not provide liquidity to the Bank of Taiwan at the critical
moment? We need to consider the following aspects, and the final judgment is
open to question.
The BOJ had been forced to rescue too many banks against its will andagainst its own financial soundness. At some point, it had to reassert its
political independence. While the immediate consequence of letting the
Bank of Taiwan fall was severe, endless provision of emergency loans
might not have been the right answer.
The BOJ knew that immediate provision of unlimited liquidity was121Chapter 8

required to avoid a financial crunch. But among the general public and in
the parliament, political resistance to injecting public money into a few
big banks was so strong. For this reason, the BOJ had to take a toughstance toward the Bank of Taiwan.
Bank closures are painful in the short run but, if properly done, they will
ensure the soundness of the remaining banks in the long run.

122

The Showa Financial Crisis of 1927

Osachi Hamaguchi and Junichiro Koizumi
Below are excerpts from Professor Junji Banno’s essay, “Osachi Hamaguchi and
Junichiro Koizumi,” which compares the policies of the Hamaguchi government (192931) and the Koizumi government (2001-). It appeared in Ronza, a popular monthly magazine, in October 2001. His assertion is related to both chapters 8 and 9. For the reasonof space, it is presented here.

Regarding its economic structure, Japan in the 1920s faced the same problems as
today. In particular, the question of how to cope with the impact of the bursting of theWW1 bubble was very similar to the question we are now facing after the bursting of
the Heisei bubble in the 1990s. In the 1920s, as at present, the economy stagnatedbecause the policy makers avoided and delayed the resolution of the problem for fearof short-term pain.
The situation of the 1920s, including the problem of how to cope with the nonperforming loans and the policy decision to return to the gold standard, has many similarities with the economic problems that the current Koizumi government faces. Thenas well as today, the Japanese economy, artificially supported by fiscal stimuli, wasdriven to a policy impasse. There was no way out except to adopt the gold standard inorder to eliminate inferior firms and encourage technical innovation by efficientfirms.
However, the mass media’s evaluation of the policies of the Hamaguchi government—as well as Finance Minister Junnosuke Inoue who carried out the economic
reform—is fairly negative. Partly because of the global depression into which theJapanese economy was plunged immediately after the return to the gold standard,
today’s media tend to focus only on the painful side of the economic policies of Hamaguchi and Inoue. By contrast, they happily approve the policies of Finance Minister
Korekiyo Takahashi who subsequently resurrected fiscal expansionism, and argue
that the Koizumi government should not repeat the mistake the Hamaguchi government made. Is this the correct lesson to take from history? ...
The highly regarded fiscal policy of Takahashi boils down to the issuance of government bonds to cover the war expenses of the Manchurian Incident and the active
spending to help rural districts out of recession. This was called Jikyoku Kyusai, ormore recently, Tomen no Keiki Taisaku (recovery policies for the moment). This was123Chapter 8

considered doubly effective for building infrastructure and for creating jobs... But it ishard to argue that this policy alone improved the productivity and competitiveness ofJapanese firms, leading to the economic boom.
If we examine more closely, we find that the lopsided evaluation between Inoueand Takahashi comes from looking only at the macroeconomic aspects of their fiscal
policies. The assessment from microeconomic aspects of how the private sector
responded is totally lacking.
As I argued earlier, Japan in the 1920s desperately needed structural reforms inorder to reduce the bad assets of the post WW1 period and cultivate new competitiveness. It is true that unemployment and bankruptcies surged under Inoue’s fiscal policyof the Hamaguchi government. But we must also realize that, during this period,
many firms implemented overall restructuring and consolidation, industrial structures
were reorganized, and export industries underwent management rationalization andtechnical progress. Only after this intensive joint effort by management and labor to
improve efficiency, the Japanese economy was able to recover in the following period...
If this historical lesson is correctly learned, the Koizumi government should be
able to effectively apply this lesson to the current situation. I have argued many times
that today’s Japan must learn from the Hamaguchi government and the Minsei Party
led by Hamaguchi. Japan really needs to create another Minsei Party.
Economic reforms always come with pain. Unemployment will visibly increase
and bankruptcies will surge. The economy may fail to recover soon. Under these circumstances, which political party will take the responsibility and who will pushreforms forward? The lesson of the prewar period, as I interpret it, is that we must
learn from the Minsei Party and re-create it today. The Seiyukai Party—in otherwords, the Liberal Democratic Party—can hardly be the proponent of reform momentum.

124

The 1930s and the War Economy

The Manchurian Incident – The Japanese Army marching into the gate of Qiqihar in Heilongjiang, China.

Chapter 9

1. The Showa Depression, 1930-1932
Japan experienced the deepest economic downturn in its modern history during 1930-32. This depression had far more serious consequences than
the 1927 financial crisis (chapter 8) on all aspects of Japanese society, including
economic, social and political. It was caused by the simultaneous occurrence of
two factors.
Externally, the stock market crash in Wall Street, called Black Thursday, of October 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression in the world economy
had a severe negative impact on the Japanese economy. The economic crisis
which was started in the US engulfed all capitalist countries, resulting in sharp
price declines and surging unemployment.
Internally, the Minsei Party government (July 1929-April 1931), with
Prime Minister Osachi Hamaguchi, Finance Minister Junnosuke Inoue, andForeign Minister Kijuro Shidehara, deliberately adopted a deflationary policy inorder to eliminate inefficient banks and firms and to prepare the nation for the
return to the prewar gold parity (i.e. restoring a fixed exchange rate of 2 yen per
dollar through real appreciation).
Throughout the 1920s, restoring the gold standard was considered as
an important economic goal. Finally, in January 1930, this was carried out inthe hands of Finance Minister Inoue as Japan re-fixed the yen at the original
parity. Before doing this, Inoue implemented a macroeconomic austerity program and deflated the economy in order to return to the now-overvalued
exchange rate. Inoue argued:
Our economy remains very unstable because of the export ban on gold [theyen’s non-convertibility to gold and the resulting exchange rate fluctuation].
We must liberalize gold exports as soon as possible. But we cannot liberalize
gold exports without preparation. What is required in preparation? The government must tighten the budget. The people must accept this fiscal austerity
and they themselves must reduce consumption. If that happens, prices will
start to fall and imports will begin to contract. That will create an upward pressure on the yen in the foreign exchange... We face a recession without an end
in sight. If nothing is done, we will sink deeper into the recession. In the past,
Japan often overcame recessions with the help of external stimuli. But the current situation does not permit such a hope because the European economies

126

The 1930s and the War Economy

are severely weakened by the last war [WW1].
Under such circumstances, we should nothope for foreign demand to bail us out. Recovery must be generated by our hands. There is
no way out except through our own austerity(Essays of Junnosuke Inoue, Vol.1, 1935).

But unluckily, Inoue’s deflation policy
coincided with the beginning of the Great
Depression in the world economy. Japan was
thrown into a very serious deflationary spiralwith rising unemployment, and popular discontent against Inoue’s policy mounted. Inoue’s policy was continued for two years until a Seiyukai

Junnosuke Inoue (1869-1932): thebanker, Bank of Japan Governor, andFinance Minister.

government replaced the Minsei Party government in December 1931.
In Britain, John Maynard Keynes asserted in 1925 that the UK should
not return to gold at the prewar exchange rate, because the equilibrium
exchange rate had shifted due to international price divergence. If an overvalued exchange rate was chosen, he predicted that a recession would ensue.
Keynes calculated that the sterling pound would be overvalued 10 percent at the
prewar parity. In Japan, too, Tanzan Ishibashi, economic journalist at Toyo
Keizai Shimposha, argued for a return to the gold standard at a new, moredepreciated parity. But Ishibashi was in the minority.
However, Inoue’s idea was that Japan needed deflation. He argued
that unprofitable firms and banks survived through the 1920s without mergers,
consolidation or closure, because the government and the Bank of Japan generously helped them. He thought that deflation was painful but necessary to
remove those inefficient industries. But many people blamed—and still
blame—him for pursuing the deflationary policy too aggressively when theworld was in the Great Depression. But Inoue did not relent until he was finallyassassinated in 1932. Maybe his idea was sound in principle but the timing anddegree were unfortunate.

127Chapter 9

2. Social instability and the rise of Fascism
The Showa Depression wreaked havoc on Japanese society. Its mainconsequences can be described as follows.
First, as in previous periods, macroeconomic downturn was felt primarily in falling prices and not so much in output contraction (estimated real
growth was positive during this period). As prices fell, manufacturers rushed to
produce more to maintain earnings and keep factories running. But clearly, thisbehavior would collectively accelerate the oversupply and the deflation. From1929 to 1931, the wholesale price index fell about 30 percent, agricultural
prices fell 40 percent, and textile prices fell nearly 50 percent.
Second, rural impoverishment became severe around 1931. In addition, in 1934, rural communities were hit by famine. In the Tohoku (northeastern) Region of Japan, rural poverty generated many undernourished children
and some farmers were forced to sell their daughters. This rural disaster caused
much anger and popular criticism against the government and big businesses.
Third, cartelization and rationalization were promoted under government guidance. The free market seemed to worsen the depression, so agreements on output restrictions were adopted. This practice spread to virtually allmaterial industries including cotton yarn, rayon, carbide, paper, cement, sugar,
steel, beer, and coal.
Fourth, the fascist movement emerged. Fascio was the term used thento denote politicized military and right-wing groups with the aim of establishinga totalitarian regime. Amid economic despair, much blame was placed on party
governments and their policies. Even ordinary people, who normally hated militarism, were disappointed with the performance of party governments andbecame more sympathetic to the “reform movements” advocated by the militaryand nationalists.
In the 1930s, political and intellectual thinking gradually shifted from
economic liberalism toward more control under state management. There weremany reasons for this, including: (i) the influence of Marxism; (ii) the apparent
economic success of the USSR; (iii) Showa Depression; (iv) the view thatdeflation was aggravated by excess competition; and (v) disappointment with
politicians and political parties. Many considered that the days of the US-style

128

The 1930s and the War Economy

Figure 9-1 Wholesale Price Levels(1929 = 100)
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

1941

1939

1937

1935

1933

1931

1929

1927

1925

1923

1921

Overall
Agriculture
Textiles

Source: Management and Coordination Agency, Historical Statistics of Japan, Vol. 4, 1988.
Note: No data are available for agriculture and textiles before 1929.

Figure 9-2 The Average Income of Farm Households(Including non-farm income)

(Yen)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400

1936

1935

1934

1933

1932

1931

1930

0

1929

200

Source: Management and Coordination Agency, Historical Statistics of Japan, Vol. 2, 1988.

free market economy were over and that from now on, state control and industrial monopoly would strengthen the competitiveness of the national economy.
Another aim of the military and right-wing groups was active military
expansion. They criticized “Shidehara Diplomacy,” which to them seemed too
soft on China. Their primary goal was to defend Japanese interests in
Manchuria and Mongolia [more precisely, the eastern part of “Inner” Mongolia

129

Chapter 9

as viewed from China]. However, military invasion of China would violate theagreement with the Western powers on the policy of “open door and equal
opportunity” in China. Scrapping this agreement would carry the risk of spreading military confrontation to all China and Southeast Asia, and even to theentire world.

3. Seiyukai versus the Minsei Party
Seiyukai (full name: Rikken Seiyukai) was established in 1900 by theunion of Hirobumi Ito, a leading politician, and a former opposition party who
decided to cooperate with the government. Its main policies were (i) fiscal
activism with an emphasis on public investment in rural and industrial infrastructure; (ii) acceptance of a military buildup and expansion; and (iii) pleasinga narrow voter base (rural landlords and the urban rich). It was a party supportive of a big government allocating public money and subsidies. Seiyukai literally means “political friend society.”
The Minsei Party (full name: Rikken Minsei To) was originally called
Kenseikai (1916), merging with another party in 1927 to become the Minsei
Party. Its main policies were (i) economic austerity and industrial streamlining(a free economy and small government); (ii) return to prewar gold parity; and(iii) international cooperation and peaceful diplomacy, especially with the US.
Its support base consisted of intellectuals and the urban population. Minsei
means “people’s politics.”
Japanese voters did not always vote for the same party. They often
switched their support from one party to another depending on the issue and situation. Smaller “proletariat parties” also emerged with farmers and workers as
the support base.
As noted earlier, Junnosuke Inoue of the Minsei Party (Finance Minister 1929-31) was deeply committed to the policy of deflation and returning togold. This policy caused a severe depression but he never relented or regretted
his position. People became greatly frustrated with his policy. Finally, the government (the second Wakatsuki Cabinet) was removed in the aftermath of theOctober Incident (see below) and was succeeded by a Seiyukai government (theInukai Cabinet) in December 13, 1931.

130

The 1930s and the War Economy

Table 9-1 Two Major Political Parties in Prewar Japan
Minsei Party
Main
supportersIntellectuals, urban workers

Seiyukai
Big businesses, rural landlords andrich farmers

Economic
policySmall government, free market princi- Big government, fiscal activism, pubple, elimination of inefficient units lic investment for industry and ruraldevelopment
through austerity

Foreign policy

Cooperate with US, oppose military Supporting military expansion, coopinvasion of China (protect Japanese erate with military, if necessary, to undermine the Minsei Party
interests through diplomacy)

Finance
Minister andhis policy inthe 1930s

Until Dec. 1931, Junnosuke Inoue From Dec. 1931 to Feb. 1936, Korepursued deflation policy to return to kiyo Takahashi engaged in yen depreciation, easy money and fiscal expanprewar gold parity
sion (later reversed)

As soon as the new Seiyukai government was sworn in, Finance Minister Korekiyo Takahashi completely reversed Inoue’s policies. On the very
first day of the new government, Takahashi ended the gold standard and thefixed exchange rate, and floated the yen which immediately depreciated. In
addition, fiscal expansion financed by government bond issues (called “Spending Policy”) was adopted. Monetization of the fiscal deficit, in which the BOJ
bought up newly-issued government bonds, was tried for the first time in Japanese history. The money supply expanded and interest rates were lowered.
Thanks to this policy turnaround, the Japanese economy began torecover in 1932 and expanded relatively strongly until 1936, the last year of the
non-wartime economy. Among major countries, Japan was the first to overcome the Great Depression of the 1930s. Fiscal and monetary expansion
worked well. But the yen’s sharp depreciation might be considered as a “beggar-thy-neighbor” policy. It was a policy that could offend other countries since
Japan promoted its exports at the cost of reduced competitiveness of its trading
partners.
For these achievements, Korekiyo Takahashi is called the “JapaneseKeynes.” He adopted Keynesian policies even before John Maynard Keynes
wrote his famous General Theory1 in 1936! Even today, Takahashi’s policy is131Chapter 9

admired while Inoue’s policy is widely criticizedas stubborn and misguided. But this view can bechallenged. As recently as in 2001, Prof. Junji
Banno of Chiba University wrote that Inoue’s
deflation policy was a pre-requisite for economic
recovery of the mid-1930s, because without it
efficiency improvement could not have beenachieved. His article indirectly criticizes the current Koizumi government for supporting weakfirms and banks to avoid painful restructuring(see the box at the end of chapter 8).
Around 1934, when the Japanese econ-

Korekiyo Takahashi (1854-1936)

omy was firmly on a path to recovery, Takahashi shifted back to a tighter budget, which seemed an appropriate decision. But the army and navy continued todemand more military spending despite fiscal pressure. Takahashi resisted andwas assassinated by a military group in the February 26 Incident in 1936 (seebelow).
Both Inoue and Takahashi previously served as Governor of the Bankof Japan before becoming Finance Minister, but their personalities differed significantly. Inoue was a slim, intellectual graduate from Tokyo University. Takahashi was fat and had a nickname of Daruma, a round doll. He did not received
much education and had a rough life when he was young. Japanese people naturally preferred Takahashi who looked friendlier and who always saved Japanout of economic crises.

1

J. M. Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Macmillan, 1936.
Keynes criticized the classical contention that unemployment could be automatically solved
through the market mechanism. Using analytical tools such as liquidity preference, shortages ofinvestment opportunities and aggregate supply and demand, he showed the possibility of involuntary unemployment in a world where uncertainty ruled. Public investment was advocated as a
remedy for this situation. Keynes’ theoretical contribution revolutionized economics, which led
to the creation of the discipline of macroeconomics and the system of national income statistics.

132

The 1930s and the War Economy

4. Political terrorism and the invasion of China
From 1931 to 1937, Japanese politics was gradually overtaken by the
military. Many incidents occurred, each undermining the basis of party government. Within the army and navy (especially the army), a few ultra-nationalist
groups formed for the purposes of rejecting a party-based political system, uniting the nation under the emperor, introducing economic planning, and saving
the rural poor. They staged many coups and assassinations. Here is a briefchronology of this dismal period.
1931 ・The March Incident—a failed military coup attempt.
・The Manchurian Incident (Sept. 18 Incident)—Several officers of
the Kantogun (Japanese army stationed in China), including Kanji
Ishihara and Seishiro Itagaki, sparked a military invasion by
exploding a railroad track and blaming it on Chinese. Ishihara’s
idea was that Japan had to take Manchuria (Northeastern China)
in order to prepare for a full war against the US. They started theincident without informing the Tokyo government or army headquarters. Foreign Minister Shidehara told Kantogun to refrainfrom further military action but Ishihara’s group ignored theorder. The Chinese side adopted a non-resistance strategy, andManchuria was soon occupied by the Japanese troops. This incident clearly showed that the party government could no longer
restrain the behavior of the military.
・The October Incident—another failed military coup attempt.
1932 ・The Blood Society Incident—Junnosuke Inoue (former Finance
Minister) and Takuma Dan (Mitsui Group) were assassinated.
・Establishment of the State of Manchuria (Japanese puppet state).
・The May 15 Incident—Navy officers assassinated Prime Minister
Tsuyoshi Inukai (Seiyukai).
1933 ・Japan was criticized by the League of Nations over the occupationof Manchuria. In protest, Japan withdrew from the League of
Nations.
The period 1933-35 was relatively “quiet” thanks to economic recov-

133Chapter 9

ery and fewer domestic and international incidents. But this proved to be a temporary calm before the big storm.
1936 ・The February 26 Incident—Nationalistic army officers led their
troops to stage a military coup on a snowy morning in Tokyo.
They wanted to remove the current government and start a new
regime. Korekiyo Takahashi (Finance Minister), Makoto Saito(Interior Minister) and Jotaro Watanabe (Education Minister)
were assassinated. The coup group occupied central Tokyo for
four days. The army headquarters first approved their action but
later disowned them, because the emperor angrily told the military to put down the rebellion. The coup thus failed, but after thisincident party government was marginalized and the military controlled Japanese politics.
During these incidents, Seiyukai behaved opportunistically, often
supporting the military in order to politically attack its rival, the Minsei Party. It
was a risky tactic, since the goal of the military was to remove all political parties including Seiyukai! (Banno, 1993, 2004) Seiyukai also criticized the “organ
theory of the emperor” by Professor Tatsukichi Minobe of Tokyo University, an
academically well-established theory which demonstrated the possibility ofparty government under the Meiji Constitution2. By contrast, the Minsei Party
more consistently opposed the military. Nevertheless, both Seiyukai and theMinsei Party were seriously discredited in the eyes of the public because they
were considered equally corrupt and incompetent. For farmers and workers who
rejected the market mechanism and demanded economic controls and pro-poor
and pro-labor policies, both parties seemed too bourgeois (pro-business) andthus had to be condemned. In this way, the general public and burgeoning proletariat parties began to partially sympathize with the military. They did not
welcome aggressive invasion of foreign countries, but they liked the anti-capi2

The organ theory of the emperor considered the state as a legal entity with a power to rule inwhich the emperor was its highest organ. This was the standard theory of the Meiji Constitution.
The idea that the emperor’s power was derived from and exercised within the Constitution was
in line with the spirit of constitutional monarchy as well as the intention of Hirobumi Ito, theprincipal author of the Meiji Constitution. However, this theory angered the nationalists who
regarded the emperor as divine and beyond the constraints of the Constitution.

134

The 1930s and the War Economy

talist reform agenda advocated by the fascist groups.
1937 ・The Japan-China War—On July 7, Japanese and Chinese troops
had a skirmish at Marco Polo Bridge near Beijing (Beiping). The
incident was minor but the Konoe Cabinet in Tokyo decided tosend more troops to China. Thus began a full-scale war with
China, which lasted until 1945.
After the Japan-China War erupted, political parties were emasculated and subsequently disbanded, the military completely took over Japanese politics, and the entire nation was mobilized to execute the war.
When did Japan cross the point of no return toward total war? In theview of the author, it was probably the Manchurian invasion in 1931. With thisincident, Shidehara Diplomacy was abandoned and the military’s influencebegan to increase. The establishment of a puppet state in China by force in pursuit of Japan’s national interests completely ignored the policy of “open door
and equal opportunity,” which was the most important agreement on China
among major powers throughout the 1920s. After this invasion, Japan’s international isolation was unavoidable. Party governments were too weak to stop thistrend. While some factions within Seiyukai and the Minsei Party tried a numberof times to join forces to oppose militarism, their attempts did not materialize.
Counting from the Manchurian Incident, the period 1931-1945 is sometimes
called the “Fifteen-Year War.” However, for Japanese people, the sense ofwartime did not really exist until 1937 when the Japan-China War started.
Some say that Japanese people and parliament in this period were
suppressed, and they were deprived of necessary information and the right tocriticize the military. However, this was not correct until 1937. In mass media,
there were a large number of essays criticizing the military and its foreign invasion and calling for the formation of an anti-fascism front. In the parliament,
many speakers provoked and criticized military leaders. The Social Mass Party,
representing the voice of workers and farmers, increased their parliamentaryseats at every election. However, the situation changed dramatically after the
Marco Polo Bridge Incident. Once total war began, all efforts toward democracy came to nil and everything had to be reorganized for the purpose of war.

135

Chapter 9

5. The war economy, 1937-1945
The military leaders thought (or at least hoped) that the war with
China would be short. But in reality, it lasted for eight years. Without a realistic
vision or strategy, the war front expanded and fighting escalated. Within China,
the nationalists and the communists were fighting each other at first but laterjoined forces to resist the Japanese.
While there had been calls for economic planning even before thewar, the Japanese economy basically remained market-oriented until 1936. But
with the outbreak of the Japan-China War in 1937, the economy was completely transformed for war execution. One by one, new measures were introduced
to control and mobilize people, enterprises, and resources. Most Japanese firms
remained privately-owned but were heavily regulated to contribute to the war
effort. Key components of the war economy included the following:1937 The Planning Board (kikakuin) was created. This board, directly
under the Prime Minister, was responsible for comprehensive policy
design for wartime resource mobilization. The brightest bureaucrats
from various ministries were gathered for this purpose. It basicallyplayed the same role as the state planning committee in socialist
countries.
1938 The Planning Board issued the Resource Mobilization Plan, which
was Japan’s first economic plan. In the same year, the National
Mobilization Law was also approved.
1940 The New Regime Movement of the Konoe Cabinet. This movement
was initiated in response to the Japanese invasion of Southeast Asia
and German victories in Europe. It was felt that a strong, one-party
system was needed. Existing political parties were dismantled andreplaced by Taisei Yokusankai (The Society for Humbly Supporting
Great Politics), a super organization created by the government tomobilize people.
1943 The Military Needs Company Act was adopted. Designated privatecompanies were placed under official control. The government
approved top management and production plans and imposed penalties for non-compliance. At the same time, these companies were

136

The 1930s and the War Economy

Figure 9-3 Production of Military Goods(1937=100)

2500
Weapons & ammunition

2000

Planes (army)
Planes (navy)
Battleships

1500
1000
500

1945

1944

1943

1942

1941

1940

1939

1938

1937

1936

1935

1934

1933

1932

1931

0

Source: Nakamura, 1989, p.21.

provided with necessary inputs on a priority basis.
The primary objective of economic planners was to maximize military production with the limited domestic resources and possibility of imports.
Key military products were ships and warplanes. Toward the end of the war,
airplane production became the only priority. In order to boost heavy industries,
consumption was greatly squeezed and light industries were strongly suppressed. The textiles industry, previously the leading industry of Japan, was virtually eliminated. People were forced to live without new supplies of clothes
and footwear. Steel products in structures and households were stripped andused as the metal source for building more airplanes and ships. As the war continued, food rationing, forced enterprise mergers, and forced factory labor wereadopted in increasing intensity.
At first, the two crucial variables in wartime planning were foreignexchange reserves and the availability of energy and raw materials (and theability to transport them by sea). Until around 1940, the question was how to
maximize military output subject to these two constraints. But after 1940, Japan
could no longer trade with other countries and the problem shifted to the physical transportation of natural resources from the Japanese colonies and occupied

137

Chapter 9

Figure 9-4 Supply of Consumer Goods per Capita(1933=100)

160

Total

140

Food

120

Clothing

100
80
60
40
20
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953

0

Source: Nakamura, 1989, p.22.

areas to mainland Japan.
Japan considered that the resources from the “Yen Bloc” (Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria and the rest of occupied China) were not sufficient. In July
1941, in order to secure more resources, the Japanese military began to invadeSoutheast Asia, starting with French Indochina (Vietnam). This angered the US,
which imposed an oil embargo and asset freeze on Japan. If oil imports fromthe US were cut off, Japan’s oil reserves would last only two years. At thispoint, Japan began to prepare for war with the US. Diplomatic efforts to maintain peace were attempted but failed. With the Pearl Harbor attack in December
1941, Japan started the Pacific War against the US and its allies.
Japanese leaders did not have any clear idea regarding how to fight a
war against the US, let alone how to win it. However, they were encouraged by
the brilliant victories of Nazi Germany in Europe. To them, the totalitarianismof Japan, Germany and the USSR seemed superior to American capitalism andindividualism.
Immediately after the outbreak of the Pacific War, Japan invaded awide area of Southeast Asia but soon began to retreat under allied counterattacks. Japanese ships and planes were quickly lost while the Americans built
an increasing number of them. From late 1944, US aerial bombing, which consisted largely of incendiary bombs, destroyed virtually all major cities in Japan

138

The 1930s and the War Economy(except Kyoto). In March 1945, the US troops landed in Okinawa. In August
1945, two atomic bombs were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the
USSR entered the war against Japan. A few days later, Japan surrendered.
The main economic reason for Japan’s defeat was the collapse of its
war economy due to the lack of material and energy inputs. Japan lost virtually
all its means of sea transport and could not bring industrial inputs from its
colonies and occupied areas.

139

Chapter 9

The origin of the Japanese system
Many of the characteristics of the post-WW2 Japanese economy originated during the war period of 1937-1945. They feature long-term relationship and official
intervention, and include such items as:
Heavy and chemical industrialization drive
Administrative guidance (gyosei shido)
Subcontracting system in manufacturing (shitauke seido)
Separation of ownership and management
Lifetime employment and seniority wage
Enterprise-based trade unions
Financial keiretsu and mainbanks
The Bank of Japan’s “window guidance” and “convoy system”
Food control system
Foreign exchange budget and foreign exchange surrender requirement

All of these policies and systems were deliberately adopted by the government in
the late 1930s through the early 1940s in order to effectively execute the war. Before
that, the Japanese economy was more neoclassical, characterized by freer entry,
short-term contracts and high labor mobility.
These features were largely retained even after WW2 and worked relatively wellin the 1950s and 60s, when Japan was growing rapidly. However, they are now considered obsolete and to have become barriers to change in the age of IT and globalization. Among the items above, the last one was abolished long ago but the remnants ofothers still remain in the Japanese economy even today to various degrees.
There is a debate among economists regarding the interpretation of the Japanesesystem. The majority of Japanese economists argue that Japan should go back to thefree market model, because the relational and interventionist system was originallyalien to Japan. These may have played a historical role before, but the country does
not need them any more (some aspects, like the priority placed on job security, could
be partially retained, however). Masahiro Okuno-Fujiwara, Tetsuji Okazaki, andYukio Noguchi are leading advocates of this view (Okazaki and Okuno, 1993;
Noguchi, 1995).

140

The opening of ports and the fall of the bakufu

But a minority voice says that Japan needed a system based on long-term relations, with or without war. When an economy graduates from the light industry stage
featuring garment, food processing, and simple assembly of electronics products, andmoves to heavy industrialization and machinery production, free markets may not be
the best choice. Official support and long-term relationships become indispensable forindustries that require large initial investments, high technology and an intra-firmlabor market. As Japan began heavy industrialization in the 1920s and 1930s, the freeeconomic system inherited from Meiji was inappropriate and had to change. The war
provided a good excuse for this change. But even without the war, Japan had to adopt
a new system anyway. Yonosuke Hara presents such a view (Hara, 1996). He saysthat the free economy of Meiji was foreign, and the relational and interventionist system, dating back to the Edo period, is more normal for Japan.
According to the latter view, the implications for today’s developing countries are
as follows. Light industries and electronics assembly can be promoted by free trade
and an open FDI policy, but if the country hopes to absorb technology vigorously andhave advanced manufacturing capability, certain industrial promotion measures
become necessary. Japan, Taiwan and Korea all adopted this method in the past. By
contrast, no ASEAN countries seem to have broken through this “glass ceiling” andinternalized their industrial power. If latecomer countries are now banned from taking
these measures because of the WTO, FTAs, the World Bank policy matrix and so on,they may forever remain at a low level of industrialization characterized by contract
manufacturing and simple processing, and may not achieve a higher level of technology.

141

Postwar Recovery, 1945-49

Tokyo destroyed by American bombing, near Shimbashi Station, after the war in 1945.

The crowd at a black market, near Osaka Station? in 1946.

Chapter 10

1. Physical war damage
After the war defeat, Japan was occupied by the allied forces. In fact,
the US was the only country that ruled Japan. The occupying force was called
the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (SCAP) or, alternatively, theGeneral Headquarters (GHQ—this term was more popular among Japanese).
The GHQ was headed by US Army General Douglas MacArthur. In contrast toGermany, the occupation of Japan was indirect, in the sense that the Japanese
government continued to exist and function and sometimes even resisted USorders. Another feature unique to Japan was that it was occupied by one country, unlike Germany which was occupied by the US, the UK, France and the
USSR. This meant that Japan could avoid the risk of being divided when theCold War began.
The US conducted a survey on the effectiveness of military attacks
against Japan during the war. There were two factors that contributed to Japan’s
defeat.
Sea lane blockade—virtually all Japanese military and commercial ships
were sunk, and the country lost the means to transport energy and materials
between the mainland and the colonies or occupied areas. Without inputs,

Figure 10-1 Industrial Production Index(1935 = 100)

400
Machinery

300
Steel

Total

200
100
Food
Textiles

1951

1950

1949

1948

1947

1946

1945

1944

1943

1942

1941

1940

1939

1938

1937

1936

1935

0

Source: Management and Coordination Agency, Historical Statistics of Japan, Vol. 2, 1988.

144

Postwar Recovery, 1945-49

Table 10-1 The Loss of National Wealth Due to the Pacific War(In millions of yen at end-of-war prices)Type of Physical Asset
Total assets
Ships
Industrial machinery
Structures
Industrial materials
Household assets
Communications and water supply
Electricity and gas
Railroad and road vehicles

Before War

After War

Ratio ofDestruction

253,130
9,125
23,34690,43532,953
46,427
4,156
14,933
15,415

188,852
1,796
15,352
68,21525,08936,8693,497
13,313
13,892

25.4%
80.3%
34.2%
24.6%
23.9%
20.6%
15.9%
10.8%
9.9%

Source: Economic Stabilization Board, A Comprehensive Report on the War
Damage of Japan Caused by the Pacific War, 1949.
Note: War damage includes direct damage by bombing and shelling as well as
indirect damage due to scrapping, removal and the lack of maintenance.

production came to a halt. This was the primary reason for the collapse ofJapan’s war economy.
Strategic bombing (mostly in 1945)—virtually all Japanese major cities
were subject to US aerial bombing. The largest air raid was conducted in theeastern sections of Tokyo on March 10, 1945, when about 100,000 people
were trapped in fire and killed within a few hours. Atomic bombs were
dropped on Hiroshima (90-120,000 immediately killed) and Nagasaki (6070,000 immediately killed). However, bombing did not reduce Japan’s production capacity as much as expected, although it had a strong psychological impact.
The US report concluded that the sea lane blockade was more effective than the strategic bombing. It also argued that US bombing should have targeted railroads rather than housing.
The Japanese government also produced a report on war damage.
Table 10-1 shows the proportions of physical assets lost during the war. Most of
the losses were incurred toward the end of the war.
The two-thirds of machinery stock survived despite heavy air raids.
The surviving factories and railroads were inoperative, however, due to the lackof energy and inputs. Immediately after the war, in 1945 and 1946, output collapsed to only 20 percent of the wartime peak, or 30 percent of the prewar peak

145

Chapter 10

which was recorded between 1934 and 1936. The lack of inputs was the reason,
not the lack of capacity.

2. Shortages and inflation
Economic planning was continued even after the war and until 1949.
In a crisis situation, economic control must replace paralyzed private sector
activity. As during the war, necessities continued to be rationed and the government directed production and input procurement. Prices were controlled, subsidies were provided and the economy was still tightly regulated. However, compared with wartime, controls became less effective because of the emergence ofa large number of black markets.
Shortages were most severe and living standards were lowest in 1946,a year after the end of the war. As food became extremely scarce, it was fearedthat many people would starve to death. As soldiers and civilians returned homefrom war fronts and former colonies, unemployment became a serious problem.
Joblessness was expected to reach 10 million. However, neither mass starvation
nor massive unemployment materialized, because idle population was absorbed
largely in the informal and agricultural sectors. Many urban people worked in
the informal sector to survive1. These sectors provided temporary jobs and afood sharing mechanism.
Urban residents had to travel to rural villages in extremely crowded
trains to exchange their remaining property, such as kimono and cloth, for food.
Rationed food was too small in quantity. Everyone had to violate the law and
go to the black market to survive. It is reported that Judge Yoshitada Yamaguchi of Tokyo District Court was so honest that he did not want to break the
Food Control Law. He ate only rationed food and refused to take advantage of

1

The informal sector refers to the collection of jobs that are not officially registered or permitted,
such as street peddlers, personal service providers and household works in contrast to legally
sanctioned enterprises and cooperatives. Since it operates in a grey zone between legal and illegal, its status remains uncertain, being subject to official round-ups and confiscation and without protection of workers’ rights or contract enforcement. For the same reason, there is little
incentive for physical asset formation. The informal sector tends to emerge in a country in crisis
or whose market economy is underdeveloped or temporarily paralyzed.

146

Postwar Recovery, 1945-49

The people’s economic life was hardest from late 1945 to 1946. Many urban people lost their houses and properties,
even if they survived the US bombing. From upper left to lower right, (1) life in a makeshift hut; (2) eating simple food at a
black market; (3) a train packed with city dwellers traveling to country side to barter clothing for food. But if they werecaught by police, purchased items would be confiscated. (4) A seller opens a straw mat to show fish in a black market.

illegal food. In October 1947, he died of starvation.
To cope with output collapse and unemployment, the Japanese government printed money to finance subsidies while imposing price controls.
Clearly, this strategy could not be sustained for long. Monetization of fiscal
deficits created triple-digit inflation from 1946 to 1949. Black market inflation
was even higher, especially in the early period. This was the highest inflationthat Japan ever experienced, before or since.
Foreign trade was strictly controlled and any transaction had to beapproved by the SCAP. Private foreign trade was prohibited. For each commodity, the SCAP decided the dollar price and the yen price separately, so an
implicit exchange rate existed for each item. In effect, Japan between 1945 and1949 had a multiple exchange rate system. Exchange rates for exports (150-600
yen per dollar) were generally more depreciated than exchange rates for imports(125-250 yen per dollar).
The volume of international trade was also very limited. Apart fromcontrolled trade, the US provided large amounts of humanitarian and economic

147

Chapter 10

aid to Japan, amounting to a cumulative $1.95 billion during 1946-50, which
helped to ameliorate the shortages of food and consumer goods. It was said that
the Japanese economy was barely surviving with two artificial supports, namely
subsidies and US aid. These supports had to be removed as quickly as possible.

3. The Basic Problems of 1946
Immediately after the war defeat, two young officials organized astudy group to discuss ways to rebuild the Japanese economy following the war
damage. Their names were Saburo Okita and Yonosuke Goto. Actually, preparation for this had been going on toward the end of the war. Okita and Goto
were electrical engineers stationed in Beijing, but they knew Japan would soon
lose the war. They returned to Tokyo to organize a study group.
The first meeting of the study group was held on August 16, 1945,
one day after Japan’s defeat. The topic was the foreseeable impact of the Bretton Woods Agreement concluded a year earlier and the creation of the IMF and
the World Bank. After that, study meetings on various topics were hosted every
week with the attendance of prominent officials and academics. Okita and Goto
provided a secretarial service, summarizing the key points of each discussion
and drafting a report. The study was begun as a private endeavor but was later
officially recognized as the Special Survey Committee of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The interim report was issued in late 1945 and the final draft was
produced in March 1946. With minor revisions, the final report was publishedin September 1946.
This report, with the title “The Basic Problems of Japan’s Economic
Reconstruction,” was an excellent example of Japanese development thinking2.
It started with the analysis of external environment and internal situation. From
this, an ambitious yet realistic positioning strategy was derived. Then concretemeasures and action plans were contemplated. Many of the strategic orientations proposed in this report are common to Japan’s development policy advice
even today. For example, when Prof. Tatsuo Kaneda drafted a policy recom-2This report is now available in English translation—see Saburo Okita, ed, Postwar
Reconstruction of the Japanese Economy, University of Tokyo Press, 1992.

148

Postwar Recovery, 1945-49

mendation for Kyrgyzstan (Kaneda, 1992), or when Prof. Shigeru Ishikawa
wrote a JICA report on Vietnam (JICA, 1995), their logical sequence was very
similar to that of the Basic Problems report. The author’s current research on
Vietnam’s industrialization in the age of globalization also follows the same
sequence (Ohno and Thuong, 2005). While the targeted industries may differ
from one country to another, the procedure to identify and study them remains
common.
The report has 193 pages in two parts. The first part analyzes the new
global situation and the historical and geographical position of the defeatedJapan. War damage is carefully examined and some positive aspects are also
noted. The second part contains proposals for promoting industries and targeting exports, sector by sector, with the necessary concrete policy actions. Realsector issues dominate, while monetary and fiscal problems are discussed only
lightly. The key ideas in the report can be summarized as follows3:
・ Japan’s economic vision should be based on a deep analysis of shifting
global trends.
・ A comprehensive and concrete recovery strategy must be designed andimplemented. It must be based on industrialization, technology improvement and a dynamic transformation of trade structure.
・ Each important industry must be analyzed carefully, and realistic and concrete promotion programs must be proposed. Comparative advantages intextiles and agriculture were now lost because of the expected emergenceof the rest of Asia. Japan must aim at skilled labor-intensive industries.
Many people were inspired by this report, but its recommendations
were not formally adopted by the government. Indirectly, however, the idea that“limited resources must be selectively used for restarting an expansionary
reproduction cycle” was put into practice via the priority production system

3

Today’s readers may feel uncomfortable when they read the strong assertion in this report thatthe free economy was hardly recommendable as the world economy was decisively shifting
toward planning. But we must recall that this was the dominant thinking dating back to the prewar period, and planning was even inevitable in the situation of severe economic crisis. Anotherargument, that Japan’s future depended on industrialization rather than on agriculture, trade orservices, may sound obvious. But this should be construed as an opposition to the American
policy at that time to completely de-industrialize Japan (see below).

149

Chapter 10

Table 10-2 Some Excerpts from the Basic Problems Report (1946)(Two numbers refer to the page numbers in the Japanese original and the English translation respectively)
・The major causes for such reproduction on a regressed scale are found in the sluggish domestic production of coal and in the shortages of raw material imports. (p.63/66)
・In capitalistic free competition many Japanese industries will be overwhelmed by gigantic
modern foreign industries, and Japan’s industrial structure will thus be deformed. This will
make it necessary to adopt State policies that will keep at least basic industries intact.
(p.81/85)
・A national posture will have to be assumed in which all the people do not seek an affluent consumer life but are content with minimum standards of living, consume conservatively, andincrease savings—thereby contriving to recover economic power and not seeking financial
assistance from the outside world for consumption purposes. (p.85/88)
・A comprehensive and specific year-to-year reconstruction program will have to be formulated
in order to revive the Japanese economy from the extreme destitution in which it finds itself
now. The waste of economic power that would result from allowing laissez-faire play to market forces will not be permitted in order that all the meager economic power remaining may
be concentrated in a direction toward reproduction on an enlarged scale and that the processof reconstruction may be expedited. (p.92/94)
・The principal role in Japan’s economic reconstruction will have to be played by manufacturing… Therefore when the Japanese political and economic systems have been democratizedand their aggressive character wiped out, the nation’s heavy industries should be allowed to
grow to a considerable extent… As Japanese heavy industries are certain to be subjected tointernational competition in the future on the one hand, and because the benefit of adequate
governmental protection as experienced in the past will become difficult to obtain on theother hand, they will have to cultivate—through the rationalization of management and theelevation of technological levels—the ability to withstand the competition from foreign
goods in terms of production costs as well. (pp.111-112/114)

directed by Prof. Hiromi Arisawa, one of the members of the study group (seebelow).

4. How to stop inflation
After inflation peaked in 1946, it persisted at triple digit level until
1949. Its cause was clear: monetization of the fiscal deficit. The fiscal deficit inturn was generated by the following two policies.

・Subsidies—subsidies were mainly directed at intermediate inputs, such ascoal, steel, copper, and fertilizer, but some were targeted at consumer
goods, especially food. More precisely, price controls were imposed, and150

Postwar Recovery, 1945-49

Figure 10-2 Retail Price Inflation in Tokyo(Official prices, change over 12 months)

(%)
800
700
600
500
400

Dodge Line
Stabilization

300

War ends

200
100
0

Jan-51

Jul-50Jan-50Jul-49Jan-49Jul-48Jan-48

Jul-47Jan-47

Jul-46

Jan-46

Jul-45Jan-45

Jul-44Jan-44-100

Source: Management and Coordination Agency, Historical Statistics of Japan, Vol. 4, 1988.

the government provided production subsidies (literally called “compensation for price gaps”) in order to cover the losses incurred by private
producers.

・Recovery Financial Fund (fukkin) loans—the targets of these loans were
designated priority industries, in particular the coal industry. Policy loans
were provided by the Ministry of Finance to these industries. Government bonds (fukkin bonds) were issued to finance these loans. Most ofthese bonds were directly purchased by the Bank of Japan, which
increased the money supply.
Economists still debate the merits and demerits of these policies.
From the viewpoint of stopping inflation, they were clearly undesirable and had
to be terminated as soon as possible. But from the viewpoint of real sector
recovery, a delicate balance had to be struck between fighting inflation and sustaining output. Cutting these subsidies and loans immediately might have killed
all remaining industrial activities.
The first attempt to stop the inflation was the deposit blockade of1946. The government suddenly announced that (i) everyone now had an upper
limit of 500 yen per month for the withdrawal of bank deposits; and (ii) existing151

Chapter 10

paper notes would be annulled unless they were deposited at the bank. Thus,
people were forced to keep their money at the bank while inflation continued.
This reduced the money supply to one-third and slowed inflation temporarily.
But people naturally felt deceived by the government and the credibility of its
monetary policy was lost. Soon, inflation accelerated again.
After the failure of the deposit blockade, different approaches to disinflation were proposed and hotly debated. Contested ideas were as follows:(1) Accepting inflation: in July 1946, Finance Minister Tanzan Ishibashi
stated that a budget deficit and high inflation were acceptable as longas they prevented further output collapse and unemployment. He said
that the present inflation in Japan was caused by supply shortages andnot by excess demand. Thus, price stability called for supporting producers and workers. A sound budget in such a situation meant accepting a fiscal deficit.
(2) Shock approach: in January 1948, Kihachiro Kimura, a socialist Member of Parliament, argued the opposite. He said that price stability was
the precondition for output recovery. As long as inflation continued,
people would hoard goods in anticipation of higher prices. This would
reduce supply and raise prices even more. A bold anti-inflation policy
was necessary to stop this vicious circle. The US government in Washington also shared this view.
(3) Gradualism: the Economic Stabilization Board, as well as General
MacArthur of the SCAP, feared that big-bang stabilization would devastate Japanese industries and lead to social crisis. They hoped to lower
inflation step by step using subsidies, fukkin loans and US aid, while
reducing these support measures over time.
(4) Conditional shock approach: Prof. Hiromi Arisawa of Tokyo University recognized that an anti-inflation policy would reduce output temporarily. But he also knew that inflation had to be eliminated to end
speculation and hoarding. He argued that output must be raised by theplanning method to 60 percent of the prewar level, then a strong antiinflation package should be adopted. Output would probably fall backto about 30 percent of the prewar level following this shock, but people
could somehow endure this level, which actually prevailed in 1946. If

152

Postwar Recovery, 1945-49

the anti-inflation policy was implemented too soon, without such initial
output recovery, the shock would be too severe.
The policy which was actually adopted turned out to be close to what
Prof. Arisawa proposed.

5. Priority production system, 1947-48
The priority production system (PPS) refers to a policy of concentrating scarce resources in a few strategically important industries to jump-start a
recovery (though it is called a “system,” it is actually a policy). It is a type of
economic planning. Recovery of a few key industries is expected to have positive spillover effects on the entire economy.
Prof. Arisawa was a member of the personal advisory group of Prime
Minister Shigeru Yoshida. In July 1946, General MacArthur told Yoshida that
he would allow Japan to import a small number of goods4. Yoshida orderedbureaucrats to prepare a wish list for imports, but the list they produced was toolong. Yoshida asked his advisors to shorten the list. The following five items
finally remained: steel, coal (anthracite), heavy oil, rubber, and buses.
MacArthur did not want to let Japan import heavy oil since it was inshort supply globally. But Prof. Arisawa urged Prime Minister Yoshida to renegotiate with the Americans, saying that if Japan was permitted to import heavy
oil, the Japanese government would promise to produce 30 million tons of coal.
Heavy oil was an input to steel production, and steel was needed to rehabilitate
coal mines. For Japan, coal was the only energy source which was domesticallyavailable. If enough coal was produced, the surplus could be distributed as anenergy input to other industries.
MacArthur agreed to let Japan import heavy oil under this promise.
Prof. Arisawa, who proposed the idea, became the chairman of the subcommit-

4

During the war, the Japanese government guaranteed compensation for any losses incurred byindividuals or firms engaged in military production. In July 1946, the GHQ ordered to cancel
this guarantee which drove a large number of firms into bankruptcy and default. Prime Minister
Yoshida appealed to General MacArthur on the difficulties caused by this decision, to which
MacArthur responded by allowing Japan to import certain products to ameliorate the situation.

153

Chapter 10

tee responsible for producing 30 million tons of coal. In parallel, the Ministry ofCommerce and Industry was also contemplating a similar plan. Prof. Arisawa’s
method was meticulous. He summoned the general directors and chief engineers of all coal mines in Japan to gather information. Based on actual coaldeposits, veins, extraction speed, working hours and so on, he calculated the
supply capacity. On the demand side, he estimated the possible coal use by the
SCAP, power companies, railroads, and industries.
“Dig 30 million tons of coal” became a sort of national campaign.
The Minister of Commerce and Industry visited the Joban Mine to cheer workers. In the streets of large cities, the daily output of coal was posted. The
evening radio program sent words of thanks to hard-working coal miners allover Japan. The government secured inputs for coal mines using subsidies andfukkin loans, and provided special housing for coal miners. Although the actual
delivery of imported heavy oil was delayed, the production goal was more orless realized. Domestic coal production in 1947 was 29.32 million tons. The
output of key industries other than coal fell slightly short of targets in 1947. But
the priority production system was continued in 1948 and most targets wereachieved in that year. The economy began to rebound in 1947. But inflation
was still high.

6. US policy in occupied Japan
Japan was under US occupation from 1945 to 1951. During this period, US policy on occupied Japan shifted significantly.
At first, the objective of occupation was the demilitalization of Japan.
The US wanted to cripple the Japanese economy so that it would never be able
to produce military goods again. No heavy industry was to be allowed. Remaining machines were to be stripped and shipped to the rest of Asia as reparations
in kind. However, these policies were not actually implemented. The SCAP
also introduced democracy, since the lack of democracy, such as businessmonopolies, lack of workers’ rights and exploited peasants, was considered tobe behind Japan’s military expansion. The following three democratic reforms
were executed by the order of the SCAP:

・Zaibatsu breakup—big businesses were accused of helping militarism

154

Postwar Recovery, 1945-49

during the war. Group companies were broken up into separate entities.
But this policy was later reversed and a new type of industrial group,
called keiretsu, emerged5.

・New labor laws—the new laws guaranteed workers’ rights on organizing
labor unions, collective bargaining and basic working conditions.

・Land reform—all farmland of absentee landlords and holdings above certain limits were confiscated and sold to actual tillers. The sales price was
low and high inflation quickly depreciated its real value. This increased
the land ownership of farmers significantly, which was good from theviewpoint of equity and political feasibility, but land was now divided
into too many small plots to conduct efficient farming, which was undesirable from the viewpoint of improving productivity. Family farming ona small scale has become the dominant trait of Japanese agriculture eversince.
In addition, a new constitution was drafted and implemented underpressure from the SCAP on May 3, 1947. The Japanese government now celebrates this day as a national holiday. Compared with the Meiji Constitution of
1889, the following features are noteworthy:･ Sovereignty rests with people.
･ The emperor is a symbol of Japan with no political functions.
･ Renunciation of war and non-possession of military forces (Article 9).
･ Guarantee of basic human rights.
･ Separation of power among legislative, administrative and judicial branches.
Article 9 is unique to Japan and has caused many heated arguments
ever since. The full text of Article 9 runs as follows:
Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, theJapanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and5

Zaibatsu is a group of large companies operating in many sectors that are owned by one holding
company dominated by an influential family. Keiretsu is a looser collection of companies without a holding company at the top, whose member companies are related to each other throughcooperation in finance and technology, mutual share holding, personnel rotation and the like. A
pyramidal subcontracting structure in the automobile and motorcycle industries is also called asystem of keiretsu companies.

155

Chapter 10

the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and airforces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right ofbelligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Although the possession of armed forces is explicitly prohibited by
the constitution, Japan now actually has the Self-Defense Force. Hardliners
want to revise Article 9 so that Japan can own a full military force without anacrobatic interpretation of the Constitution. Others want to keep Article 9 andabolish the Self-Defense Force.
But around 1947, US occupation policy shifted dramatically becauseof the start of the Cold War. Now the US wanted to strengthen Japan as a capitalist ally and an anti-communist base. Besides that, economic aid to Japan was
becoming too burdensome for US taxpayers. Remilitarization and the economic
recovery of Japan, including the rebuilding of heavy industries, were promoted.
Socialist and labor movements were discouraged.
In addition, a policy gap existed within the US government. Washington demanded free markets and big-bang macroeconomic stabilization as soon
as possible, but General MacArthur and his SCAP staff in Tokyo, who werecalled “New Dealers”—a group of people who supported official intervention at
the time of the Great Depression in the 1930s—preferred gradualism withappropriate state roles.

7. Dodge Line stabilization of 1949
But this debate within the US government was ended when Washington sent Joseph Dodge to Tokyo in early 1949. Dodge was the president of
Detroit Bank and a strong believer in the free economy. He ordered the following austerity measures to terminate inflation. His policy package was called the“Dodge Line.”･ Stop fukkin loans.
･ Abolish all subsidies and raise utility charges.
･ Strengthen taxation and cut expenditure.
･ Have a “super-balanced budget”—the primary balance should be zero,
which means the entire budget should be in surplus.

156

Postwar Recovery, 1945-49･ Unify multiple exchange rates at 360 yen to the dollar.
In addition, Prof. C.S. Shoup, an American fiscal expert, was also
sent to Japan to introduce a new tax system. His advice was adopted in 1950
and became the basis of Japanese taxation in the postwar period. It was a system with a heavy reliance on direct taxes, especially income and corporate
taxes, which became a key feature of the Japanese tax system for a long time tofollow. Japan had no broad-based indirect tax, such as VAT or general consumption tax, until 1989.
The Dodge Line stabilization was very successful in stopping inflation. But as feared, the shock on economic activity was severe and people
expected a serious recession. Indeed, output soon began to decline. The Bank ofJapan tried to supply liquidity against the order of Dodge. Prof. Arisawa feltthat stabilization measures were adopted too soon; he thought that Dodge
should have waited another year.
We do not know how serious this recession would have been, because
another big event intervened. As the Japanese economy started to shrink, theKorean War (1950-53) broke out. Whatever the political implications of thiswar might have been, its impact on the Japanese economy was positive. The US
forces used Japan as a supply base and procured great amounts of military andcivilian goods. For Japanese industries, this was tantamount to a sharp increasein external demand, as in the export boom experienced during WW1. The recession ended quickly and the Japanese economy began to grow. Minor inflation
also returned, but price stability was restored when the Korean War ended.
The Dodge Line stabilization also had important systemic implications. The Japanese economy had been a planned one since 1937 and economic
control continued during the postwar recovery period. The achievement of pricestability and the abolition of price controls and subsidies finally allowed Japanto return to a freer economy. Now the national economy could be deregulated
and the role of government could be reduced. However, this did not mean acompletely free economy; many elements of official intervention remained evenafter the end of planning.
Joseph Dodge is sometimes appreciated for ending inflation andrestoring economic freedom, and sometimes criticized for implementing a

157

Chapter 10

shock therapy (although its undesirable effect was cancelled by the Korean
War). It is likely that most Japanese thank him rather than blame him.

158

Postwar Recovery, 1945-49

Hiromi Arisawa and Saburo Okita discuss postwar recovery
Below is the excerpt from a dialogue which took place between these two gentlemen in 1986 (quoted from Arisawa, 1989, pp.33-34). Both of them were deeply
involved in the postwar recovery policies.

Hiromi Arisawa (1896-1988)

Saburo Okita (1914-1993)

OKITA: What was your opinion on the nationalization of the coal industry [proposed around 1946-47]?
ARISAWA: As for me, I never thought of nationalizing it.
OKITA: Wasn’t it at the time of Minister of Commerce and Industry Chosaburo
Mizutani? A law on the nationalization of coal mines was proposed.
ARISAWA: I never thought of nationalization. As a matter of fact, Japanese coalmines were already operating under government’s directives. In other words, coalmines were virtually under state control. Germany nationalized coal production, and I
discussed the matter extensively in many articles. But I had no intention of nationalizing our coal mines. Of course, if some unexpected situation arose, nationalization
would have been an option. But what was the point in nationalizing only coal?
OKITA: Around that time, there was a debate over the so-called Chukan Antei
Ron [intermediate stabilization, which means gradual disinflation] between you and
Mr. Kimura, the socialist Member of Parliament. Your idea was to stop inflation after
the government permitted the output to recover to a certain level relative to the prewar
size. But Mr. Kimura regarded disinflation as the prerequisite for output recovery.
That was the key point in the debate. You wrote in an article that the two views differed in the prioritization of policies. It certainly was a big difference, from the viewpoint of your “economics of transition.”

159

Chapter 10

ARISAWA: Regarding the disinflation policy, my view at that time was to adopt
the priority production system first to let the production recover to 60 percent of the
prewar level, then stop the inflation by bold measures. If the big-bang disinflation
were introduced before output recovery, it would have plunged the Japanese economy
into a tremendous confusion, so it should not have been done. In either case, inflation
stabilization would cause the output to decline. The crucial point was how deep thisdecline would be. Bold stabilization measures were unavoidable, but the timing must
be chosen wisely, at a time when the priority production system proceeded further andthe output reached 60 percent of the prewar level.
My view was that bold stabilization would surely cause the output to decline.
Under the worst scenario, the output might even decline to a half. I insisted on therecovery to 60 percent of the prewar level, because if you had that level, the subsequent output decline would take it to the 30 percent of the prewar level. Since output
actually fell to that level immediately after the war and people could somehow survive, to me that was the minimum acceptable level.
Before Mr. Dodge arrived in Japan, I went to see Mr. Fein, financial advisor of
the GHQ’s Economic and Science Bureau. His position was that Japan needed a bigbang anti-inflation program. I told him that it was too early to implement it. He tried
to persuade me into early stabilization, but I never relented. The logic I have justexplained was behind my insistence.

160

The High Growth Era

The special train carrying new high school graduates to big cities in 1964 – These youths were called “golden eggs.”

Chapter 11

After the recovery period of 1945-49 and the Korean War from 1950
to 1953, the Japanese economy entered into a period of high growth. From themid-1950s to the early 1970s, average real growth was approximately 10 percent. This very high and sustained growth transformed the Japanese economy
and society significantly. By around 1970, Japan overtook West Germany andbecame the second largest economy in the capitalist world, as measured by
GNP, after the US. Japan’s catching-up process with the West was finally over.
There are many issues to be discussed for this very interesting period. This
chapter will discuss the following five topics: “rationalization” drive, macroeconomic management, industrial policy, global re-integration, and socialchange.

1. Rationalization
During the preceding period of 1945-49, when economic planningwas still in place and Japan was virtually a closed economy, the principal policy
objective was a quantitative recovery. The recovery policy was pursued at any
cost, ignoring efficiency. Subsidies, fukkin loans and US aid were provided.
But in the early 1950s, after the Dodge Line stabilization, the Japan-

Figure 11-1 Real GNP Growth since the High Growth Era
(%)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
2001

1998

1995

1992

1989

1986

1983

1980

1977

1974

1971

1968

1965

1962

1959

1956

1953

-4

Source: Cabinet office, Annual Report on National Accounts, various issues.

162

The High Growth Era

ese economy entered another phase. The new situation can be described as follows.
・ Controls and subsidies were abolished and the market mechanism waslargely restored.
・ Private international trade began. However, this was not yet free trade; pastlegacies such as exchange control, import protection, foreign currency surrender requirement and administrative guidance were still in place.
・ There was global inflation associated with the Korean War. But Japanese
inflation was higher than the world average: between 1949 and 1951,
Japanese wholesale prices rose 64 percent and consumer prices rose 8.5
percent. During the same period, wholesale price inflation in the US andthe UK was 16.1 percent and 11.1 percent, respectively.
・ A new fixed exchange rate of 360 yen to the dollar was established in1949. This level was considered appropriate initially, but due to the Korean War inflation, the yen became overvalued.
・ Japan regained political independence with the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951, and US economic assistance ended. At the sametime, the Japan-US Security Treaty was concluded in 1951 (renewed in1960), and Japan became a US ally in the Cold War.
・ Japan had only small international reserves amounting to $567 million at
the end of 1950.
Under these new circumstances, Japanese industries had to strive for
efficiency and competitiveness. The days of economic planning and physicalexpansion were over, and the challenge for cost reduction and higher quality
began.
Before the outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950, Japanese industrial costs were roughly in line with those in the US. But by 1953, most ofJapanese industrial inputs had become more expensive than those in the US. In
particular, coal and steel were among the most expensive. These were precisely
the two products targeted by the Priority Production System in 1947-48! The
so-called “problem of high prices of coal and steel” reduced the competitiveness of all other industries that used them as inputs.
To cope with overvaluation and the loss of competitiveness, three163

Chapter 11

Figure 11-2 Japanese Industrial Prices Relative to US Prices(US price level = 100)300
June 1950

250

June 1952

200
150
100
50

Pulp

Raw rubber

Coal

AmmoniumsulfateAluminium

Long steel

Flat steel

Pig iron

Silk yarn

Rayon

Cotton yarn

Sugar

Wheat

0

Source: Kosai, 1995, p.56.

policy options were theoretically possible: (i) yen devaluation; (ii) deflation
through macroeconomic austerity; and (iii) productivity improvement. Japan
chose the third option. The option (ii) was also partly adopted through a relatively tight macroeconomic policy stance, but option (i) was not even considered. Japan had just overcome the postwar crisis, unified exchange rates in
1949, and regained political independence in 1951. Under the Bretton Woods
fixed exchange rate system, Japan felt that it was unacceptable, politically anddiplomatically, to revise the newly installed exchange parity so soon.
Gorika, or rationalization, means improving productivity throughinvestment in new technology and machinery and reorganizing production andmanagement. This became a national economic goal in the early 1950s. During
the Korean War, many companies enjoyed the US military procurement boom
and accumulated profits. These profits were the main financial source for introducing new technology and machinery. However, labor unions often opposed
rationalization because they thought this slogan was used as an excuse for laying off workers and imposing hard working conditions.
Some industries succeeded in rationalization but others failed anddeclined. Between coal and steel, the former industry was a loser and the latter
was a winner. Both contributed to a rise in overall productivity—the coal indus-

164

The High Growth Era

try by disappearing and the steel industry by becoming more competitive. The
coal industry was especially hard hit because the world energy source shifted
dramatically from coal to oil, which was cheaper. Unlike coal, Japan had toimport 90 percent of its oil because the domestic supply was severely limited(Japan’s dependency on imported oil rose subsequently to as high as 99.7 percent).
The policy stance of the government was also crucial in industrial
rationalization. In 1953-54, as imports surged and Korean War military procurement ended, Japan faced a balance-of-payments crisis. The Bank of Japanraised interest rates and the budget and the fiscal investment and loan program(FILP)1 were tightened. The intention of the policy makers was to lower inflation to near zero (finally!) and encourage industries to reduce costs further. This
policy was quite different from the one adopted after the WW1 boom in the
1920s. At that time, the main objective was to rescue weak companies andbanks. By contrast, in the 1950s, they were asked to become more efficient orexit. It may be argued that, when an artificial boom ends and the business condition worsens, austerity measures are needed to prepare for the next period ofsustained high growth.
Another important fact is that new instruments of industrial policy
were created during the early 1950s. To replace the price controls, subsidies andfukkin loans of the early recovery period, the following new policy tools wereintroduced:
・ Foreign exchange budget
・ Capital control, including control of technology imports
・ Preferential tax treatment for specific industries
・ Creation of the Japan Development Bank and other policy banks
・ A number of laws for promoting enterprise rationalization
Equipped with these policy tools, the Japanese government was now

1

The fiscal investment and loan program (FILP) was a system in which funds from postal savingsand pension contributions were mobilized to conduct investment and loans having public nature
through state institutions and credit mechanism. It was a system unique to Japan and featured
the size as large as about the half of the general budget and close coordination with the generalbudget in planning procedure and complementarity.

165

Chapter 11

The two major events in 1960

The Miike miners, their families, and sympathizers fought hard against “capitalists”
but they lost.

Protestation against the government over the renewal of the Japan-US
Security Treaty.

ready to assist industries.
The year 1960 was a dividing year in postwar Japan. In that year, thelabor dispute at Miike Coal Mine, located in Kyushu and operated by the MitsuiGroup, came to a climax. The management of the mine announced a selective
laying-off of workers, especially labor union leaders, to carry out rationalization. Coal miners protested and occupied the company’s hopper facilities. Thiswas considered an ultimate fight between all capitalists and all workers inJapan, but eventually the miners lost. Another big event in 1960 was a renewalof the Japan-US Security Treaty. The Kishi Cabinet of Jiminto, or the Liberal

166

The High Growth Era

Democratic Party (LDP), tried to force it through the parliament despite nationwide protests. A huge demonstration was staged which surrounded the parliament building and one female student was killed. But the treaty was renewed
and the government subsequently resigned for causing the mess. With these two
events, the days of direct confrontation in ideology and politics were over. The
new LDP government, led by Prime Minister Hayato Ikeda, refocused national
attention from politics to economics by proposing the “Income Doubling Plan.”
He proposed to double Japan’s GNP in ten years, which required an average
growth of 7.2 percent annually. Japan actually grew faster than this and Ikeda’s
goal was achieved within six to seven years, much sooner than expected. Political radicalism was gradually replaced by a more cooperative management-labor
relationship. There were some remnants of student and left-wing groups callingfor violent revolution into the early 1970s, but they lost the support of the general public.

2. Macroeconomic management
During the 1950s and 60s, macroeconomic management had the following features.
The budget was generally sound and in surplus. In addition, the sizeof government relative to GNP gradually declined, especially during the 1950s.
Monetization of fiscal deficits was prohibited. In fact, no government bonds
were issued in postwar Japan until 1965. For this reason, there exists no statistics on government bonds or their interest rates prior to that time.
On the monetary side, the fixed exchange rate of 360 yen to the dollar
was maintained from 1949 to 1971. The Bretton Woods system permitted occasional realignments of the exchange parity when “fundamental disequilibria”
emerged, but Japan never considered changing its parity. Some people argue
that the yen became gradually undervalued in real terms, because Japanese productivity growth was higher—and thus its costs became lower—compared withthe rest of the industrial world. But this conclusion is debatable (McKinnon andOhno, 1997). Japanese wages and prices were rising at speeds consistent withJapanese productivity increases, and there is no decisive evidence of a tendency
for the yen’s undervaluation. This is quite in line with what we expect in a167

Chapter 11

Figure 11-3 Central Government Budget and Expenditure(% of GNP)
40

30
Revenue
20
Expenditure
10

1973

1971

1969

1967

1965

1963

1961

1959

1957

1955

1953

1951

0

Source: Management and Coordination Agency, Historical Statistics of Japan, Vol. 3, 1988.

world of fixed exchange rates. A young country with unstoppable dynamism inindustrialization naturally expands its global market share. Exchange rateadjustments can hardly reverse this power shift since it comes from a structuralchange in the real economy. The governments of more mature economies thatdemand the currency revaluation of such a country may only be fooling themselves and evading the true question. This can be said about postwar Japan aswell as today’s China.
A fixed exchange rate constrains the monetary policy. In other words,
when the exchange rate is fixed, the monetary policy is no longer an independent variable that can be determined by the monetary authorities, since the central bank is required to use the monetary policy to maintain the exchange rate at
the committed level. This is called the “endogeneity” of the monetary policy
under a fixed exchange rate. Once the yen/dollar exchange rate was fixed, theBank of Japan had to continuously adjust its monetary policy to keep it fixed. In
Japan, this policy constraint was imposed specifically as follows.
Since there was no free capital movement at that time, a balance-ofpayments deficit basically meant a trade deficit. When the domestic economy
overheated and imports surged, the Bank of Japan tightened money by raisingshort-term interest rates and through “window guidance” (telling commercial

168

The High Growth Era

Figure 11-4 International Reserves

1975

1973

1971

1969

1967

1965

1963

1961

1959

1957

1955

1953

1951

1949

(In USD billion, excluding gold)
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics, various issues.

banks to reduce new loans). Since Japanese firms depended heavily on bankloans, this had an immediate effect of curtailing investment. As the economy
cooled down, the balance-of-payments pressure eased. Every time the economy
grew too strongly, the Bank of Japan had to adopt this policy. This was called
the “the ceiling of the balance of payments” or “stop-go policy.” This was practiced until the mid-1960s.
To cope with the balance-of-payments pressure under a fixedexchange rate system, West Germany frequently intervened in the foreignexchange market and also adjusted the Deutsche Mark occasionally. Since there
was always an upward pressure on the DM, adjustments were always in the
upward direction. In contrast, Japan chose macroeconomic austerity (tightmoney) as a tool for balance-of-payments adjustment. Thus West Germany
accumulated international reserves while Japanese reserves remained small andstable until the mid-1960s (since then, however, the Bank of Japan has intervened aggressively and rapidly accumulated dollar assets).
Under this monetary regime, Japanese wholesale prices were virtuallyconstant. From 1951 to 1971, the wholesale price index rose at an annual rate of
0.7 percent. This remarkable price stability was also experienced in the US andWest Germany. Indeed, the early postwar period of the 1950s and 60s was aperiod of historically unprecedented global price stability. Japan “imported”

169Chapter 11

this global price stability in tradable goods by maintaining a fixed exchange
rate. The consumer price index rose slightly faster, at an annual 4.4 percent. In
those days, this phenomenon, called “creeping inflation,” was considered amacroeconomic problem2. During the same period, nominal wages rose 10.2
percent, nominal GDP rose 14.5 percent, and M1 rose 15.9 percent (all in annual average increases). Meanwhile, real GDP rose by an average of 9.4 percent
per year during 1951-71.
Japan joined the World Bank in 1952 and began to borrow from it in
the following year. It soon became the World Bank’s second largest borrower
after India. Japan continued to borrow from the World Bank until 1969. All
World Bank loans to Japan were used for building industrial infrastructure suchas power plants, highways and the Shinkansen (bullet trains). Unlike today’s
ODA trends, no part of them was directed toward education, healthcare, ruraldevelopment or other social-sector programs. World Bank loans were madethrough the Japan Development Bank, which were then on-lent to the proposedindustrial projects. This procedure was called the “two-step loans.” It is noteworthy that World Bank loans financed less than 1 percent of total domestic
investment. Japan financed its vigorous investment in this period almost entirely through domestic savings. There was virtually no receipt of FDI, let alone
portfolio investment, from abroad. But Japanese firms were extremely active inimporting technology, and the government strongly supported it.

3. MITI and industrial policy
The Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) was createdin 1949 by merging the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Coal Agency, andthe International Trade Agency. Later, in 2001, MITI was renamed to the Min-2

It should be noted, however, that differential inflation across different goods and services does
not necessarily imply economic disequilibrium. If wage rates and other factor prices are
assumed to be equalized across all industries, industries with higher productivity growth canachieve faster price reduction relative to industries with low productivity growth. The fact thatJapanese consumer prices rose faster than its wholesale prices reflects higher productivity
growth in the industries heavily represented in the former (machinery, automobile, electronics,etc) than the industries included in the latter (food, housing, services, etc). This argument is formally presented in the Balassa-Samuelson Theorem in international economics.

170

The High Growth Era

istry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI).
During the mid 1950s to the early 1970s, MITI played a role in Japanese industrialization, but economists still debate its importance. Was highgrowth achieved because of MITI or despite it? Some affirm that MITI’s policies were crucial, while others argue that they were a negative factor overpowered by private dynamism. Still others say that MITI’s role was insignificant or
neutral. Some industries succeeded without official promotion (consumer electronics, cameras, motorbikes, pianos, watches, calculators, etc). Other industries
failed even with official support (coal, aluminum refining, nuclear fusion, mainframe computers, etc). As for the automobile industry, there were both rejection
and acceptance of official intervention. MITI tried to merge automobile companies prior to trade liberalization because domestic producers were considered
too small and numerous to compete effectively with the American giants. But
automobile companies refused MITI’s initiative, remained separate, and didvery well subsequently (see the box on Honda at the end of this chapter). However, it should also be recalled that the automobile industry was protected withhigh tariffs in its early stage of development.
There are also econometric studies on the effectiveness of MITI policies, but the results remain inconclusive and depend on the data and theresearcher. Some studies examined whether targeted industries on averageachieved higher growth than those without support. But partly because someindustries received support for downsizing, and partly because underlying
growth rates differed across industries, such a test is not a fair evaluation. Using
econometrics to evaluate industrial policy is extremely difficult due to theimpossibility of constructing a convincing “counter-factual” (how Japaneseindustries would have developed had MITI not intervened). The contention ofthis book is that private dynamism was primary but policy also played a usefulrole in Japan. This conclusion also applies to earlier industrialization in the
Meiji period.
Unlike Japan’s unvarying vision on the importance of industrialization and the role of government, the development policy of the World Bank has
oscillated greatly. In the early postwar period, World Bank loans were provided
primarily for industrial development. In the 1970s, social sector programs wereintroduced to gradually replace industrial projects. Throughout the 1980s, the171Chapter 11

World Bank consistently denied the effectiveness of selective industrial policy,
in which the government targeted and supported certain industries. This freemarket ideology was strongly influenced by the so-called neoclassical development economics. However, World Bank programs began to regain balance inthe 1990s. Its East Asian Miracle report (1993) admitted that selective industrial policy sometimes worked in the past, though only for Japan, Taiwan and
Korea. The 1997 World Development Report further recognized the possibilityof selective industrial policy for countries with strong institutions (meanwhile,countries with weak institutions were advised to strengthen them first). In thefollowing several years, the concern of the World Bank shifted significantly
from economic development to poverty reduction. But since around 2002, it has
begun to refocus on industrial promotion and infrastructure development as asource of growth.
Industrial promotion measures adopted by the Japanese government
were no different from those widely practiced elsewhere in the world: preferential taxes, subsidies, low-interest policy loans, R&D assistance, SME promotion, entry restriction, coordination of output, investment and exports, building
infrastructure, and the like. While the list of measures was similar, it can be said
that MITI implemented them far more effectively than other countries. In addition, MITI had a set of softer instruments for sharing information and organizing actions among various stakeholders including: (i) creation of visions andtargets, (ii) shingikai (deliberation councils), (iii) close links with business associations, (iv) administrative guidance, and (v) human networks through personnel rotation and amakudari (assumption of high posts in private firms under
MITI’s influence after early retirement)3.
It is often said that MITI chose target industries by the income elasticity criterion and the productivity criterion. In other words, industries whose
global demand was expected to grow strongly and whose productivity was
expected to rise quickly were selected for promotion. But this explanation is a
bit too simple and obvious. Certainly, most countries would like to do this if it
3

For more on these policy measures, see Johnson (1982), Itoh et al (1988), Okimoto (1991), andKomiya et al (1988). As for regulation on FDI firms such as local contents requirement, technical transfer and export-import balance requirement, Japan did not have to consider them since
its growth was not dependent on the attraction of FDI.

172

The High Growth Era

were possible. The real question was how MITI did this successfully—howindustrial selection was made and how wrong decisions were avoided in practice. We must ask concretely how needed information was collected, howdemand, productivity and the state of competition were forecasted, and how thepotential of each company and industry was evaluated. In choosing industries,
MITI did not rely on existing formulas or econometric models as the main
source of information. What is perhaps most amazing is the fact that crucial
information and correct intuition naturally emerged in MITI’s daily contacts
with the private sector.
There are other theoretically interesting issues concerning the industrialization in the 1950s and 60s. Let us discuss two of them.
Excess competition—one of the most important reasons for official intervention throughout the prewar and postwar period was excess competition.
At the time of economic recession, the Japanese government frequently
required industries to agree on output cartels, scrap and consolidate excess
capacity, and accept corporate mergers. In addition, it often resorted toexport quota allocation to forestall the accusation of “torrential exports” by
its trading partners. Liberal economists contend that excess competition is aterm in contradiction, and its validity highly doubtful (Komiya et al, 1988,
pp.10-11). But other economists accept the possibility of excess competition
to the serious damage of national welfare if certain conditions are present,such as shortages of information, violation of intellectual property rights,
increasing returns to scale (the so-called scale merit), and the fallacy ofcomposition in sales promotion (Murakami, 1984). For example, prewar
recessions were often aggravated by the collective behavior of producers
which expanded sales to compensate for reduced prices, which further
accelerated price declines. In industries which can achieve cost reduction in
proportion to the size of capital equipment, overcapacity becomes the norm
as every producer rushes to invest. In developing countries where copied
products circulate freely, producers with high technology and strict observance of laws are the first to be eliminated, a situation which can hardly becalled desirable from the viewpoint of sound industrial development.
Infant industry promotion—this is a classical theory of industrialization first173

Chapter 11

proposed in the 19th century. In a nutshell, it says that burgeoning industries
with initial high cost should be temporarily protected by tariffs if they can
reduce cost as time passes and experience is accumulated. There are also
well-known caveats for this argument, such as the condition that later profits, properly discounted, should exceed initial protection cost. Again, theexistence of increasing returns or the so-called learning effect is the key
determinant of the validity of infant industry promotion. Neoclassical economists contend that, while this theory is beautiful on paper, actual governments seriously lack the ability to choose the right industries or resist political pressure. If implemented, this policy will only lead to the permanent
protection of hopeless industries at a huge cost to the national economy.
This type of counter-argument is called the political economy of protection.
But can we assume that all governments are stupid and incapable? In East
Asia where industrialization is proceeding in certain recognizable order andpattern, is it really true that latecomers like Vietnam and Myanmar havenothing to learn from the experiences of Thailand and Malaysia in choosing
industries and formulating policies? 4
Quite a few Western economists believe that these ideas are alreadydiscredited and outdated in the age of global mega competition and free capital
mobility. They flatly reject their value as policy advice to the developing world.
However, most Japanese development economists do not agree with this view.
According to them, these old arguments contain an element of truth and can beresurrected and applied even today provided that proper modifications are madeto reflect the current situation.

4. Reintegration into the global economy
Table 11-1 illustrates the main steps which Japan took to re-integrate

4

It should be noted, however, that developing countries today are required to be integrated into
the global free trade system in their early stages of development through WTO and FTAs. Thissituation of lost tariff rights is similar to what Japan had to cope with during the Meiji period.
We must fully recognize the fact that latecomer countries today have little freedom in tariff policy necessary for the execution of infant industry promotion.

174

The High Growth Era

Table 11-1 The Road to Global Economic Re-integration
1951
1952
1955
1956
1964
Late 1960s

US occupation ends; political independence restored
Japan becomes a member of the IMF and the World BankJapan joins GATT; however, many countries refused to grant full trade
rights to Japan and trade discrimination against Japan continued
Japan joins the United Nations
Japan joins the OECD; IMF Article 8 status attained (no exchange restriction
on current-account transactions); the Tokyo Olympics held (hosting the
Olympic games often accelerates growth and boosts national pride)
Tariff reductions implemented

itself into the global economy.
The market mechanism was restored by the Dodge Line stabilizationin 1949, but this did not mean a completely free economy. On the contrary,
many policy measures continued to regulate the markets. One of them wasimport protection. Japan’s trade barriers had been high during the 1920s and
30s, and with the intervening period of trade interruption during the war and US
occupation, tariff protection continued into the 1950s and 60s. However, theJapanese government was determined to lower tariffs in an effort to rejoin theworld economy and implement the GATT Kennedy Round which requiredcomprehensive tariff reduction by all member countries. Transition to a more
liberal trade system was also necessitated for political and diplomatic reasons.
Japan’s trade liberalization in the 1960s had the following salient features: (i) it was executed gradually and in a well-planned manner; (ii) tariff
reduction was closely linked with industrial promotion measures to strengthen
competitiveness; and (iii) the government used international commitments toavoid domestic political capture. Removal of import barriers was carried out
under the very strong “ownership” (policy autonomy) of the Japanese government in close consultation with the business community. Since trade liberalization schedules were pre-committed and considered non-negotiable, producers
concentrated their efforts on improving efficiency rather than lobbying for theextension of protection. Official support was provided according to actual performance, such as export volume, rather than political connection. Domestic
firms competed fiercely with each other, but the competition was coordinatedby the government so as to prevent the dropping-out or bankruptcy of any firm.

175

Chapter 11

Thus, competition and cooperation coexisted in a situation described as “compartmentalized competition” by Yasusuke Murakami (1984).
The process of trade liberalization in postwar Japan was ideal in thesense that it was wisely used for obliging domestic industries to become morecompetitive. But its successful execution required a very high institutional
capacity. For most developing countries, this is not an easy task.
While trade barriers were gradually reduced, capital control was notabolished during the high growth period. It was removed step by step from the1970s onwards. The most important step in liberalizing capital transactions was
the Foreign Exchange Law of 1980, which belongs to a much later period thanthe one we are discussing.

5. Social transformation
Economists still argue about the true cause of high growth in the
1950s and the 60s. Some say that vigorous investment was the key. Others
assert that it was export-driven. Some Keynesian economists, like Hiroshi
Yoshikawa (1997), believe that the most important force was robust consumption. However, it is very difficult to single out one factor as the only cause,since all variables were interrelated.
At any rate, the consumption boom was certainly a very prominent
feature of the high growth era, whether it was the cause or the effect. In the late
1950s, all consumers wanted to purchase washing machines, refrigerators, andblack-and-white TVs—these were called “three divine devices.” In the 1960s,
color TVs, cars, and “coolers” (air conditioners) attracted everyone’s attention—they were called “three C’s.” As markets and production scale expanded,
costs and prices declined, which in turn further stimulated demand. The mass
production system also generated a white-collar middle-class who purchased
these goods. This virtuous circle continued until the early 1970s.
Before the high growth era, the basic lifestyle of the Japanese people
in terms of food, clothing, and housing changed very slowly. Before WW2,
most people generally ate Japanese food such as rice, miso soup, pickled vegetables, fish, natto beans, and sake, and wore Japanese kimono, geta (wooden
sandals) and zori (a kind of sandals), and lived in wooden houses divided by

176

The High Growth Era

Table 11-2 Four Major Pollution Lawsuits of Postwar Japan
Cause and Symptoms

AccusedEnterprise(s)Final RulingFirst reported in 1956. Water
contaminated by organic mercury caused
Minamata Disease
numbness, speech disturbances,(Minamata City,
narrowing of field of vision, mental
Kumamoto Prefecture) disorders, loss of muscle coordinationand other neurological disturbances.

ChissoCorporation

Itai-itai Disease(Jintsu River, Toyama
Prefecture)

First reported in 1955. Water pollution bycadmium caused severe pain. “Itai-itai”
means “it hurts, it hurts.”

Mitsui Kinzoku(Mitsui Mining
and Smelting
Company)

The plaintiff
won in August
1972

Niigata Minamata
Disease(Agano River, Niigata
Prefecture)

First reported in 1965. Water pollution byorganic mercury; same disturbances as
Minamata Disease.

Showa Denko

The plaintiff
won inSeptember 1971

Yokkaichi Asthma(Yokkaichi City, Mie
Prefecture)

Petrochemical complexes which started
operations in the late 1950s caused air
pollution by SOx and other substances.
Major symptoms included sore throats,coughing, respiratory organ troubles,
vertigo, nervous diseases, and eye
irritation.

Mitsubishi
Petrochemicals,
The plaintiff
Showa
won in August
Yokkaichi
1972
Sekiyu, andfour othercompanies

The plaintiff
won in March1973

paper sliding doors. People slept on tatami mats with futon. But all this changed
dramatically during the 1960s. Bread, coffee and western food became common. Very few people now wear kimono today except on New Year Holiday
and other special occasions. Concrete and steel-built apartments with blinds andcurtains became popular. Urbanization progressed. Big families were replacedby nuclear families. Individualism began to replace group orientation. Among
all periods in Japanese history, perhaps the high growth era brought the greatest
changes in lifestyle.
For a long time, the labor surplus persisted and wages remained
depressed in the Japanese economy. But high growth brought a critical change.
Around 1960, the labor surplus turned into a labor shortage. The so-called“turning point” was finally reached as in the Arthur Lewis model5. Special
5

The Lewis model divides the economy into the traditional sector (engaged in agriculture) and themodern sector (engaged in urban industries). It is a development model that postulates labor
migration from rural areas to cities as the modern sector expands and absorbs more labor. When
this process progresses sufficiently, a new phase, called the turning point, is reached in whichrural surplus labor disappears and wage increase is required in order to employ more workers.

177Chapter 11

trains were prepared to transport fresh graduates from middle and high schools
in rural areas to big cities as new workers. As the labor market tightened, theseyoung workers were highly demanded by industries as “golden eggs.”
During the high growth period, environmental destruction caused by
rapid industrialization became intolerable. Water and air quality deteriorated. A
people’s grass-roots movement rose against commercial irresponsibility andofficial negligence, culminating in four principal lawsuits against public hazards as shown in Table 11-2. All of these lawsuits ended with the victory of theplaintiff consisting of affected residents.
In the political sphere, two conservative parties merged to become the
Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in 1955, which has dominated Japanese politics ever since. The LDP lost the prime minister’s seat from 1993 to 1996, but
subsequently regained it. This political situation, with the powerful and conservative LDP and weak opposition parties, has been called the “1955 Regime.” Inmany senses, the LDP is much like the Seiyukai Party in the prewar period. Its
support base is rural. The LDP distributes public money for rural investment
and farm subsidies. With the coming of Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka (inoffice during 1972-74), the LDP’s ruling style characterized by rural money
politics for winning votes became firmly established, and it still continues
today. Many LDP politicians want to continue building Shinkansen (bullet
trains) routes and highways despite the severe budget crisis.
In comparison with prewar politics punctuated by dramatic power
shifts and frequent crises, the postwar political structure in general and the 1955
Regime in particular have been highly static (Banno, 2004). The absence of an
opposition party with sufficient capability to run a government, such as the
Minsei Party in the prewar period, partly explains this. In a situation where noserious political competition existed, the LDP delegated national security issues
to the maintenance of good relationship with the United States and the assurance of the US military umbrella, and confined domestic political agenda tosuch socio-economic issues as growth, trade negotiations, environmental protection and social security. This led to the political regime in which serious
debates and power shifts rarely occurred. Recent political events suggest that
21st century Japan may move gradually toward the two-party system, but its
realization is far from certain.

178

The High Growth Era

Soichiro Honda: A Postwar Business Hero
Postwar Japan produced many business heroes. Among them, Soichiro Honda(founder of Honda Motor Company), Konosuke Matsushita (founder of Matsushita
Electric Industrial Company, with brand names National and Panasonic) and Masaru
Ibuka and Akio Morita (founders of Sony) are particularly famous. They were all
engineer-type inventors, who began in a tiny factory with a great vision and desire to
produce new and better products to conquer the Japanese—and world—market. They
encountered a number of failures and hardships but persevered until great success wasreached. They were driven by the unquenchable monozukuri (making things) spirit,
not by high salaries, quarterly profits or balance sheets. After building a business
empire, each of them became interested in the non-business world, including education, culture, the environment and economic diplomacy.
Soichiro Honda was a son of a blacksmith in Shizuoka. When he was a boy, helearned the techniques of bellowing, using furnaces, andcasting from his father. From early on, he was crazy aboutmechanics. When his father opened a bicycle shop, Soichiro
helped him as a repairman.
After finishing secondary school, Soichiro worked foran automobile repair company. After six years, he was promoted to head the company’s Hamamatsu branch when he
was twenty-one. He was not satisfied with just repairing
automobiles, so he started to experiment to create new parts.

Soichiro Honda (1906-1991)

In those days, virtually all cars were imported, and domestic production of parts wasan important goal for the industry. Soichiro tried to produce piston rings, a crucial
engine part, by himself but it was not easy. After realizing that experience must be
supplemented by theory, he studied metallurgical and mechanical engineering at
Hamamatsu Technical School.
After the war defeat, Soichiro established a new company to produce motorbikes
which later became Honda Giken Kogyo (Honda Motor Company). Honda’s firstmotorbikes, the Dream (146cc) and the Cub (50cc), were big hits. Around 1954,
Honda faced a crisis due to fierce competition and technical problems with its products, but the crisis was overcome by the efforts of Takeo Fujisawa, the competent179

Chapter 11

marketing manager.
Soichiro wanted to enter—and win—the Tourist Trophy (TT), an international
motorbike race in Britain. He created a special team to manufacture a powerful
motorbike for this race. In 1959, Honda first participated in the TT; and in 1961,
Honda achieved complete victory by winning 1st to 5th prizes in both 125cc and250cc classes. At the same time, Honda introduced the Super Cub, a popular 50cc
motorbike with an efficient engine. It became an even bigger hit with consumers.
In the 1960s, Honda began to produce automobiles. This move was accelerated
by the MITI’s plan to consolidate Japanese auto makers to compete with America. If
this policy was implemented, newcomers like Honda would be excluded, so Honda
rushed to enter this market. The first popular small car, the N360, sold well but waslater criticized as defective.
In 1970, a tough environmental law was enacted in the United States requiring
automobiles to drastically reduce emissions. Honda became the first auto maker in theworld to clear this standard in 1972 with its newly invented CVCC engine. This
proved that Honda had the highest technology in automobiles as well as in motorbikes. It also stimulated the other Japanese auto manufacturers to produce fuel-efficient, low-emission cars.
Let us quote some words of Soichiro Honda.
“The presidents of this company have all been unruly and unpredictable, including
myself.” “So all of you must work very hard to support the company.” (addressing to thecompany staff at Honda’s 35th Anniversary, 1983)“All presidents raised issues with me. A president who doesn’t do that is useless.” (recalling the time when Presidents Kume and Kawamoto both advocated a water-cooled system
when Soichiro insisted on an air-cooled system, in developing the CVCC engine)“Don’t be a victim of the company. You must work in order to enjoy your own life.” (tonew recruits)“Everyone dreams and hopes for a success. I believe a success comes only 1 percent of
the time, supported by the 99 percent of failures. The final success is attained by challenging the new world with a pioneer spirit and after the repeated use of failures, reflection
and courage.” (at the time of receiving an Honorary Doctor’s Degree from the Michigan
Institute of Technology, 1974)“It’s OK. Your greasy hand is good. I very much like the smell of grease.” (when a worker tried to shake hands with Soichiro and, realizing his greasy hand, quickly withdrew it)

180

The High Growth Era

Sources: Miyamoto, 1999; Honda Soichiro Study Group, eds, The Anaclets of
Honda Soichiro, Shogakukan, 1998.

181

Economic Maturity and
Slowdown

Crazy Prices – Consumers rushed to supermarkets to stock up tissue paper and toilet paper, in Minato-ku, Tokyo, 1973.

Chapter 12

Japan’s high growth came to an end in the early 1970s. Subsequently,
the annual growth rate fell to an average of about 4 percent in the 1970s and
80s, and further down to near zero in the 1990s. The government called this“stable growth.” Why did growth slow down in the early 1970s?
One important fact that we should keep in mind is that this growth
slowdown was common to all industrial countries, including those in North
America and Western Europe. Therefore, the reasons for slowdown must havebeen at least partly global, although domestic factors may also have played arole. In addition, inflation accelerated in all industrial countries in the 1970s.
This also points to a globally common cause. Let us look at the domestic andinternational causes of Japan’s slowdown, respectively.

1. The end of catching up
On the domestic side, transition to lower growth was natural andinevitable because the Japanese economy had caught up with the US and European economies and matured. During the catching up process, a developing
country can (selectively) import technology and new systems which exist in thedeveloped world. But when you become part of the developed world, you can
no longer copy others but must create something new in order to grow. Naturally, clearing your own path is harder and slower than following someone else’spath.
In terms of per capita GNP (measured in actual dollars, not in PPP
dollars—see below), the income ratio between Japan and the US was 1 to 14 in
1950, 1 to 6 in 1960, and 1 to 2.5 in 1970. This narrowing of the bilateralincome gap was the result of Japan’s much faster growth compared with the
US. After the 1970s, the fluctuation of the yen/dollar exchange rate began to
disturb this income comparison. The income ratio was 1 to 1.3 in 1980 and 1 to
0.93 in 1990, which means Japanese income was temporarily higher than US
income in that year. But since Japanese prices were in general much higher thanin the US, this does not necessarily mean the Japanese people had attained ahigher living standard than the Americans in 1990.
To make adjustments for different price levels, the concept of purchasing power parity (PPP) is used. The same amount of money can buy much

184

Economic Maturity and Slowdown

Figure 12-1 The Ratio of Households Owning Consumer Durables(%)
100
B&W TV
Color TV

80 WashingmachineAutomobile
60
Air-conditioner
40
Refrig-erator
20

2000

1995

1990

1985

1980

1975

1970

1965

1960

1955

0

Sources: Cabinet Office, Trends in Household Consumption, 2003, and others.

in countries with low prices and only a little in countries with high prices. Consumers in China, where prices are low, could enjoy much higher living standards than consumers in Japan, where prices are high, if they had the same
income measured in a common currency. The real income of Japanese consumers must therefore be discounted by the extent that Japanese prices are higher than Chinese. This adjustment is necessary to compare income and living
standards across countries correctly. Measured by this PPP criteria, Japan’s per
capita income surpassed that of Italy in 1966 and that of Britain around 1975.
Japan did not overtake the US, West Germany or France but came close to themby the mid-1970s. Thus, it can be said that Japan was firmly in the highest
income group by the 1970s.
Another way to measure income is by affordability of consumer
durables. It took 10.7 months of average salary to buy a new car (the basicmodel of Toyota Corrola) in 1966, but Japanese workers had to work only 4.0
months to buy a car in 1974. In 1991, a new car could be had after 2.4 monthsof working. By the mid-1970s, virtually all Japanese households were equippedwith washing machines, refrigerators, vacuum cleaners, telephones and colorTVs (automobiles and air-conditioners were not as widely owned because they
were not considered necessary for some households).

185

Chapter 12

2. The oil shocks in 1973-74 and 1979-80
On the external side, there were two major economic shocks in the
1970s which were common to all countries: the oil shocks and the beginning ofgeneral floating of major currencies. These are now examined more closely.
The price of crude oil was low and stable for a long time in the post
WW2 period. But in autumn 1973, the Organization of Petroleum ExportingCountries (OPEC) decided to raise it dramatically from $2 to $11 per barrel andreduced their export volume to industrial countries by about 10 percent. The oil
price was again raised to about $30 per barrel in 1979-80. Both of these priceincreases were associated with the political and military situations in the Middle
East. The first oil shock was the result of the Fourth Middle Eastern War andthe second was in response to the Iranian Revolution.
The OECD countries depended heavily on imported oil with the average import ratio of 67 percent of domestic use. However, Japan’s foreign oil
dependency, at 99.7 percent, was particularly high. In Japan, the first oil shockcaused both wholesale prices and consumer prices to surge beyond what could
be explained only by the oil impact. Between these prices, wholesale prices rose
faster. People were thrown into panic and tried to hoard as many daily necessities as possible, such as toilet paper, soap and kerosene. But this stocking
behavior collectively led to empty shelves in supermarkets, although the flow
supply was sufficient to cover the flow demand. Seeing empty shelves, people
panicked even more. Shortages also spread from consumer goods to industrial
inputs. Speculative hoarding by traders was suspected of further accelerating
the price increase. This phenomenon was called kyoran bukka (crazy prices). In
1974, Japan registered its first negative growth (-0.8 percent) in the postwar
period. “Stagflation” was the term that economists used to describe the simultaneous occurrence of recession and high inflation.
On close examination, however, the money supply was increasing
rapidly and inflation was already accelerating in the early 1970s, prior to thefirst oil shock. This was due to the Bank of Japan’s foreign exchange intervention to support the dollar (buying dollar assets from the market in exchange foryen assets). The receipt of yen assets by the private sector had the effect ofpushing up the Japanese money supply. Moreover, expansionary fiscal policy

186

Economic Maturity and Slowdown

Figure 12-2 Money Supply and Inflation(%)
35
Consumer prices
Wholesale prices
Money supply (M2+CD)

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
65

70

75

80

85

90

95

00

Sources: Bank of Japan, Financial and Economics Statistics Handbook;and Ministry of Public Management, Consumer Price Indices, various issues.

fueled the inflation in the early 1970s. This was caused by Prime Minister
Kakuei Tanaka’s “Japanese Archipelago Rebuilding Plan,” announced in 1972,
which called for massive public investment to construct highways andShinkansen railways to connect rural areas with urban centers. Fiscal activism
created an economic boom and land speculation became rampant along the proposed routes of large-scale transportation projects.
However, in the wake of the first oil shock and “crazy prices,” Tanaka’s “Rebuilding Plan” had to be abandoned. Monetary policy was also gradually tightened. The Bank of Japan was severely criticized for causing high inflation, and in response, it became more “monetarist.” The Bank of Japan began totarget monetary growth to avoid inflation as the monetarist school of macroeconomics teaches.
As a part of structural reform, the government tried to reduce energy
consumption of Japan and promote “rationalization” (i.e. downsizing and closure) of energy-intensive industries, including paper and aluminum refining.
The national campaign was launched to turn off unnecessary lights, set theroom temperature lower in winter and higher in summer, and discourage commercial neon signs. However, substantial energy saving would require an over-187

Chapter 12

all improvement of energy efficiency, not just turning off lights more frequently. This would take time since new technology and capital investment wererequired. In this regard, Japan’s effort to economize energy relative to economic activity turned out to be brilliantly successful in the long run. By the early
1980s, Japan became the most efficient energy user among industrial countries.
The Japanese automobile companies also succeeded in mass producing energyefficient cars, many of which were exported to overseas markets, especially to
the US (see the story of Soichiro Honda in the box of chapter 11).
Compared with the first oil shock of 1973-74, the second oil shock of
1979-80 had a relatively minor impact on the Japanese economy. Inflation rose,
but not very much, and the economy continued to grow.

3. Cause or effect?
Economists debated the nature of the oil shocks. There were two diametrically opposed interpretations, and the debate still remains unresolved. Jeffrey Sachs, Michael Bruno and Barry Bosworth took the position of the supply
shock view. Hans Genberg, Alexander Swoboda and Ronald McKinnon supported the global monetarist view.
The supply shock view: the first—and perhaps more popular—view of theoil shocks says that they were supply shocks caused by OPEC’s politicalpower. As the oil price was raised exogenously, the aggregate supply curve(in the starndard macroeconomics textbook)1 shifted up and to the left. This
led to higher prices and lower output, namely, “stagflation.” Additionally,
aggressive wage increases demanded by trade unions further contributed to
global inflation. According to this view, the world had to solve its supply
side problems, including energy shortages and wage rigidity, to stablize thesituation.

1

In the graph measuring the price level vertically and income horizontally, a downward-sloping
aggregate demand curve is derived from the IS-LM analysis, representing the demand side of
the national economy. Similarly, an upward-sloping aggregate supply curve is constructed fromthe supply side using the production function and the labor market. Equilibrium is found wherethese two curves intersect. An oil shock, if it is to be regarded as a supply shock, shifts theaggregate supply curve upward to the left. The equilibrium point moves in such a way that theprice level rises and income declines.

188

Economic Maturity and Slowdown

The global monetarist view: the alternative view argues that the high inflation was caused by global monetary expansion, which in turn was caused by
the breakdown of the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system. As theJapanese and European central banks tried to buy up dollars to prevent
sharp appreciation of their currencies against the dollar during 1971-73, themoney supply was increased in all major countries. Global excess liquidity
ignited commodity price inflation even before the first oil shock occurred.
The oil shock was the final result and not the cause of high inflation, which
was generated by the oversupply of global money. OPEC is always aggressive, but attempt to raise the oil price succeeds only when there is too muchglobal liquidity. Thus, the stagflation in the 1970s should be explained by
the instability of the international monetary system.

4. Floating of major currencies
The Bretton Woods system (1944-71) was a dollar-based and UScentered fixed exchange rate system. It achieved unprecedented global pricestability, high growth and trade liberalization from the 1950s onward. But thesystem began to show strain in the mid-1960s.
As the US, the center country, began to adopt an expansionary macroeconomic stance, global inflation emerged in the late 1960s. There was downward pressure on the dollar and corresponding upward pressure on gold and theEuropean and Japanese currencies in the foreign exchange market. In August
1971, US President Richard Nixon finally announced that the US dollar was nolonger to be fixed to gold and, with this announcement, the dollar began tofloat. But the Bank of Japan and the central banks in Europe intervened massively to purchase the dollar to avoid the appreciation of their currencies (appreciation meant the loss of export competitiveness of that country). From 1971 to
1973, the world tried to re-peg the major currencies at new exchange parities,
but the effort failed. Under severe speculative attacks, the world entered into an
era of floating major currencies in early 1973.
The general floating of major currencies has continued to this date.
Soon, it was discovered that a pure float was too volatile and injurious tonational economies. In 1985, the Group of Five (G5)—the US, Japan, West189

Chapter 12

Germany, France, and the UK—jointly intervened to lower the overvalued dollar (the Plaza Agreement). In 1987, the Group of Seven (G7)—G5 plus Italy
and Canada—again intervened to stabilize the dollar at a lower level (the Louvre Accord). Since then, such joint interventions have been tried occasionally tocorrect extreme currency movements. Among major central banks, the Bank ofJapan has been particularly averse to excessive yen appreciation and often intervened unilaterally to prop up the dollar (by buying dollars and selling yen). This
has resulted in rapid accumulation of international reserves to the highest levelin the world. Meanwhile, European countries continued to push toward regionalmonetary union since the 1970s. The historical achievement was completed
when the euro was created in 1999 and its paper notes and coins began to circulate in 2002.
The Japanese economy is particularly vulnerable to the fluctuation of
the yen/dollar exchange rate for several reasons. First, the yen is a lone floater
as there is no yen zone in Asia—unlike the euro area in Europe or the global
dollar zone for the US. Second, most of Japan’s trade and virtually all of its
financial transactions are conducted in dollars. Third, Japan, as the largest creditor country, has accumulated a huge amount of unhedged dollar assets which
are concentrated in US government bills and bonds, and whose values depreciate whenever the dollar falls. Fourth, Japanese industries exhibit relatively low
exchange pass-through (the degree of domestic price response to exchange
fluctuations) and their products contain relatively high domestic value-added.
When the yen appreciates, their yen-denominated costs also rise almost proportionately, leading to the loss of competitiveness. As a result, Japanese output
and investment stagnate, prices and wages are suppressed, and financial strain
is created. This situation is called endaka fukyo, or high yen-induced recession.

5. Delayed systemic reform?
Some economists argue that the Japanese economic system of the
1950s and 60s, based on long-term stable relationships, such as the main banksystem, lifetime employment, seniority wages and administrative guidance,
became obsolete by the 1970s. This system functioned well while the country
was in the catching up process, but was no longer appropriate for a more mature

190

Economic Maturity and Slowdown

industrial society. According to them, Japan should have shifted toward a moremarket-based, less officially guided system during the 1970s.
But two large macroeconomic shocks of oil price hikes and floating
major currencies intervened, and the Japanese government was forced to tackle
these problems instead of concentrating on systemic transformation. Moreover,trade friction with the West intensified (next section), which further diverted
national attention. As a result, the Japanese economy has retained many legacies of the catching-up process, such as over-regulation and the lack of incentives for innovation. This has become an institutional barrier for Japan’s further
development.
This is one popular view. However, there is an alternative view thatcautions against admiring the US-type free economy uncritically. The advocatesof this view assert that Japan’s transition to a freer market economy, if it is tobe done, must be implemented carefully and selectively, without throwing away
desirable Japanese features including long-term perspective, teamwork, themonozukuri (making things) spirit, and the balanced sense of efficiency andequity.

6. Trade friction with the US
Japan’s main external problem in the 1950s to mid-1960s was how to
suppress an emerging trade deficit. Phrases like “balance of payments ceiling”
and “stop-go policy” discussed in chapter 11 reflect this problem. However,around the mid-1960s, the problem changed 180 degrees—Japan now had to
reduce the rising trade surplus as a national priority. The trade surplus waspolitically undesirable because it angered the US, especially the US Congress
and industrial lobbies. In the 1980s, Japan began to record the largest trade surplus and the US had the largest trade deficit in the world, year after year. Furthermore, the size of Japan’s surplus and that of the American deficit were similar. Japanese saving was used to finance American overspending, and that
became the largest financial flow in the world economy.
The history of Japan’s trade friction with the US (and, to a lesser
extent, with Western Europe) is long and highly politicized. It began in the
1960s, when Japan was exporting cheap textile products (the “one-dollar

191

Chapter 12

blouse”) to the US market. Japan was forced to adopt “voluntary” export quotas
on its textiles. After that, one by one, a series of Japanese goods came underattack: steel, TVs, metalworking machines, automobiles, video players, semiconductors, and so on. From the 1980s, in addition to the pressure to export
less, the US also began to demand that Japan buy more American goods,
including farm products like orange and beef, automobile parts, and construction and financial services. The US also argued that the Japanese economic system was inefficient and closed to imports and must be reformed. What started
as complaints on individual products thus spread to the universal criticism of
the economic system of America’s major trading partner.
The idea that the US trade deficit was caused by Japan’s trade surplus, and that its reduction required bilateral diplomatic negotiations, wasbehind the tough stance of the US trade negotiators. But was this view correct?
Ronald McKinnon of Stanford University and the author refuted this view by
presenting the hypothesis of the Syndrome of the Ever-Higher Yen (McKinnon
and Ohno, 1997). It stated that neither exchange rate adjustments nor bilateral
trade talks could “correct” the bilateral trade imbalance and, if implemented,
they would only cause new problems. This view was in the minority in the US
but had a broad support among Japanese businesses, officials and economists(see Komiya’s argument at the end of this chapter). More specifically, thehypothesis argued as follows.
(1) Every five to seven years when the US trade deficit with Japan
becomes politically intolerable, the US demands two things: (i) the yen
must be appreciated; and (ii) Japan must buy more from and sell less to
the US. This situation occurred in 1971-73, 1977-78, 1985-87, and1993-95. As the US high officials (usually the Secretary of the Treasury, sometimes even the President) talk up the yen, the yen sharply
appreciates and the trade tension rises between Japan and the US.
(2) But this policy reaction only destabilizes the Japanese and Asian
economies without solving the US trade deficit problem. The US
deficit is a long-term, structural problem caused by the savings shortage of the American government and households. Currency adjustments or trade talks cannot remove this US-made problem. The fundamental solution must come from an American domestic policy to curb

192

Economic Maturity and Slowdown

consumption and encourage saving.
(3) Japan should open up its economy and accept more imports fromdeveloping countries, not just from the US, and more FDI from abroad.
This would give a strong impetus to Japan’s microeconomic and structural reforms. However, it might have little impact on Japan’s tradebalance which is basically determined by the savings-investment relationship at the macro level2. Japan and the US should conclude bilateral agreements to (i) solve trade disputes at the micro or sectoral level(or take them to the WTO); and (ii) stabilize the yen/dollar exchange
rate at the level consistent with purchasing power parity.
Since the 1990s, the bilateral policy pattern between the US andJapan has evolved further. In the mid- to late 1990s, the US economy was soaring with an IT boom and an asset bubble, while the Japanese economy wasstagnant. The usual US demand to open up Japan and appreciate the yen was inrecess, even though the Japan-US trade gap remained very large. It was fearedthat a further destabilization of the already weak Japanese economy would
damage the world as well as the US economy3. In particular, the collapse ofJapanese financial institutions would have an adverse effect on the international
financial system. Since 2004, however, the Japanese economy has shown a signof recovery. With it, the reason for the US to give Japan a breathing space isalso disappearing.
In the late 1990s, some Japanese officials and economists argued for a
sharp depreciation of the yen to boost the lackluster economy, since fiscal andmonetary stimuli have all failed. However, there is a partner to the exchange
2

3

Denoting exports by X, imports by M, savings by S, and investment by I, the current accountcan be written X – M = S – I using the national income identity. In words, the current account isequal to the gap between the nation’s savings and investment. While the current account is thesum of the trade balance, the service account (including cross-border payments of wages andinterest) and the transfer account (official grants and private remittances), the difference
between the current account and the trade balance was small and stable for Japan. For this reason, the two terms are used interchangeably in this chapter.
In executing economic policies, the US government traditionally abhors an upward movementof long-term dollar interest rates and a decline of the Wall Street stock index, both of which aresupposed to dampen investment and consumption and reduce economic growth. Lower economic growth bodes ill for the next election. When such a risk is suspected, the US often softened or
postponed its demands on the Japanese side.

193

Chapter 12

rate. If Japan and the US both desired a yen depreication, that would be fine.
But if the two countries disagreed on whether or how much the yen should fall,
or if each wanted a depreciation of its currency against the other, the outcome
would become highly uncertain. In reality, despite the hope of driving the yen
down, the yen actually strengthened against the dollar in 2003 and 2004. In themean time, the US government continued to send very ambiguous signals on
the desired movement of the dollar. It repeated that the strong dollar policy
would be maintained but the exchange rate should be deterimined by the market.
Another important fact is that China has overtaken Japan as thelargest trade surplus country vis-à-vis the US around the year 2000 and, as aconsequence, trade friction similar to what Japan experienced in the past has
emerged between China and the US. As long as the American savings shortage
remained unresolved, some other country would be obliged to provide a sufficiently large trade surplus (i.e. international lending) for the US, if Japan were
not to do it. China has begun to have skirmishes with the US over human rights,
intellectual property rights, and other commitments made at the time of WTO
accession. Moreover, as predicted from the hypothesis of the Syndrome of theEver-Higher Yen, the US now strongly demands an appreciation of the Chinese
renminbi (RMB) to “correct its gross undervaluation” and diminish Chinesecompetitiveness. Since China is still a developing economy with tight capital
control, the situation is not exactly the same as Japan. But it can be said thatcurrency management under mounting US political pressure has now become
one of the major policy questions for the Chinese monetary authorities.
In July 2005, China revalued the RMB by two percent and officially
moved from the fixed exchange rate system to the basket currency system withunannounced basket contents. However, the actual mode of currency management did not change significantly. The RMB still remains virtually fixed to thedollar and its speed of crawl has been very slow at the time of this writing (late2005). In light of China’s unbending inclination toward gradualism, this is quite
expectable. How soon and by how much the RMB will start to fluctuate bymarket forces remains an open question.
Earlier, Japan was the target of global criticism because it was toostrong. Since the 1990s, Japan has been weak and stopped drawing much atten-

194Economic Maturity and Slowdown

Figure 12-3 US Bilateral Trade Balances with Japan and China(% of US GDP)
2.0
Sum of two
surpluses
1.5Japan’s trade surplus
with US

1.0
0.5
0.0
China’s trade
surplus with US
-0.5
1955

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

00

Source: US Census Bureau.

tion from foreign governments. This change is described as “Japan bashing”
turning to “Japan passing.” The Japanese like self-depreciation and are very
sensitive to how others perceive them.

7. Fiscal expansion and consolidation—andexpansion again
During the high growth period of the late 1950s to 60s, the central
government budget was generally sound. It was in surplus and no government
bonds were issued until 1965. But in the mid to late 1970s, fiscal expansion tostimulate the economy was re-activated, financed by the issuance of new government bonds. These bonds were initially of 10-year maturity but bonds withshorter maturities were also issued later. Public debt quickly accumulated.
In the 1980s, the Japanese Ministry of Finance started an initiative forfiscal consolidation. A tighter budget and bold expenditure cuts were targeted.
Fiscal and administrative reforms were proposed and partly carried out. The
Second Ad Hoc Commission on Administrative Reform (Dai Ni Rincho, 198183), an official advisory organ headed by former Keidanren President Toshio
Doko, recommended expenditure cuts without tax increases for fiscal consoli-

195Chapter 12

dation. His recommendations also included greater international contributions
through increased ODA and military spending, reduction of healthcare costs,
and private-sector initiatives. Mr. Doko himself was a man of self-disciplineand modest living. He ate only a small dried fish for breakfast, thus setting an
example for the government to follow.
Subsequently, the Maekawa Report (1986-87) was prepared by theAdvisory Group on Economic Structural Adjustment for International Harmony, a private group advising Prime Minister Nakasone headed by former Bankof Japan Governor Haruo Maekawa. It recommended expansionary fiscal andmonetary policies to boost domestic demand, economic deregulation, andreduction of the trade surplus to avoid friction with the US. His low interest rate
policy was later criticized as causing an asset bubble. In addition, Prof. Ryutaro
Komiya severely criticized Mr. Maekawa’s recommendation for a trade surplus
reduction, arguing that the surplus was a macroeconomic phenomenon whichshould be left to market forces (see the box below).
Thanks to the efforts of the Ministry of Finance and the asset bubble
in the late 1980s, the fiscal balance gradually improved. Howerver, with the
bubble burst in 1990-91, the Japanese economy plunged into a long recession.
A series of fiscal stimuli were tried in increasingly large amounts in the 1990s
and public debt began to accumulate again.

196

Economic Maturity and Slowdown

Prof. Komiya and the Japan-US trade friction
Prof. Ryutaro Komiya (1928-) is one of the most prominent economists in Japan.
After graduating from Tokyo University, he conducted research at Harvard University, Stanford University and Aoyama Gakuin University, among others. He was a professor as well as the Dean of the Faculty of Economics at Tokyo University. He also
served as the President of the MITI’s Research Institute of Economy, Trade andIndustry (RIETI).
Prof. Komiya’s main research area is international economics. In addition to theoretical works, he has written many books which criticized the policies of the Bank ofJapan and the Japanese and US governments. In his 1994 book, Economics of Trade
Surplus and Deficit, he flatly dismissed the idea that Japan’s trade surplus was generated by the closed nature of Japanese markets. He argued that the trade gap was fundamentally a macroeconomic phenomenon of the savings-investment balance. He
asserted that, unless the US adopted internal policies to increase its own saving rate,
no trade negotiation or exchange rate manipulation would “resolve” the trade gap
issue. He also criticized the Maekawa Report as completely misguided. This view isquite close to the Hypothesis of the Syndrome of the Ever-Higher Yen of McKinnon
and Ohno (1997) presented in the main text.
Here are some excerpts from his book:
Let me reflect on why I am writing this book. My current position is roughly as follows. For more than a decade since around 1983, Japan’s huge current account surplus and America’s huge deficit—or Japan’s trade surplus with the US—have been acause of economic “friction” between the two countries. Against this trade surplus ofJapan, the US has aggressively demanded that we reduce the surplus and open up theJapanese market.
To me, first of all, these demands for reducing the surplus and opening the markets—or more precisely, the ideas behind these demands—seem extremely illogical andunreasonable. Japan’s response to the US in the so-called Maekawa Report in 1986
was also highly inappropriate.
Second, from the viewpoint of economics, the debate over the bilateral current
account imbalance is full of elementary mistakes. Stupidity and nonsense rule thisdebate. And I believe it is my mission as an economist to correct such mistakes andnonsense.

197

Chapter 12

Third, I consider myself an internationalist and not a nationalist, and I am proud of it.
But I cannot endure the situation where Japan is unduly criticized by the international
community based on misunderstanding, prejudice and malice. I want to refute such
criticisms and correct these misguided ideas. (pp.3-4)———————————————————————————————
Recently, there is a re-emergence of the idea that yen appreciation can reduce Japan’s
trade surplus. But this idea is fundamentally mistaken. The exchange rate can adjust
only the cyclical part of the surplus, if that. In a floating exchange rate system, the(real) exchange rate is endogenous [determined by the interaction of many variables]
and cannot be manipulated to an arbitrary level. (p.106)———————————————————————————————
In general, the impact of the real exchange rate (in other words, the terms of trade) on
savings and investment is ambiguous... As a first approximation, I propose to presume that the terms of trade has no direct relationship with the trends of S [saving]and I [investment] in each economy... Existing theoretical and empirical studies onsavings have not considered the effects of changes in relative prices or the terms oftrade on the trend of savings, because such an inquiry is theoretically a very remoteone. (pp.180-181)

198

The Bubble Burst andRecession

The bankruptcy of Yamaichi Securities – President Nozawa announces the decision to voluntarily close the operation in apress conference, 1997.

Chapter 13

1. The lost decade and the debate over reforms
Japan experienced an asset bubble in the late 1980s. As the bubble
burst around 1990, the Japanese economy entered a long period of deflation andrecession. Growth slowed down and sometimes became even negative. For the
first time in the postwar period, prices declined persistently. Economic statistics
remained gloomy and, more importantly, consumers and producers became
extremely pessimistic. Some said that Japan was still a very high income country. Others said that sources of the next growth were being prepared under the
disguise of recession and pointed to some companies that were doing very well.
But overall, it can hardly be denied that Japan’s economic performance in the
1990s and the early 2000s was less than expected.
The 1990s is sometimes called the Lost Decade for Japan. Naturally,
the main topic for Japanese economists was why this recession continued andwhat should be done to end it. The key policy issue seemed to be whether or notbold reform measures should be taken at a time when the economy was stagnant. Some argue that painful reforms were necessary precisely when we faceda recession. Others argued that such reforms should not be carried out underbad economic conditions. But there may be other important issues than this.
The government of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi (2001-) is trying to push “reforms” forward. These include privatization of post offices, putting a stop to over-generous highway construction, pension reform, local government reform, and of course, bank reform. The worsening of the economic
condition in 2001 due to the global IT recession and the terrorist impact
increased opposition to the Koizumi initiative. In 2003 and 2004, economic
indicators began to pick up and momentum for reforms was revived. In 2005,
the bill for privatizing post offices was passed through the Diet after Mr. Koizumi ousted his opponents from his party in a high-handed political maneuver—and people seemed to support Mr. Koizumi strongly.
It is too early to judge whether these reform efforts really amount to ahistorical milestone. But it is possible to raise another question—are thesereforms sufficient to revitalize the Japanese society? Mr. Koizumi’s initiatives
are concentrated in domestic administrative reforms to shrink the size of thegovernment. That is certainly important, but what about the other goal of200

The Bubble Burst and Recession

improving competitiveness of the private sector in the age of globalization? The
current government seems to lack leadership and vision in international economic policy. Such crucial issues as building a productive relationship with
China, active engagement in WTO and FTAs, revitalization of the East Asian
production network, and the way to cope with weak domestic industries underglobal competition, are not given proper direction. Their management is now
left to the operational handling of individual bureaucrats in charge, instead ofbeing guided consistently from the top. A slimmer and more efficient government is fine, but Japan’s rejuvenation will not be possible if the dynamism of its
industries and agriculture remain suppressed.
Another problem is the convoluted relationship between the Prime
Minister and the ruling party. While Mr. Koizumi is pro-reform, his party, theLiberal Democratic Party (LDP), is mostly and traditionally anti-reform. This is
expectable since the LDP’s power has depended so much on distributing money
to rural precincts. Using pre-war terminology, Mr. Koizumi is trying to implement Minsei Party policies as a leader of the Seiyukai-like party (see chapter 9).
But because Mr. Koizumi is popular among people, old LDP politicians are
obliged to “support” him to secure votes, although they disagree with his policies. Mr. Koizumi in turn stays with the LDP to take advantage of its organization and influence. Thus, it is not very clear what message the voters are sending to the government when they support the LDP: is it pro-reform or antireform?

2. The occurrence of the asset bubble
The Japanese stock price index began to rise in the early 1980s andcontinued to rise to more than five times the 1980 level. Then, from 1990 it
started a long period of decline with medium-term fluctuations. The Japaneseland prices also rose throughout the 1980s. The average land price more thandoubled. The turning point for land prices came one year later than the stock
market, in 1991. Since then, the land price index has continued to decline.
Urban land prices rose more and fell harder in comparison with rural land
prices.
There are two alternative views regarding the cause of the asset bubble.

201

Chapter 13

Figure 13-1 Nikkei 225 Stock Index Average

1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004

(Yen)
45000
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0

Source: Nihon Keizai Shimbunsha (Japan Economic Journal).

Figure 13-2 Urban Land Price Index(1982 = 100)

400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50

1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004

0

Source: Japan Real Estate Institute.

The first view argues that the bubble was caused structurally throughbank deregulation. Previously, Japanese banks were tightly regulated by the
Ministry of Finance. There was little incentive to innovate, but as long as thebanks remained in this regime, they were assured of an adequate profit marginand protected against bankruptcy. But this system was removed in the early
1980s. As competition began, banks lost the “rents” and “franchise value” of202The Bubble Burst and Recession

being a bank (i.e. extra profits given to a (protected) bank). At the same time,large corporate customers moved away from bank borrowing toward otherfinancing, including retained profits, corporate bond issuance and access tointernational financial markets. As the Japanese banks lost large corporate customers, they rushed to find new—and more risky—borrowers and projects suchas small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and land and property investment(especially urban office buildings and rural resort development). But the Japanese banks lacked the ability to correctly evaluate these new borrowers and projects. When the economy was booming in the late 1980s, they over-lent. Business strategy tends to be less careless when the economy booms and problems
are concealed. When the bubble ended, these loans became a huge mountain of
bad debt (Yoshitomi, 1998).
The second view, which is perhaps more popular, is basically a monetary explanation of the bubble. It simply says that easy money in the late 1980s
caused the asset bubble. In 1985 there was a sharp yen appreciation, and the
Bank of Japan lowered short-term interest rates and eased money in response.
The Bank of Japan’s policy reaction function (how it decides its policy) is suchthat traditionally, monetary policy becomes expansionary at the time of yen
appreciation or domestic recession. The Bank of Japan’s action in 1985 andbeyond was in accordance with this rule. Many blame the Bank of Japan, especially Governor Satoshi Sumita, for easing too much and for too long. But sinceprice inflation was close to zero at that time, the Bank of Japan could not find agood reason to tighten money and end the asset price increase everyone was
enjoying. This was a signaling problem: when asset prices rise but goods prices
remain stable, is liquidity excessive or not? The data shows that the growth ofbroad money (M2+CD) accelerated to more than 10 percent during 1987-89.
This seemed a little too high for an economy growing at about 4 percent. Fromthe end of 1999, the new Bank of Japan Governor Yasushi Mieno deliberately
tightened money and raised interest rates. This quickly ended the bubble. Somecriticized Mr. Mieno for his brutality, but could the bubble have gone on forever? It had to end some time, and perhaps the sooner the better.
These two explanations are not mutually exclusive. Bank deregulation explains why reckless projects began to be financed at first and monetary
expansion explains why this bubble continued for so long. They are structural

203

Chapter 13

and macroeconomic reasons, respectively, which together caused the rise andfall of the asset bubble.
During the late 1980s, which was the rising phase of the bubble,
many queer phenomena were observed.
・ Those who owned land became very rich and those who didn’t had little
chance of buying their home. This increased the sense of inequality andsocial injustice.
・ Enriched people purchased luxury goods and consumed expensive dresses
and food. They traveled all over the world to spend money—a parallelwith the narikin during WW1.
・ Since vacant land, which was easier to sell, was more valuable than built
land, the yakuza (Japanese mafia) was mobilized to demolish buildings
illegally and force owners to sell the land. Sometimes the yakuza drove atruck into a house to destroy it.
・ Too many office towers were built in urban areas. They stood empty formany years to follow.
・ A large number of amusement parks and resort hotels were developed. The
only hugely successful amusement park in Japan remains Tokyo Disneyland. All others got into financial trouble and many of them are now
closed. Some of them are operating under financial distress with a new
management: for example, Huis ten Bosch (Dutch theme park in Nagasaki), Phoenix Seagaia Resort (seaside complex in Miyazaki), and Alpha
Resort Tomamu (winter sports resort in Hokkaido).
・ A large number of male construction workers from the Middle East, especially Iran, came to work in Japan. Some of them had work permits but
others were illegal. Every weekend they gathered in Ueno Park in Tokyo
to enjoy themselves and exchange information.
But after the bubble burst, these phenomena all disappeared.

3. The decade-long recession and deflation
GDP statistics and the industrial production index reveal that businessconditions were not uniformly poor during the lost decade. The Japanese economy declined three times, in 1992-93 after the initial bust of the bubble, in 1997-

204

The Bubble Burst and Recession

Figure 13-3 GDP and Industrial Production(%)
15
Bubble Bursts

Real GDP
Nominal GDP

10

Industrial production
5

0

-5

-10
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04
Sources: Cabinet Office, and Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.

98 following the consumption tax hike and banking crisis, and in 2001 amid the
US and global IT recession. However, economic performance in intervening
periods was not so bad. There were times when the Japanese economy appeared
to recover. But each time, the recovery was short-lived. The three troughs andintervening mini-recoveries are also clearly visible from other statistics such asmachinery orders, housing starts, workers’ income and unemployment. However, the severity and timing of fluctuation differed slightly from one indicator toanother. Not surprisingly, small businesses consistently faced greater difficulties than large enterprises, for instance, in enterprise financing and output
demand.
For example, in 1996 Japan’s real growth registered 3.5 percent
which was highest among the G7 countries. This period also coincided with therelatively weak yen, which was good for Japanese exporters. But in April 1997,
the Hashimoto Cabinet, backed by the Ministry of Finance’s desire to restore
fiscal soundness, raised the general consumption tax from 3 to 5 percent. The
economy weakened immediately (it is very strange that such a small tax
increase had such a huge impact). Toward the end of 1997, a number of major
financial bankruptcies occurred. Yamaichi Securities and Hokkaido Takushoku
Bank went bankrupt, triggering a nationwide banking crisis and credit crunch.

205Chapter 13

In the following year, the Long-Term Credit Bank and the Securities and Credit
Bank also fell. The hope for recovery was dashed.
The big question is: why did the Japanese economy remain so weak
for so long after the bubble burst? Economists are still debating. The list below
summarizes the most popular explanations.
・ One explanation is purely cyclical. Since the bubble period created large
overcapacity, it would take time to reduce capital stock and inventory tonormal levels. But if so, stock adjustment took a little too long.
・ Another explanation blames non-performing loans held by banks. Sincebanks failed to get rid of bad debt, and since the government did not haveproper measures to encourage this, financial intermediation was impaired
which in turn hurt the real economy. This vicious circle would continue
until a bold measure to clean up the banks’ balance sheets was taken. The
government claimed that this was being done, but perhaps it was notenough.
・ Another popular explanation is that Japan’s economic system had become
obsolete. Japan’s relational systems, such as lifetime employment, seniority wages, keiretsu groups, subcontracting, and so on, might have worked
well during the 1950s and 60s, but they have become ineffective in the ageof globalization. Some argued that Japan was facing the third major transformation (the first was in Meiji, the second was post-WW2 reforms). Butothers caution that Japan should not adopt the American system uncritically, since some Japanese systems are still useful. Recall the debate on theorigin of the Japanese system in chapter 9.
・ Yet another explanation points to long-term changes in the Japanese society. Japan has a rapidly aging population and snowballing government debt.
The Japanese people are uncertain about their future, especially concerning
the rising tax burden, availability of jobs, and the sustainability of medicalcare and pension schemes. This pessimism slows down consumer spending
and business investment.
・ More recently, the emergence of China as the factory of the world and the“hollowing-out” of Japanese manufacturing (the exodus of factories andjobs to other countries) were cited as a great threat. However, China’s highgrowth will not continue forever and China has many internal economic,

206

The Bubble Burst and Recessionsocial and political problems.
It is probable that Japan’s stagnation was the result of these problems
in mutual interaction. But if one ultimate cause behind these problems is to becited, that must be the lack of political leadership. Japan did not have a personat the top of the political system who could clearly identify these problems,
explain the situation to the people in plain and persuasive language, and design
and implement long-term solutions. Japan’s problems were not particularly
intractable compared with the problems that other countries face. The continuation of uncertainty and anxiety in Japanese society must be explained by thequality of leadership rather than the difficulty of problems. Japanese people justdo not believe that the current government can manage these problems.

4. Financial crisis and monetary policy
In the early 1990s when the asset bubble collapsed, Japanese banks
which previously lent actively to small and medium enterprises and property
development projects got into trouble. The recession and corporate bankruptcies
increased bad debt, and the decline of land and stock prices additionally hurt thebalance sheets of banks. Japanese banks often required land as loan collateraland engaged in mutual stock holding, but the values of both assets plummeted.
As non-performing loans accumulated, many Japanese banks faced difficulty inobserving the BIS capital adequacy requirement, which said that a bank’s capital must be at least 8 percent of its risk assets, properly weighted, if it wants toremain an international bank. If this ratio falls below 4 percent, the bank is notallowed to conduct even domestic business and must close.
By late 1997, the fear of bank defaults had spread. As Yamaichi
Securities and Hokkaido Takushoku Bank went bankrupt, the fear turned into
reality. Banks tried to improve their BIS ratios by reducing risky assets. Thiswas done by lending less, especially to small and medium enterprises. But thisled to a credit crunch in the real sector, causing more bankruptcies and further
worsening the quality of bank assets. This vicious circle continued from late1997 to early 1998. Japanese banks were considered untrustworthy, and the“Japan premium,” which is an additional charge to Japanese banks when theyborrow internationally, surged. People wondered which bank would fail next.

207

Chapter 13

Worried savers shifted their deposits from seemingly risky banks to safer ones
and postal savings.
In response to the 1997-98 banking crisis, the government created the
Financial Supervisory Agency in October 1998 and the Financial Restructuring
Commission in December 1998. They were later merged into the Financial Services Agency in 2000. The government also prepared “public money” up to 60
trillion yen (12 percent of GDP) to deal with the bad debt problem, recapitalizebanks and manage the closure and merger of weak banks.
The Bank of Japan responded to the 1997-98 banking crisis by providing ample liquidity. Subsequently, it adopted a “zero interest rate policy” in
April 1999. This meat that the short-term interbank rate (the call rate), which
the Bank of Japan could control, was lowered to zero except for a very small
technical margin. The Bank of Japan tried to end this policy in August 2000,
but when the economy further worsened it was forced to return to the zero interest rate policy. The official discount rate was also reduced to a very low level,from 6 percent in 1990 to 1.75 percent in 1993, and to 0.10 percent since 2001.
The financial panic subsided in early 1998, but general recession persisted into
the 2000s.
Since interest rates could not be reduced below zero (if that happened,people would hold only cash), the Bank of Japan seems to have reached the endof its policy rope. However, there was still strong pressure on the monetary
authorities to do more to stimulate the economy. For example:
・ Increase the money supply more drastically and by any means. To do so,buy untraditional assets in open market operations including bank and corporate bonds, foreign bonds, mortgage bonds (and even stocks?). Previously, the Bank of Japan bought and sold only government bonds for the reason of safety.
・ Inflation targeting: according to the proponents of this idea, the Bank ofJapan should announce a positive target rate for inflation for the next 2-3
years and be held responsible for achieving it. At the same time, the Bankof Japan should be insulated from the political pressure of the government.
Inflation targeting is considered necessary to change people’s expectations
about future inflation. Paul Krugman (Princeton University), Alan Meltzer(Carnegie-Mellon University), Takatoshi Ito (Tokyo University), and208

The Bubble Burst and Recession

Figure 13-4 Money Supply and Bank Lending
(%)
40

30

Monetary base
Money supply (M2+CD)
Bank lending

20

10

0

1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

-10

Source: Bank of Japan, Financial and Economic Statistics Handbook, various issues.

Motoshige Itoh (Tokyo University) supported this idea. But others, including Bank of Japan economists like Kunio Okina and Kazuo Ueda, were
skeptical, saying that even if the Bank of Japan tried, there would be little
impact on expectations because the monetary transmission mechanism was
broken1. Worse, if people’s expectations suddenly changed, for whateverreason, after too much liquidity was injected, the resulting inflation would
become uncontrollable.
・ Yen depreciation: according to this view, aggressive monetary expansion,
coupled with a political statement to welcome yen depreciation, will
improve Japan’s competitiveness and stimulate domestic and foreign
demand. The government and the Bank of Japan sometimes seemed toendorse this strategy, and the yen actually depreciated moderately whensuch a policy intention was announced. But clearly, currency depreciation
is a beggar-thy-neighbor policy and will hurt Japan’s trading partners. If
1

As Figure 13-4 shows, the relationship between the monetary base, which the Bank of Japan
controls, and the money supply or bank lending, which are important for macroeconomic management, has been highly unstable since the 1990s. A massive injection of the monetary base by
the Bank of Japan did not lead to an increase in the money supply and bank lending actuallycontinued to decline. The argument that further injection of liquidity without removing thecause of this gap would lead to no result is convincing.

209

Chapter 13

Figure 13-5 International Reserves

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

1987

1986

1985

(In US billion)
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

Source: Ministry of Finance.

the United States opposes the yen’s further weakening, this policy will
have to end. Asian neighbors will also be annoyed. One variation of thisidea is to ask China to appreciate the Renminbi, instead of depreciating theyen, to get the same relative effect. However, exchange rate adjustment isunable to solve the long-term structural problem of any country, be it
Japan, China or the United States (chapter 12). It often diverts attention
from the real cause of economic weaknesses.
In recent years, the Bank of Japan intervened very aggressively in theforeign exchange market to curb the appreciation of the yen. Thanks to thismassive purchase of dollar assets, Japan’s international reserves increased dramatically from $470 billion at the end of 2002 to $674 billion at the end of 2003
and to $845 billion at the end of 2004. This is the largest international reservesin the world, although China’s is catching up rapidly.
Meanwhile, American exchange rate policy under the Bush Administration remains ambiguous. The US has repeated the odd statement that “thestrong dollar policy is unchanged, but exchange rates should be determined by
the market.” The message is unclear and the there seems to be no consistentcurrency policy behind it. Past observations suggest that the US usually feels
comfortable when the dollar is moderately weak, especially in the election year.
But when the dollar starts to fall greatly due to market pressure, will the US
welcome it or resist it?

210

The Bubble Burst and Recession

5. Fiscal policy
Fiscal policy has been expansionary since the 1990s, although some
say that it has not been expansionary enough relative to what they think is adequate. At the end of fiscal year 2004 (i.e. March 2005), outstanding government
debt stood at 782 trillion yen or 155 percent of GDP. This ratio is the highest
among major industrial countries. It is highly uncertain whether this public debt
explosion can be slow down in the future, let alone reversed. Moreover, this figure does not include short-term debt or contingency liabilities, namely, theamounts that the government will be obliged to pay in the future for rescuingthe bankrupted social security system, recapitalizing insolvent banks, and so on.
International rating companies have continuously downgraded the Japanese
government bond in recent years.
The government is often torn between the need for fiscal consolidation and the need for fiscal stimuli. In recent years, Japan’s fiscal policy leaned
toward expansionism because of the worsening economic situation. There was astrong political pressure for more fiscal stimuli to avoid a “deflationary spiral”(price deflation and output recession in a vicious circle). Many contended thatno reform was possible unless the economy improved first. But the effectiveness of fiscal policy under such circumstances is an open question.
The opponents of fiscal activism said that Japan had already tried fiscal stimuli many times during the last decade, but the economy had failed torecover strongly. They also argued that old-fashioned fiscal spending, such asbuilding expensive but under-used highways, bridges, airports and Shinkansen
tracks would only benefit rural construction companies while national debt
snowballed (did Japan really need three giant bridges to span the Inland Sea?)
Further fiscal stimuli, which would add to the already huge government debt,
might actually weaken the economy through increased fiscal vulnerability andunsoundness. The LDP-based political system, where votes are secured bychanneling fiscal spending toward rural supporters, should be ended, it is said.
Whether Mr. Koizumi can break through this dilemma while staying within
LDP, the den of anti-reform politicians, is yet to be seen. In 2003, Mr. Koizumi
seems to have been successful in tightening the fiscal stance relative to previous
years—but not in 2004.

211

Chapter 13

Figure 13-6 Government Debt as Percent of GDP
(%)
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

1984

1982

0

Sources: Bank of Japan, and Cabinet Office.

Under these circumstances, traditional IMF conditionality would
require Japan to boldly tighten its budget despite short-term pain. But Japan isthe biggest lender in the world with the largest international reserves, and it
does not need IMF loans to finance its balance of payments. Consequently,
Japan does not have to listen to IMF advice. At the same time, the internal
political mechanism does not generate any policy options to pay short-termcosts to achieve long-term goals. Perhaps that is the crux of the problem thatJapan faces at present.

212

The Bubble Burst and Recession

The road ahead for Japanese enterprises
In the 1980s, the US economy was struggling against international competition
and the Japanese economy was booming. Some Japanese businessmen boasted that
there was nothing more to learn from the Americans. In the 1990s, Japan experienced
a long recession and a banking crisis while the US economy grew robustly thanks to
the IT boom. Some cried, “Japan is finished; our economy will lose out to China andhollow out.” Japan is not the only country to have swung from over-optimism to overpessimism. But Japanese tendency to react too strongly to the comments of foreignobservers makes Japan more likely to embrace the two extremes of arrogance andtimidity in succession. However, the manufacturing power of Japan, which has beendeveloping since the Meiji period, does not soar or plummet every several years. The
true strength of the Japanese economy is far more stable than ever-changing commentaries.
According to Prof. Takahiro Fujimoto of Tokyo University, such over-reaction iscaused by the bad habit of analyzing all industries together in a mindless fashion
without recognizing the sharp differences among them. He abhors gross questions like
“Which country is stronger, China or Japan?” All industries—be it banking, construction, telecom, electronics, or automobile—are fundamentally different from eachother. Any argument that ignores this fact is useless.
To properly evaluate the competitiveness of each industry, Prof. Fujimoto
advances the concept of business architecture (Fujimoto, 2004). The business architecture theory looks at how components are combined. More precisely, businessarchitecture is a “basic design concept to achieve a satisfactory working of any manmade system, and it asks how the system is divided into components, how functions
are allocated to each component, and how the interface of interdependence among
components is constructed” (Fujimoto et al, 2001).
When there are complex relations among components, there are two alternative
directions in designing a product. The first is modular architecture, in which themodality of interaction among components is standardized for easy connection. The
second is integral architecture, in which the complexity of interaction is happily
accepted, and improvements are achieved through numerous trials and errors. Generally speaking, modular architecture is suitable for obtaining quick results at low cost213

Chapter 13

while integral architecture is appropriate for the pursuit of ever-higher quality in thelong run. For example, desktop computers are a typical modular product in which
globally common components from various companies are freely combined. In contrast, automobiles must be manufactured with integral architecture if multiple objectives such as performance, comfort, fuel efficiency, safety, etc. are to be attained
simultaneously. Modular architecture can be further divided into open type and closed
type. This distinction depends on whether the interface is publicized broadly or closed
within the manufacturer.

Integral

ClosedClosed Integral
Automobiles, motoecycles, small
consumer electronics, video games,
etc.

Open

Modular
Closed Modular
Mainframe computers, machine
tools, Lego(children’s toy), etc.
Open Modular
Computer system and hardware,internet products, bicycles,
some financial products, etc.

Source: Fujimoto, 2004, p.132.

The correspondence between products and business architecture is not rigid but
evolves dynamically with the business strategy of each firm or country, technicalprogress and demand shifts. In addition, business architecture often has structural layers in which, for example, modularization may proceed in final assembly while integration may deepen among producers who supply components.
Japan is a country of integral architecture, intensely interested in factory operation and obsessed with the perfection of the product. By contrast, the United States
excels in modularization and is good at slicing the product into appropriate parts,
standardizing them and making profits on the novelty of the combination. China isalso a country of modular architecture, but its comparative advantage comes fromlabor-intensive modular products rather than from knowledge-intensive modular
products as in the United States. Prof. Fujimoto argues that national differences inbusiness architecture come from different institutional capabilities of enterprises ineach country. Institutional capabilities in turn have been formed through historicalexperiences. For instance, in the early postwar period, Japanese firms were compelled
to compete and grow without adequate supply of human, financial or physicalresources. This led to the practice of long-term employment and the pyramidal suppli-214

The Bubble Burst and Recession

er system. Note that Prof. Fujimoto’s assertion that the Japanese system was createdin the postwar period is at odds with another, more popular view that it is a heritage of
economic planning during the war period (chapter 9).
Prof. Fujimoto advises Japanese enterprises to stop following fads and to try tomatch the institutional capabilities they have with the architectural design of the products they produce. Sustained business growth requires making sufficient profits
through selling integral products in which Japanese firms excel on the one hand, andstrengthening the organizational capabilities that are currently lacking by learningfrom other firms and countries on the other. The reported emergence of modularizedbusinesses should not lead Japanese firms to abandon the integral capabilities they
have nurtured and imitate modularization of others. This would only lead to failure
and loss of Japanese quality. If a firm rushes to invest in China simply because rival
firms are already there, or because Chinese wages are lower than Japanese wages, thelikely result would be low productivity in both Japan and China. What is required isan optimal strategic positioning with the full understanding of the architectural
strengths and weaknesses of Japan and China.
Prof. Fujimoto has one concrete suggestion. Since the United States and China
are both modular countries but with different levels of wages and technology, they arecomplementary partners in manufacturing modular goods. Meanwhile, Japan is an
integral country with high wages and high technology looking for an international
partner. If ASEAN, the traditional destination of Japanese FDI, learns to become sucha partner, with a long-term vision and strong aspirations for high quality, Japan and
ASEAN can form a strategic alliance in manufacturing integral products which will
be differentiated from Chinese products. However, such an alliance remains a hypothetical possibility since no ASEAN countries has acquired necessary skills and attitude for Japanese-style manufacturing. This requires internalizing factory design andoperations, ability to maintain, adjust and repair machines, producing parts design andmolds, improving the level of local engineers, and so on. In other words, ASEAN
must graduate from simple assembly for foreign orders to participation in the manufacturing process in a more fundamental sense. This is the key to upgrading the JapanASEAN economic relationship to a higher level. The Japanese government and business community should also actively provide technical assistance and business cooperation for this purpose.

215

Chapter 13

Japan

Integral Countries
Modular Countries

China

Potentially no
direct competition
if products arechosen properly

216

TaiwanUSA

Industrialized

ASEAN
Developing

Final Exams

FINAL EXAMS
Below are the questions I asked on the final exams in the Economic
Development of Japan from 1999 to 2004. They are arranged chronologically.
Model answers have been omitted because of limited space. Each exam consisted of five required questions and lasted 60 minutes with books closed. I inviteinterested readers to try. (The average points ranged from 65 to 82 out of 100,
depending on the year.)
Q1

Describe Dr. Tadao Umesao’s view on history regarding why Japan

became the first non-Western country to industrialize.
Q2

List political, economic and social conditions existing in the Edo peri-od (by the early 19th century) which later contributed to Japan’s rapid
industrialization.
Q3

Discuss the development of agriculture in the Edo period (1603-1867)and how it later helped Japan to catch up with the West.
Q4

Discuss the formation process of a nationally unified market during

the Edo period.
Q5

What was the most important economic goal of the Meiji government(1868-1912)? List policies adopted for that purpose. Approximately when
was this goal (more or less) achieved?
Q6

From 1881 to the mid 1880s, Finance Minister Masayoshi Matsukata

implemented a policy initiative called “Matsukata Deflation.” What werethe contents of this policy, and what were its consequences?
Q7

Discuss the development, private initiative and official support ofJapan’s modern textile industry during the Meiji period (1868-1912).
Q8

What was the role of Eiichi Shibusawa (1840-1931) in Japan’s indus-

trialization?
Q9

Explain the growth of the cotton industry during the Meiji periodusing the following two terms: “parallel development” and “import substitution.”

217

Q10

How did Meiji Japan (1868-1912) import Western technology? Did

foreign direct investment (FDI) play an important role? How about foreign
advisors?
Q11

Describe the structure of Japan’s international trade during the Meiji

period (1868-1912).
Q12

Explain the “Postwar Management” policy adopted after the Japan-

China War (1894-95) and also after the Japan-Russia War (1904-05).
Q13

How were savings mobilized for industrialization during the Meiji

period? Did foreign savings (FDI, commercial loans, etc.) play an important
role?
Q14

How did World War I (1914-18) affect the Japanese economy?

Discuss its major impacts on industrial growth and financial health.
Q15

Explain the differences in domestic and foreign policy orientation

between the Seiyukai Party and the Minsei Party during 1918-1936. [Before
1927, the Minsei Party was called the Kenseikai Party. For the purpose ofanswering this question, ignore the name change and use the term “Minsei
Party” throughout.]
Q16 Describe the background, immediate cause(s), and consequence(s) of
the 1927 banking crisis.
Q17 Compare the general economic condition of the 1920s and that of the
1990s. Are there any similarities in the causes of the economic weakness orin how the government responded to it?
Q18 From the viewpoint of economic planning versus the free market, how
did Japan’s economic system change during the 1930s and 1940s? Explain
its evolution using the following (and other) terms: “Planning Board,” “priority production system,” and “Dodge Line stabilization.”
Q19

During the war years of 1937-45, what kinds of changes were intro-

duced in the Japanese economic system compared with earlier years? And
what was the main economic reason for the collapse of Japan’s war economy in 1945?

218

Final Exams

Q20 In 1947, under the occupation by the Allied Powers, Japan started to
implement a land reform. What was its effect on (i) reducing the number ofabsentee landlords; and (ii) improving agricultural productivity?
Q21 Immediately after World War II, Japan suffered a triple-digit inflation.
Discuss the alternative anti-inflation strategies proposed during 1946-47.
Which strategy was finally adopted?
Q22

What is the meaning of the “rationalization” policy adopted in the

1950s? Why was this policy needed?
Q23 Describe how the coal industry contributed (or did not contribute) toJapan’s economic recovery and high growth during 1947-1960s.
Q24

During the postwar high-growth era (late 1950s-60s), how was

Japan’s macroeconomic policy conducted, and in what kind of international
economic environment? Do today’s developing and transitional economies
have a similar environment?
Q25 Discuss Japan’s monetary policy during the 1950s-60s, with particularattention to the exchange rate regime, balance of payments and price stability.
Q26

Explain Japan’s exchange rate regime during the high growth period(mid 1950s-1960s).
Q27 Briefly discuss Japan’s import tariff policy during the entire industrialization period (1860s-1960s). Can we say that Japan achieved industrialization under free trade?
Q28 Discuss Japan’s macroeconomic problems in the 1990s with particularattention to the banking sector and fiscal and monetary policies.
Q29 Discuss the effectiveness and limitations of the Bank of Japan’s monetary policy during the last decade (from the early 1990s to the present).
Q30 Read the electronic news below [next page]. Explain why money supply and bank lending are stagnant in Japan today. Also discuss the Bank ofJapan (BOJ)’s policy addressing this problem.

219

Money Supply Growth in 2003 Slowest in Decade
Despite the continued policy of quantitative monetary expansion, money in circulation is not growing. According to a Bank of Japan report on Jan.13, money supply
grew only 1.7% in 2003 compared to 3.3% in the previous year. This is the lowest
monetary growth in ten years. Bank lending also recorded negative growth for theseventh year in a row. It is certain that future monetary policy must cope with the
problem of stagnant money… The broad liquidity measure (covering “M2+CD,”
postal savings, investment trusts, government bonds, etc.) also grew only 1.1% in
2003, the slowest since 1981 when comparable statistics became available. (Nikkei
Net, 11:12 am, January 13, 2004; translated by K. Ohno)(% change over 12 months)
20

10

M2+CD
Bank lending

0

1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004

-10

220

QUESTIONS ASKED BY STUDENTSQUESTIONS ASKED BY STUDENTS
Here are some questions raised by students in the classroom followed by my answers.
Some questions were quite difficult and they compelled me to do some additional
research before answering. I am not entirely confident that all my answers were appropriate. But I list them nonetheless since questions raised by foreign students often throw
new light on old questions which are too familiar to the Japanese. The majority of questions are centered on the Edo and Meiji periods. This is partly because my students had
many questions about these periods, and partly because I had little time to properly
record and answer questions for later periods due to my uneven work schedule. I apologize for that.
1. What was the system of land ownership in the Edo period? Were farmers permitted to own land?
Under the political system of the Edo period, the Shogun gave land to daimyos togovern in exchange for their loyalty. Farmers were considered to be part of the land
and were not allowed to move; and no land sale or rental was permitted. Under sucha system, which was a kind of feudalism, the modern concept of land ownership isdifficult to apply. However, Prof. Keiichi Tanaka says that the prohibition on transfering land was ineffective and farmers actually bought and sold land without any
punishment. I am sure such practice did exist but how common it was remains an
open question. Officially, all land directly or indirectly (through hans’ rule)belonged to the Shogun. But within each han, the daimyo had the right to govern
and tax his land. Moreover, each village had autonomy as long as it paid rice taxes.
Under such circumstances, it is difficult to say precisely who owned the land.
2. Why could the bakufu suppress military uprisings by hans?
Tokugawa Ieyasu, the first shogun, was very clever. A number of institutions
installed at the beginning of the Edo period made revolt against the central government virtually impossible. For example:
A heavy financial burden was imposed on daimyos through obligatory biannual
commuting to Edo, public works, and ad hoc taxation.
Daimyo’s wives and children were required to always reside in Edo as potential
hostages.
Strict restrictions were imposed on travel, shipbuilding, construction of castles andbridges, and so on.
Powerful hans were placed away from Edo, and friendly hans were given militarily important locations.
Han locations were often reshuffled and mutual inspection and restraints were221

forced on daimyos.
Any sign of disobedience from a daimyo led to the end of his family.
3. Why was only the Dutch language used for Western studies in the Edo period?
Because the Netherlands was the only Western country that the bakufu granted theright to trade with Japan (the other permitted trading partner was China). For thisreason, all technical and medical books imported from the West were in Dutch.
Studying the Dutch language was equivalent to learning Western technology.
Among the Western countries, the bakufu allowed only the Netherlands to trade withJapan because the Dutch were Protestant. Catholic countries such as Spain and Portugal sent aggressive religious missions to convert the Japanese to Christianity,
which the bakufu disliked. Meanwhile, the Dutch were more interested in commercethan in religious activity. The Dutch themselves seem to have informed the bakufu
that the Spaniards and the Portuguese were trying to invade Japan or exploit goldand silver mines in Japan.
4. Although the Edo society was a conservative class society, was there any
mobility among the classes through marriage or any other means?
Officially and in principle, no class mobility was allowed. The distinction between
the ruling class (samurai) and others was especially strict. But unofficially, there
were exceptional cases of poor, lordless samurai becoming farmers or rich merchants with merits upgraded to samurai, and so on. However, there are no comprehensive statistics on the frequency of such cases at the national level. At the least,
we can say that the Edo system did not have any explicit rules for inter-class transition, and that social stability depended significantly on formal class immobility.
Incidentally, the Edo society was based on a paternal lineage system in which thefirst son inherited the family name and assets. This first-son principle still survives
in modern Japan, at least psychologically and especially in rural areas and in conservative families, although all sons and daughters now have equal legal rights.
Q5. Was dissatisfaction with unequal land distribution one of the main reasonsfor farmers’ uprising?
This was not the main reason. From the mid 17th century onwards, the main reasonsfor farmers’ revolts included protestation against (i) a heavy tax burden, (ii) corrupt
officials; (iii) han’s policy; and (iv) bakufu’s policy. The typical actions during

222

QUESTIONS ASKED BY STUDENTS

uprisings included direct appeal to the government (which was illegal), collective
abandonment of land and moving to another area, and attacks on the residences oftargeted officials. Toward the end of the Edo period, as the number of poor and landless farmers increased, there were also many uprisings against rich merchants andfarmers. Their houses were often attacked and destroyed.
6. Was Japan linguistically unified in the Edo period?
We can say yes by the standard of developing countries today. Although there weredifferent dialects and local nuances in pronunciation, which made oral communication across different regions quite difficult, these were all variations of the same
Japanese language. Moreover, written language was uniform across all regions. The
important thing is that, through the use of one language, the Japanese national identity had already been firmly established. In fact, this was true much before the Edo
period. To put it in another way, linguistic differences did not cause social divisionor ethnic conflict in Japan. However, there were some ethnic minorities who were
not integrated into the Japanese society. For example, the Ainu (indigenous) peoplein Hokkaido and the Okinawa people spoke different languages and had separate
cultures. There were also some people who lived in the mountains and did not mingle with the Japanese majority. These people were considered foreign, not Japanese.
7. What is Confucianism?
There were many ancient Chinese philosophers, but the most famous ones are Confucius (551-479 BC) and Lao-tse (6th century BC? His existence is not proven).
Their ideas are called Confucianism and Taoism, respectively. Confucius taught
virtue and discipline in social life, including how to perform rituals and ceremonies,
respect parents and serve your lord, and how kings should rule. By contrast, Lao-tse
emphasized natural experience and alignment with the universe; he discussed
achieving things without effort, feeling the mystery of being, knowing the world
without leaving the house, and so forth. These two saints had an enormous impact
on East Asian societies such as China, Korea, Japan and Vietnam for the past 2,500
years.
Confucius hoped to become an advisor to a truly wise king, but he never found one.
All his life, he traveled with his disciples and taught them through dialogue. Thismethod is similar to that of Buddha, Socrates and Jesus. The disciples wrote down
his words in Lun-yu (Rongo in Japanese) which became a best-selling textbook in
the next two millennia. My favorite line from Lun-yu goes as follows: “You shallalways remember the age of your parents. One, for celebrating. Two, for fearing.”
Confucianism was introduced in Japan in the 4-5th century AD, but it remained223

unpopular until the Edo bakufu reactivated it as an official doctrine. Its teachings
were suitable for maintaining social order in a class society.
8. Tell us more about the outcast class in the Edo period.
There were two types of outcast people in the Edo period: hinin (meaning nonhuman) and eta (meaning unclean). These discriminatory words existed from long
ago, but the bakufu institutionalized them at the bottom of the society by giving
them organization and social roles.
The hinin were beggars who lived in designated districts in urban areas. They wereorganized and policed by managers who were internally elected or officiallyappointed. However, there were also unorganized hinin as well. There was somemobility between the hinin and non-hinin people. For example, the latter could
become beggars through poverty.
The eta were people whose profession was to process dead animals such as horses
and cattle, and supply raw materials for the leather industry. They were also forced
to work in criminal execution. These were considered unclean jobs. However, manyeta people were engaged in other professions including farming. The eta were alsoorganized by managers at the han level.
Discrimination against these people continued even after the Edo period. To eliminate such discrimination, Zenkoku Suiheisha (the National Level Society) was created in 1922 and Buraku Kaiho Domei (the League for Liberating Discriminated People) was organized in 1955. Legally, of course, the present constitution guarantees
equal rights to all. But the movement for eradicating social discrimination continues
even today.
9. By the early Meiji period, why did Japan already feel that it no longer faced
the risk of being colonized?
When Japan was forced by the West to open its ports (1853-54), the possibility ofcolonization was real. But by Meiji Restoration (1868), Japan no longer worriedmuch about military invasion by Western powers. Instead, the national goal ofcatching up fast with the West emerged. What happened during these fifteen years?
It is difficult to answer succinctly, but the following factors might have been at play:
Despite social confusion, national unity and “ownership” (policy autonomy) were
preserved, a devastating civil war was avoided (the internal war was short andsmall-scale), and the state machinery remained intact after the change of government.

224

QUESTIONS ASKED BY STUDENTS

Japan was importing and absorbing Western technology very rapidly, and militaryand economic capabilies were being enhanced.
Seeing this, Westerners were mainly interested in securing commercial interests
rather than using military might to occupy Japan. At any rate, Japan was too far
from their home to mobilize large-scale forces, and Americans were busy with
their own Civil War.
There was a rivalry among the Westerners in Japan, especially between the British
and the French, which prevented the dominance of any single foreign group. This
benefited the Japanese government by giving it a relatively free hand in designingpolicies.
10. How many foreign advisors were employed? Even though their salaries werehigh, can we say that their productivity was also high?
During the Meiji period, officially and privately employed foreigners numbered in
the hundreds in any year. But their composition changed over time. In the first ten
years of Meiji (1868-77), most foreign advisors were hired by the government andnumbered between 300 and 600. Subsequently, the number of officially contracted
foreigners declined sharply while the number of privately-hired ones increased.
Nearly half of those hired privately were teachers and professors at academic institutions (many were English teachers at private universities). By nationality, the British
dominated, followed by the French and the German. There were also a large numberof Americans and most of them were professors and teachers. There were very few
American engineers.
According to Kobusho Enkaku Hokoku (Report on the Outline of the Ministry ofIndustry compiled in 1931), in early Meiji (around 1872), the Yokosuka Shipyard
employed 28 foreigners (all French), the Railroad Agency had 80 (mostly British),the National Mint had 20 (mostly British), and the Ikuno Mine had 15 (all French).
These four state-run organizations alone accounted for 143 foreigners. But not all
were top-level advisors with advanced technology. Many were factory operators,
accountants, secretaries, and doctors.
It is reasonable to believe that these foreigners were worth the money. But it is difficult to statistically measure their labor productivity since their task was to create
entirely new industries. Without the British help, Japan could not have laid its firstrailroad. Does this mean their productivity was infinite? Can we separately measure
the contribution of any new industry to GDP growth when the economy is propelled
by many other influences? The return on foreign advisors also depended on how
quickly the Japanese could take over the new enterprise. Had the Japanese never225learned, these industries would have forever depended on foreign hands, which
would be very, very costly. In reality, this did not happen.
11. In what respect was the Meiji Constitution ambiguous?
Here are some translated excerpts from the Constitution of the Empire of Japan(1889). Underlined parts were controversial or subject to different interpretations.

Article 1. The Empire of Japan shall be reigned over and governed by aline of Emperors unbroken for ages eternal.
Article 3. The Emperor is sacred and inviolable.
Article 4. The Emperor is the head of the Empire, combining in Himself the rights of sovereignty, and exercises them, according to the provisions of the present Constitution.
Article 5. The Emperor exercises the legislative power with the consent
of the Imperial Diet [parliament].
Article 55. The respective Ministers of State shall give their advice tothe Emperor, and be responsible for it.
Article 3 may look like a deification of the Emperor which is unique to Japan, but it
is in fact a direct copy from a typical European constitution. This line was inserted at
the advice of Karl Friedrich Hermann Roesler, a German legal advisor to the Meiji
government. It means the ministers, and not the Emperor, bear the responsibility forthe consequences of any policy.
The intention of the original drafters of the Meiji Constitution, especially Hirobumi
Ito, was to place the Emperor within the state mechanism and under the constitution,
as Article 4 makes it clear. But conservative members of the Privy Council, a body
created to review the constitution draft, demanded that the underlined part in Article
4 be deleted, which Ito opposed. He argued successfully that the constitutional government would be quite meaningless if the Emperor were placed outside its framework. However, later in the 1930s, Ito’s interpretation and its development, which
was then called Tenno Kikan Setsu (The Organ Theory of the Emperor), were rejected by the military and the rightwing groups. As a result, the Emperor was elevatedabove the state and the constitution.
Article 5 says that the parliament must give “consent” to the Emperor’s legislativedecision. In the Japanese original, the term shonin (approve) was first proposed but
it was replaced by a weaker term, kyosan (humbly support).

226

QUESTIONS ASKED BY STUDENTS

The problem with Article 55 was that it was unclear whether individual ministers or
the cabinet as a whole were to advise the Emperor, especially on military matters. If
a joint cabinet decision was required, the Minister of Army or the Minister of Navymust discuss the issue with other ministers, especially the Ministers of Finance andForeign Affairs. This would certainly put a damper on any proposed military action
for fiscal or diplomatic reasons. If not, he could advise the Emperor directly andindependently.
This constitution also said little about the precise relationship between the legislative
and administrative powers. This permitted the adoption of a party cabinet (a government formed by the political party having the most parliamentary seats) as well as
chozen naikaku (a government of appointed generals and bureaucrats that included
no elected officials).
12. In the world history, kings and emperors usually did not last very long. Political upheavals could easily end their rule, bringing in another dynasty or
empire. Why has Japan’s imperial family lasted so long?
According to the oldest official record of Japanese history (Kojiki, or Ancient
Chronicle, 712), Japanese islands were created and inhabited by a group of gods
who descended from heaven, and their progeny became the imperial family. In the
Meiji period, the government determined that the transformation from god to humanin the imperial family occurred on February 11, 660 BC, when Jimmu, the firsthuman emperor, came to power. In 1940, the war government celebrated the 2,600th
anniversary of this event. Apart from the legend, however, we do not know the exact
date or circumstances of the rise of the imperial family, which may have occurred
around 7th century AD.
During the war years between the 1930s and 1945, it was taught that the Japaneseimperial family was an unbroken divine lineage from time immemorial. This
bestowed superiority on the Japanese people who were ruled by such an auspicious
family. But even counting from the 7th century, it must be admitted that the continuation of the same ruling family for more than thirteen centuries is very unique in history (some argue that the imperial family is not really of one lineage because of thefamily feud in the 14th century; but we are mainly interested in its political, notgenetic, continuity). The emperor had real political power in the 8th century, but his
power declined quickly in the subsequent centuries. Why has the Japanese monarchy
never been abolished?
The first samurai leader who came to power as a military general was appointed by
the imperial family in 1192. This approval procedure was a political convenience,227

and it was followed by all subsequent samurai governments. For military leaders
who were challenged by other competitors and needed to legitimize their assumptionof power, the use of imperial authority was extremely useful. There was no need totopple the emperor who resided in Kyoto, composed poems and performed rituals,
and who was militarily impotent. Once the tradition began in which a new politicalleader had to be formally appointed and legitimized by the emperor, it became firmly entrenched. The political cost of ousting the emperor was far greater than the costof operating under his nominal authority. The Meiji government reactivated thispolitical practice when it wanted to consolidate power.
Another important factor is that Japan was never invaded or occupied by foreigners(except by the Americans during 1945-52). This means that the imperial family was
not wiped out by an external force. Although the Americans considered the possibility of trying and executing the emperor as a war criminal, they finally decided not to,
being afraid of nationwide riots that these actions might trigger. We may say that thesame political considerations were at play.
13. Why were Japanese trading houses (sogo shosha), such as Mitsui Bussan,so active from the Meiji period? No other developing countries seem to havesuch companies even today.
I don’t know exactly why. One possible reason is the development of domestic commerce and the rise of a rich merchant class during the Edo period. But the continuity
from Edo merchants to Meiji trading houses is not proven. The Mitsui and the Sumitomo were influential families during the Edo period, but the Mitsubishi, Suzuki,
Nichimen and other business groups emerged during the Meiji period or later.
14. China also adopted an open-door policy in the 1860s but could not build
modern industries due to the lack of funds. How did Meiji Japan mobilize
investment capital?
There were super businessmen like Eiichi Shibusawa and Tomoatsu Godai who
introduced the Western system of joint stock companies and encouraged their richfriends to invest in stocks. Shibusawa also used his First “National” Bank (which
was private) to finance working capital. These prominent business leaders contributed to the creation of a large number of joint stock companies. In addition,
expansion of demand for silk, tea and rice and an increase in the price of these commodities enriched rural Japan, which permitted self-financing of industries by large
farmers, landlords and merchants. From the late 1880s, Japan experienced a series of“company booms” during which many joint stock companies in textile and railway
operation were formed. It should be noted that this was a result of mobilization of228

QUESTIONS ASKED BY STUDENTS

domestic savings. There was very little foreign participation in establishing thesecompanies.
According to Prof. Juro Teranishi (chapter 6), savings mobilization within the private business sector, including self-financing, seemed to have played the largest
role. Moreover, resource transfer from agriculture to industry through the fiscal system (i.e. the land tax) cannot be ignored. While Prof. Teranishi’s dataset does notinclude years before 1900, savings mobilization through the land tax must have beensignificant in the early Meiji period.
15. Import substitution failed in many countries. Why did Meiji Japan succeedin the import substitution in the cotton textile industry?
Discipline imposed by a low uniform tariff of 5 percent may have been a factor. This
made high protection impossible and forced manufacturers to improve competitiveness. In addition, high capacity to absorb new technology, the existence of innovative business leaders, the growing number of technical engineers, and appropriate
official support were important. But simply listing these factors cannot explain why
they emerged in Meiji Japan. A government that can effectively manage commercial
rents and stimulate industries, as well as a very dynamic private sector, are not thefeatures commonly seen in the developing countries today. For a possible explanation of these strengths of Meiji Japan, see the Umesao hypothesis in chapter 1.
16. Is it correct to say that wars with China (1894-95) and with Russia (1904-05)
promoted Japan’s industrialization?
As explained in chapter 6, these two wars had the effect of increasing the economic
size of the government. After each war, the government became very aggressive inindustrial promotion and infrastructure building. Meanwhile, military spending was
not held back even after the wars. Clearly, this demand expansion stimulated domestic businesses in the short run. Whether it also contributed to the long-term soundeconomic development of Japan is an open question. On the one hand, it is hard todeny that a big government was a plus for rapid industrialization. On the other hand,fiscal activism caused macroeconomic instabilities such as balance-of-payment pressure and the loss of gold reserves.
17. Please tell us about inflation in the Meiji period.
Japan’s prewar overall price index is available only from 1901. But we can use theprice of rice as a proxy to study the general trends in the earlier periods, as below.

229

Inflation and monetary confusion, which began in the period of opening ports notshown here, were terminated by Finance Minister Masayoshi Matsukata’s deliberate
deflation policy. While this was the longest (three years) and proportionately largest
deflation in the Meiji period, we can also detect other smaller and shorter (usually
one year) deflation episodes as well. Throughout Meiji, the general trend in the rice
price was upward. From 1873 to 1912, the average annual increase was 4 percent.

Rice Price per Koku (yen/150kg)
Semi-log scale
20000
15000
10000

5000

1912

1909

1906

1903

1900

1897

1894

1891

1888

1885

1882

1879

1876

1873

Matsukata Deflation

Source: Management and Coordination Agency, Historical Statistics of Japan, Vol. 4, 1988.

18. Who were the members of the Privy Council which rejected the proposed
imperial edict at the time of the banking crisis in 1927?
The Privy Council (Sumitsuin in Japanese) was originally established to deliberateon the draft of the Meiji Constitution in 1888. After the constitution was promulgated, it became a permanent advisory body to the emperor. The members were chosenfrom a group of genkun (old politicians who had merits in establishing the Meiji
government) and “experienced” statesmen. The members were generally conservative and disliked the government run by political parties. They also supported astrong military stance against China and criticized the Shidehara diplomacy which
tried to restrain military intervention in China.
On April 14, 1927, the government submitted the imperial edict, which permitted
the Bank of Japan to rescue the Bank of Taiwan to contain the banking crisis, to the
Privy Council for review. The Council’s deliberation committee pointed out several“inconsistencies” in the draft edict and advised that it be rejected. The edict was subsequently voted down in the general session of the Privy Council.

230

QUESTIONS ASKED BY STUDENTS

One of the characteristics of Japan’s prewar politics was the multiplicity and ambiguity of authority for making important decisions, which included the power to startand end a war. The constitution clearly stipulated that the sovereignty rested with theemperor, but he was not responsible for policy consequences; the responsibility wasborne by his advisors, not himself. The government, either the entire cabinet or individual ministers (see question 11 above), were to advise the emperor on policy matters. The military often believed that it had the exclusive right to make military decisions and advise the emperor on military issues. The Privy Council also advised theemperor. In addition, as democracy grew, elected officials and political parties also
claimed authority in making decisions. This decentralization of power in Japan wasin sharp contrast to the case of Nazi Germany, where Hitler alone had supreme
authority.
19. What happened to the Bank of Taiwan after its closure in April 1927? Was it
liquidated?
No. The Bank of Taiwan survived. As discussed in chapter 8, the government passed
the law to cover the loss up to 2 million yen incurred by the Bank of Japan. Taxpayers’ money was injected into the Bank of Japan by as early as June 1928 in order tocancel the bad bills held by the Bank of Taiwan. This money, in the main, was used
to repay the Bank of Taiwan’s interbank “call” loans to other commercial banks. As
a consequence, the entire financial market was greatly eased.
The Bank of Taiwan even expanded its business during the wartime, extending loans
to China and Southeast Asia. After the war defeat, it was finally abolished by theorder of the US occupation forces.
20. When the bubble economy was forming in the late 1980s, were Japanese people and policy makers aware of it?
I don’t think they were clearly aware that this was a bubble. Although many people
felt that something strange was going on, few analysts warned that the situation was
only temporary and very dangerous. At that time, the bubble was called the “Heisei
Boom.” The Ministry of Finance tried to prop up the stock market whenever it started to fall. The Bank of Japan should perhaps bear the main responsibility for fuelingthe asset and land markets, but it was politically difficult to tighten the monetary
policy and end the good times that everyone was enjoying. While asset prices weresoaring, consumer prices remained stable.

23121. Has Japan ever been a socialist economy?
Japan has never been a socialist economy in the ownership sense. That is to say, inany period, production was mainly undertaken by individuals, families or private
firms. The government did not organize farmers and workers into collective units inany significant way. Even during the war economy of 1937-45, the government
chose to control and direct private companies toward the war effort without nationalizing them.
But in the sense of economic management, the above-mentioned wartime was a period of rigid planning based on physical inputs and outputs. The period of recovery
from the war (1945-49) was also characterized by official planning and directives,
although the black market prospered simultaneously. In this sense, from 1937 to
1949, Japan was a planned economy although the ownership remained private. This
clearly shows the separability of ownership and the allocative mechanism.
During the high-growth era of the 1950s-60s, the Japanese government was guiding
the private sector in a milder form, which was neither the free market nor socialist
planning.

232

References

References
Abe, Takeshi, “Men Kogyo” (Cotton Industry), in S. Nishikawa and T. Abe,eds, Nihon Keizaishi 4: Sangyoka no Jidai 1 (Japanese Economic History vol. 4: The Age of Industrialization 1), Iwanami Shoten, 1990.
Arisawa, Hiromi, ed, Nihon Sangyo Hyakunenshi (One Hundred-Year Historyof Japanese Industries) 1 and 2, Nikkei Shinsho, Nihon Keizai Shimbumsha, 1967.
Arisawa, Hiromi, Sengo Keizai o Kataru: Showashi eno Shogen (A Commentary on the Postwar Economy: A Testimony to the History of Showa),
Tokyo University Press, 1989.
Arisawa, Hiromi, ed, Nihon Sangyoshi 1 (History of Japanese Industries vol.1),
Nikkei Bunko, 1994.
Arisawa, Hiromi, ed, Showa Keizaishi 1 (Economic History of the Showa Period 1), Nikkei Bunko, 1994.
Banno, Junji, Nihon Seijishi: Meiji, Taisho, Senzen Showa (History of Japanese
Politics: Meiji, Taisho and Prewar Showa), University of the Air Press,
Revised edition, 1997.
Banno, Junji, “Hamaguchi Osachi to Koizumi Junichiro” (Osachi Hamaguchi
and Junichiro Koizumi), Ronza, October 2001.
Banno, Junji, Showa-shi no Ketteiteki Shunkan (Decisive Moments in the History of Showa), Chikuma Shinsho, 2004.
Dore, Ronald P., Education in Tokugawa Japan, Center for Japanese Studies,
University of Michigan, 1984.
Fujimoto, Takahiro, Nihon no Monozukuri Tetsugaku (Japanese Philosophy of
Manufacturing), Nihon Keizai Shimbunsha, 2004.
Fujimoto, Takahiro, Akira Takeishi, and Yaichi Aoshima, eds, Bijinesu
Akitekucha: Seihin, Soshiki, Purosesu no Senryakuteki Sekkei (BusinessArchitecture: Strategic Design of Products, Organizations, and Processes), Yuhikaku, 2001.
Fujimoto, Takahiro, and Junjiro Shintaku, eds, Chugoku Seizogyo no
Akitekucha Bunseki (Archtecture Analysis of Chinese Manufacturing
Industries), Toyo Keizai Shimposha, 2005.
Fukuzawa, Yukichi, Bunmeiron no Gairyaku (Outline of Civilization), Iwanami

233

Shoten, 1962 (originally 1875).
Hara, Akira, Nihon Keizaishi (Japanese Economic History), University of the
Air Press, 1994, (revised in 1999).
Hara, Yonosuke, Ajia Dainamizumu: Shihonshugi no Nettowaku to Hatten no
Chiikisei (Asian Dynamism: Capitalist Networks and Regional Characteristics of Development), NTT Publishing, 1996.
Hayami, Akira, and Matao Miyamoto, eds, Nihon Keizaishi 1: Keizai Shakai no
Seiritsu 17-18 Seiki, (Japanese Economic History vol. 1: Establishmentof Economic Society 17th-18th Centuries), Iwanami Shoten, 1988.
Inoki, Masamichi, Gunkoku Nihon no Kobo: Nisshin Senso kara Nitchu Senso e(The Rise and Fa1l of the Japanese Militarist State: From the SinoJapanese [Nisshin] War to the Sino-Japanese [Nitchu] War), Chuko
Shinsho, 1995.
Irokawa, Daikichi, Meiji no Bunka (The Culture of Meiji), Iwanami Shoten,
1970.
Ishii, Kanji, Akira Hara, and Haruhito Takeda, eds, Nihon Keizaishi 1 - Bakumatsu Ishin Ki (Japanese Economic History 1: End of Bakufu and Meiji
Restoration), University of Tokyo Press, 2000a.
Ishii, Kanji, Akira Hara, and Haruhito Takeda, eds, Nihon Keizaishi 2 - Sangyo
Kakumei Ki (Japanese Economic History 2: Industrial Revolution), University of Tokyo Press, 2000b.
Ito, Motoshige, Kazuharu Kiyono, Masahiro Okuno, and Kotaro Suzumura,
Sangyo Seisaku no Keizai Bunseki (Economic Analysis of Industrial Policy), University of Tokyo Press, 1988.
Ito, Takatoshi, The Japanese Economy, MIT Press, 1992.
Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Vietnam Kunibetsu Enjo
Kenkyukai Hokokusho (A Report of the Research Group on Economic
Cooperation in Vietnam), March 1995.
Johnson, Chalmers, MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial
Policy, 1925-1975, Stanford University Press, 1982.
Kamiyama, Tsuneo, “Zaisei Seisaku to Kinyu Kozo” (Fiscal Policy and Financial Structure), in K. Ishii, A. Hara, and H. Takeda, eds, Nihon Keizaishi
2 - Sangyo Kakumei Ki (Japanese Economic History 2: Industrial Revolution), University of Tokyo Press, 2000.

234

References

Kaneda, Tatsuo, Kirugisutan Keizai Saisei no Michi: Chiteki Shien no Kokoromi (Path to the Recovery of the Kyrgyzstan Economy: An Attempt inIntellectual Assistance), JIIA Paper No.1, The Japan Institute of International Affairs, 1992.
Kawakatsu, Heita, Nihon Bunmei to Kindai Seiyo: Sakoku Saiko (Japanese Civilization and Modern West: Rethinking the Closed Door Policy), NHK
Books, 1991.
Komiya, Ryutaro, Boeki Kuroji Akaji no Keizaigaku: Nichibei Masatsu no
Orokasa (Economics of Trade Surplus and Deficit: The Folly of theJapan-US Friction), Toyo Keizai Shimposha, 1994.
Komiya, Ryutaro, Masahiro Okuno, and Kotaro Suzumura, eds, Industrial Policy of Japan, Academic Press, 1988.
Kosai, Yutaka, En no Sengoshi (The Postwar History of the Yen), NHK Ningendaigaku Textbook, 1995.
Kosai, Yutaka, and Juro Teranishi, eds, Sengo Nihon no Keizai Kaikaku: Shijo
to Seifu (Economic Reforms of Postwar Japan: Market and Government), University of Tokyo Press, 1993.
Maegawa, Keiji, “The Continuity of Cultures and Civilization: An Introduction
to the Concept of Translative Adaptation,” in K. Ohno and I. Ohno, eds,
Japanese Views on Economic Development: Diverse Paths to theMarket, Routledge, 1998.
Maegawa, Keiji, Gurokarizeishon no Jinruigaku: Kokusai Bunka, Kaihatsu,
Imin (The Anthropology of Glocalization: International Cultures, Development, Migration), Shinyosha, 2004.
Maruyama, Masao, Nihon no Shiso (Thoughts of Japan), Iwanami Shinsho,
1961.
Matsumoto, Takanori, and Miyako Okuda, “Senzenki Nihon ni okeru Zairai
Sangyo no Zenkoku Tenkai: Eigyo-zei Deta ni yoru Suryo-teki Bunseki”(Nationwide Development of Indigenous Industries in Prewar Japan:
Quantitative Analysis Using Sales Tax Data), in T. Nakamura, ed, Nihonno Keizai Hatten to Zairai Sangyo (Japanese Economic Development
and Indigenous Industries), Yamakawa Shuppansha, 1997.
McKinnon, Ronald I., and Kenichi Ohno, Dollar and Yen: Resolving Economic
Conflict between the United States and Japan, MIT Press, 1997. Also

235

available in Japanese translation (Nihon Keizai Shimbunsha, 1998).
Minami, Ryoshin, The Economic Development of Japan, Macmillan, 1986.
Miyamoto, Matao, Nihon no Kindai 11: Kigyoka-tachi no Chosen (Modern Ageof Japan vol.11: Challenges of Entrepreneurs), Chuo Koron Shinsha,
1999.
Miyamoto, Matao, and Masahito Uemura, “Tokugawa Keizai no Junkan Kozo”(Circulation Structure of Tokugawa Economy) in A. Hayami and M.
Miyamoto, eds, Nihon Keizaishi 1: Keizai Shakai no Seiritsu 17-18
Seiki, (Japanese Economic History vol. 1: Establishment of Economic
Society 17th-18th Centuries), Iwanami Shoten, 1988.
Miyamoto, Matao et al, Nihon Keieishi: Nihon-gata Kigyo Keiei no Hatten, Edo
kara Heisei e (History of Japanese Management: Development of theJapanese Management Model from Edo to Heisei), Yuhikaku, 1995.
Miyazaki, Yasusada, Nogyo Zensho (Encyclopedia of Agriculture), 1697.
Miyoshi, Yukio, ed, Soseki Bunmei Ronshu (Soseki’s Writings on Civilization),
Iwanami Bunko, 1986.
Murakami, Katsuhiko, “Boeki no Kakudai to Shihon no Yushutsunyu” (Trade
Expansion and Capital Export and Import), in K. Ishii, A. Hara, and H.
Takeda, eds, Nihon Keizaishi 2 - Sangyo Kakumei Ki (Japanese Economic History 2: Industrial Revolution), University of Tokyo Press, 2000.
Murakami, Yasusuke, Shin Chukan Taishu no Jidai (The Age of New Middle
Mass), Chuo Koronsha, 1984.
Nakamura, Masanori, Showa no Kyoko: Daifukyo to Shinobiyoru Fashizumu(Showa Crisis: Depression and Encroaching Fascism), Shogakukan,
1982.
Nakamura, Takafusa, Showa Kyoko to Keizai Seisaku (Showa Depression andEconomic Policy), Kodansha Gakujutsu Bunko, 1994.
Nakamura, Takafusa, “Joron: Zairai Sangyo no Bunseki Shikaku” (Introduction: An Analytical Framework of Indigenous Industiries) in T. Nakamura, ed, Nihon no Keizai Hatten to Zairai Sangyo (Japanese Economic
Development and Indigenous Industries), Yamakawa Shuppansha, 1997.
Nakamura, Takafusa, and Konosuke Odaka, eds, Nihon Keizaishi 6: Nijukozo(Japanese Economic History vol. 6: The Dual Structure), Iwanami
Shoten, 1989.

236

References

Nakamura, Takafusa, ed, Nihon Keizaishi 7: Keikakuka to Minshuka (Japanese
Economic History vol. 7: Planning and Democratization), Iwanami
Shoten, 1989.
Nakamura, Takafusa, ed, Nihon no Keizai Hatten to Zairai Sangyo (Japanese
Economic Development and Indigenous Industries), Yamakawa Shuppansha, 1997.
Nishikawa, Shunsaku, and Masatoshi Amano, “Shohan no Sangyo to Keizai
Seisaku” (Industries and Economic Policies of Hans), in H. Shimbo and
O. Saito, eds, Nihon Keizaishi 2: Kindai Seicho no Taido (Japanese Economic History 2: The Dawn of Modern Development), Iwanami Shoten,
1989.
Nishikawa, Shunsaku, and Takeshi Abe, eds, Nihon Keizaishi 4: Sangyoka no
Jidai 1 (Japanese Economic History vol. 4: The Age of Industrialization1), Iwanami Shoten, 1990.
Nishikawa, Shunsaku, and Yuzo Yamamoto, eds, Nihon Keizaishi 5: Sangyoka
no Jidai 2 (Japanese Economic History vol. 5: The Age of Industrialization 2), Iwanami Shoten, 1990.
Noguchi, Yukio, 1940-nen Taisei: Saraba Senji Keizai (The 1940 Regime:
Farewell to the Wartime Economy), Toyo Keizai Shimposha, 1995.
Odaka, Konosuke, “Sangyo no Ninaite” (Workforce and Work Systems), in S.
Nishikawa and T. Abe, eds, Nihon Keizaishi 4: Sangyoka no Jidai 1(Japanese Economic History vol. 4: The Age of Industrialization 1),
Iwanami Shoten, 1990.
Odaka, Konosuke, Shokunin no Sekai, Kojo no Sekai, Shinban (The World ofCraftsmen and the World of Factories, new edition), NTT Publishing,
2000.
Ohno, Kenichi, “Nihon Keizai, Mikuro karano Saisei o” (Renewal of Japan’s
Economy Begins from Microeconomic Cleanup), Nihon Keizai
Shimbun, December 31, 2002.
Ohno, Kenichi, East Asian Growth and Japanese Aid Strategy, GRIPS, 2003.
Ohno, Kenichi, “Designing a Comprehensive and Realistic Industrial Strategy,”
Vietnam Development Forum Discussion Paper, No.1, June 2004.
Ohno, Kenichi, and Nguyen Van Thuong, eds, Improving Industrial Policy Formulation, Vietnam Development Forum, The Publishing House of Politi-

237

cal Theory, 2005.
Oishi, Shinzaburo, Edo Jidai (The Edo Period), Chuko Shinsho no.476, 1977.
Okazaki, Tetsuji, Kogyoka no Kiseki: Keizai Taikoku Zenshi (The Road to
Industrialization: Prehistory of the Economic Giant), Yomiuri Shimbunsha, 1997.
Okazaki, Tetsuji, Edo no Sijo Keizai: Rekishiseido Bunseki kara Mita
Kabunakama (The Market Economy of Edo: Trade Cartels from theViewpoint of Historical Institutional Analysis), Kodansha Sensho Metier
155, 1999.
Okazaki, Tetsuji, and Masahiro Okuno, eds, Gendai Nihon Keizai Shisutemu no
Genryu (The Source of the Modern Japanese Economic System), Nihon
Keizai Shimbunsha, 1993.
Okimoto, Daniel I., Between MITI and the Market, Stanford University Press,
1989.
Ranis, Gustav, “The Financing of Japanese Economic Development,” in K.
Ohkawa et al, eds, Agriculture and Economic Growth: Japan’s Experience, University of Tokyo Press, 1969.
Rosovsky, Henry, Capital Formation in Japan: 1868-1940, Free Press of Glencoe, 1961.
Saito, Osamu, Purotokogyoka no Jidai: Seiyo to Nihon no Hikakushi (The Ageof Proto-Industrialization: Western Europe and Japan in Historical Comparison), Nihon Hyoronsha, 1985.
Saito, Osamu, and Masayuki Tanimoto, “Zairai Sangyo no Saihensei” (Restructuring of the Indiginous Industries), in M. Umemura and Y. Yamamoto,eds, Nihon Keizaishi 3: Kaiko to Ishin (Japanese Economic History
vol.3: Opening of Ports and Meiji Restoration), Iwanami Shoten, 1989.
Sawai, Minoru, “Kikai Kogyo” (Machinery Industry), in S. Nishikawa and T.
Abe, eds, Nihon Keizaishi 4: Sangyoka no Jidai 1 (Japanese Economic
History vol. 4: The Age of Industrialization 1), Iwanami Shoten, 1990.
Shibusawa, Eiichi, The Autobiography of Shibusawa Eiichi: From Peasant to
Entrepreneur, translated by Teruko Craig, University of Tokyo Press,
1994.
Shimbo, Hiroshi, and Osamu Saito, eds, Nihon Keizaishi 2: Kindai Seicho no
Taido (Japanese Economic History vol. 2: The Dawn of Modern Devel-

238

References

opment), Iwanami Shoten, 1989.
Sonobe, Tetsushi, and Keijiro Otsuka, Sangyo Hatten no Rutsu to Senryaku:
Nicchutai no Keiken ni Manabu (Roots and Strategies of Industrial
Development: Lessons from the East Asian Experience), Chisen Shokan,
2004.
Special Survey Committee of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Postwar Reconstruction of the Japanese Economy, compiled by Saburo Okita, University of Tokyo Press, 1992 (the original report in Japanese, Nihon Keizai
Saiken no Kihon Mondai (Basic Problems in Rebuilding the Japanese
Economy), published in September 1946).
Sugihara, Kaoru, Ajiakan Boeki no Keisei to Kozo (Formation and Structure of
Intra-Asia Trade), Minerva Shobo, 1996.
Takahashi, Kamekichi, and Sunao Morigaki, Showa Kinyu Kyoko Shi (Historyof Showa Financial Crisis), Seimeikai Shinsho, 1968, revised andreprinted in Kodansha Gakujutsu Bunko, 1993.
Tanaka, Keiichi, Hyakusho no Edo Jidai (The Edo Period Led by Farmers),
Chikuma Shinsho, 2000.
Teranishi, Juro, “Kinyu no Kindaika to Sangyoka” (Modernization of Financeand Industrialization), in S. Nishikawa and Y. Yamamoto, eds, Nihon
Keizaishi 5: Sangyoka no Jidai 2 (Japanese Economic History vol. 5:
The Age of Industrialization 2), Iwanami Shoten, 1990.
Tominaga, Kenichi, Nihon no Kindaika to Shakai Hendo: Chubingen Kogi (TheModernization of Japan and Social Change: A Lecture at Tuebingen),
Kodansha Gakujutsu Bunko, 1990.
Toriumi, Yasushi, Nihon no Kindai: Kokumin Kokka no Keisei Hatten to Zasetsu (Modern Japan: The Formation, Development and Collapse of the
Nation State), University of the Air Press, 1996.
Umemura, Mataji, and Yuzo Yamamoto, eds, Nihon Keizaishi 3: Kaiko to Ishin(Japanese Economic History vol. 3: Opening of Ports and Meiji Restoration), Iwanami Shoten, 1989.
Umesao, Tadao, Nihon towa Nanika: Kindai Nihon Bunmei no Keisei to Hatten(What is Japan?: Formation and Development of Modern Japanese Civilization), NHK Books, 1986.
Umesao, Tadao, An Ecological View of History: Japanese Civilization in the239

World Context, Trans Pacific Press, 2003.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Least
Development Countries Report 2004.
Yamamoto, Yoshihiko, ed, Kiyosawa Kiyoshi Hyoronshu (Collected Essays of
Kiyosawa Kiyoshi), Iwanami Shoten, 2002.
Yoshikawa, Hiroshi, Kodo Seicho: Nihon o Kaeta 6000 Nichi (The HighGrowth Period: 6000 Days That Changed Japan), Yomiuri Shimbunsha,
1997.
Yoshino, Sakuzo, “Kensei no Hongi o Toite sono Yushu no Bi o Nasu no Michio Ronzu” (Discourse on the Principle of Constitutional Government andthe Way to Fully Develop its Potentiality), Chuo Koron, January 1916,
in Yoshitake Oka, ed, Yoshino Sakuzo Hyoronshu (Collected Essays of
Yoshino Sakuzo), Iwanami Bunko, 1975.
Yoshitomi, Masaru, Nihon Keizai no Shinjitsu: Tsusetsu o Koete (The Truth of
the Japanese Economy: Beyond Popular Views), Toyo Keizai Shimposha, 1998.

240

Photo Credits

Photo Credits
Chapter 1

・The World Bank, Photogragh by Kenichi Ohno
・Newspaper illustration of the Black Ships of Commodore
Perry, © Ryosenji Treasure Museum
・Tadao Umesao, © Dr. Tadao Umesao

Chapter 2

・A scene from Tokaido “Highway” photogragh by Felice Beato,© JCII Camera Museum

Chapter 3

・Odaiba, © Tokyo Port Terminal Corporation
・The Iwakura Mission, © Yamaguchi Prefectural Archives
・Tomoatsu Godai, © Osaka Chamber of Commerce andIndustry・Yataro Iwasaki, © Mitsubishi Archives

Chapter 4・The first steam locomotive made in Japan, © Transportation
MuseumChapter 5・Garabo Spinning Machine and Ring Spinning Frame,© Toyota Commemorative Museum of Industry andTechnology
・The Sangenya Factory of Osaka Spinning Company, © Toyobo
Co., Ltd.
・Eiichi Shibusawa, © Shibusawa Ei’ichi Memorial Foundation
Shibusawa Memorial Museum
・Takeo Yamanobe, © Toyobo Co., Ltd.

Chapter 6

・Bank of Japan building, © Currency Museum,
Institute for Monetary and Economic Studies, Bank of Japan・The Japanese Colonial Administration in Korea, © The Asahi
Shimbun Company
・Yahata Steel, © The Mainichi Newspapers

Chapter 7

・Taisho Democracy: an open-air speech meeting, © Kyodo
News・Washington Conference, © The Mainichi Newspapers
・Kijuro Shidehara, © The Cabinet Affairs Office・Sakuzo Yoshino, © Yoshino Sakuzou Memorial Museum

Chapter 8・Depositors queue up in front of Tokyo Savings Bank, © The

241

Mainichi Newspapers
・The headquarters of the Bank of Taiwan, © The Yomiuri
ShimbunChapter 9・The Japanese Army marching into the gate of Qiqihar, © The
Mainichi Newspapers
・Junnosuke Inoue, © Bank of Japan・Korekiyo Takahashi, © Bank of Japan

Chapter 10

・Tokyo near Shimbashi Station, © National Showa Memorial
Museum
・A black market in Osaka after the war, © The National
Archives and Records Administration, Documentary
Workshop・Life after the war (life in a makeshift hut, eating at a black
market, and a fish dealer in a black market),© The National Archives and Records Administration,
Documentary Workshop
・Life after the war (a train packed with city dwellers), ©
National Showa Memorial Museum
・Hiromi Arisawa, © The Mainichi Newspapers
・Satakero Okita, © Professor Yoichi Okita

Chapter 11

・A train carrying new high school graduates to big cities, © The
Yomiuri Shimbun
・The Miike miners, © The Yomiuri Shimbun
・Protestation against the government, © The Mainichi
Newspapers
・Soichiro Honda, © Honda Motor Corporation Limited

Chapter 12・Consumers rushing to a supermarket, © The Mainichi
Newspapers

Chapter 13

・The bankruptcy of Yamaichi Securities, © The Mainichi
Newspapers

242About the Author

About the Author

Kenichi Ohno is Professor of Economics at the National Graduate Institute for
Policy Studies (GRIPS), Tokyo, and the research director of the Vietnam
Development Forum (VDF), Hanoi. He is the author and editor of several books
on international and development economics, including Development Economics of East Asia (Yuhikaku, 1997, with Kojiro Sakurai), Dollar and Yen (MITPress, 1997, with Ronald I. McKinnon), Japanese Views on Economic Development (Routledge, 1998, with Izumi Ohno), and Globalization of Developing
Countries (Toyo Keizai Shimposha, 2000).

243