Tenant, Landlord, and Risk
Revisiting the Debate on Japanese Capitalism*
ISS Discussion Paper Series
F–144
February 2008
This version: August 2019
Masaki Nakabayashi†
Institute of Social Science
The University of Tokyo

Abstract
Moritaro Yamada’s Analysis of Japanese Capitalism (1934) characterized the Japanese
economy in that time. First, it highlighted the duality of the modern sector, whose productivity was relatively high, and the traditional sector, whose productivity was relatively low.
Second, it argued that the paternalistic risk-bearing mechanism worked in the traditional
sector. Third, it discussed that while the stability of society and the continued stagnancy
of productivity had been symbiotic conditions, this structure was disintegrating. The work
provoked intense debate among Japanese Marxian economists to understand the Japanese
economy. However, classical economics then did not have the analytical tools for a twosector economy, duality, risk sharing, and dynamic transition in the growth path, which
led to the ambiguity of Yamada’s description and confusion in the debate. We place hisargument on duality and risk sharing in an analytical framework, and rephrase its implications.
Keywords: Dual structure; risk sharing; peasant economy; tenancy contract; Japan.
JEL: B24; B25; D86.

* The author is thankful to David Mitch, Kaoru Sugihara, David Chiavacci, Naofumi Nakamura, Keishi Shira-tori, and the participants at the 46th Annual Meeting of the History of Economics Society Annual and seminars
at the University of Zürich, University of Helsinki, and Ryukoku University for their helpful comments. This
work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP17K18558 and JP18203024.
†
Corresponding address: Institute of Social Science, The University of Tokyo, Hongo 7–3–1, 103–0033
Tokyo, Japan. e-mail: mn@iss.u-tokyo.ac.jp

1

Introduction

Until the 1980s, the Marxian schools were a significant group of economic faculty at most major universities in Japan. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, they almost dominated academic economics. There were legendary “debates on Japanese capitalism” between Marxian social scientists from economics, history, and legal studies, in the 1930s (Bronfenbrenner (1956, 1984);
Mawatari (1988); and Morris-Suzuki (1989), pp. 103–111). The debate was to pin down thedevelopment phase of the Japanese economy, particularly, whether Japan had become an advanced capitalist economy with a modernized transparent market mechanism or remained an
emerging industrialized economy with a dual structure, in which the paternalistic, or, “semifeudalistic” traditional sector was still significant. Yamada (1934a), who emphasized the paternalistic institutions in the traditional sector as the stabilizer of the Japanese economy, ignited
the debate, and was its focal point.
Hindsight reveals that the emergence of the modern sector creates the dual structure in
the sense of Lewis (1954). Furthermore, beyond Lewis (1954)’s perspective, the growth in
the modern sector itself reinforced a more comprehensive and paternalistic configuration oftenancy contract in the traditional sector in Japan (Arimoto (2005)) or Italy (Luporini and
Parigi (1996)).
In the 1930s, before Arrow (1951) established the modern concept of risk, and well before contract theory demonstrated a framework to analyze institutions and organizations toshare agents’ risk, economists inevitably had to grasp the risk sharing mechanism, and thedistinction between uncertainty and risk was in fact vague, as shown in Knight (1921).
In the “debate,” the Marxian economists camp, led by Yamada, considered that institutional arrangement bequeathed from shogunate Japan to imperial Japan was important in understanding the dual structure of the Japanese economy. Another camp of Marxian economists,
represented by Kushida (1931) and Uno (1977, 2016), ruled out the significance of risk shar1

ing, denied the relevance of history-dependent institutions, and purified Marxian theory, although purified Marxian economics was effectively indifferent to classical economics.
The debate raised some profound questions in understanding the Japanese economy, andwas responsible for the continued influence of Marxian economics through the 1970s. In
the 1980s, game theory and contract theory completed the analytical framework to describe
risk-sharing mechanisms. Notably, the property right approach in economics of firm modernized Marx’s intuition (Hart (1995)), and agricultural economics based on contract theory
solved issues addressed by Marxian institutional economics, such as choice of tenancy contracts (Newbery (1977); Otsuka, Kikuchi and Hayami (1986); Otsuka and Hayami (1988);
and Otsuka, Chuma and Hayami (1992)). Marxian institutional economics completed its historical mission, and Japanese economists who had focused on institutions and organizations,finally decided to embrace neoclassical economics. An iconic figure of the transition was thelate Masahiko Aoki, whose works ranged from Marixan institutional economics in his early
career under a pen name, Reiji Himeoka, to game-theoretic institutional economics later on(Himeoka (1960) and Aoki (1988, 2001)).
The most controversial issue was the tenancy contract, which was the focus of Yamada(1934a). In late nineteenth-century Japan, “semi-feudalistic,” using Yamada (1934a)’s terminology, tenancy contracts were prevalent, although the modern sector was growing, similar toanother marginally industrialized economy, that is, Italy (Luporini and Parigi (1996)).
First, Yamada (1934a) noted the dual structure of the Japanese economy. Yamada observedthat there were two distinct sectors in the Japanese economy, a modern sector with relatively
high productivity, and the traditional/informal sector with relatively low productivity. The perspective of emerging economies later prevailed from Lewis (1954) followed by Ranis and Fei(1961), Fei and Ranis (1963, 1964), and Harris and Todaro (1970) in mainstream economics.
Yamada (1934a) preceded them. The intuition of the two-sector economy was also bequeathed2to Japanese economic theorists; Uzawa (1961) was one representative study.
Second, Yamada (1934a) focused on risk-sharing mechanisms in the traditional/informal
sector of the Japanese economy. Since the 1990s, risk sharing in the informal sector has been
analytically discussed (Besley (1995) and Townsend (1995, 2016)); however, it was not widely
acknowledged in the 1930s.
Third, Yamada (1934a) argued that based on the risk sharing mechanism in the traditional/informal sector, in Japan, social stability and productivity stagnancy had complemented
each other from the 1870s to 1910s; however, social stability was challenged from the 1920s.
Symptoms of structural changes in the growth trajectory of the Japanese economy became
discernible.
At that time, mainstream economics did not provide analytical frameworks to describe thegrowth of a two-sector economy, the interaction between the formal and informal sectors, andthe risk sharing mechanism, and neither did Yamada (1934a). Accordingly, his descriptionof those essential concepts is sometimes evasive and ambiguous, particularly, regarding risk
sharing in the informal sector.
This study aims to explain his argument, and place the duality and risk sharing mechanismin the informal sector he discussed in a clear analytical framework. Yamada (1934a) considered characteristics such as duality and risk sharing mechanism in the informal sector as
specific to Japan and constituted the “Japanese type” of capitalism in comparison with the UK,
France, and Germany (Yamada (1977[1934]b), pp. 57–59). In reality, the estimated weightof the informal sector in Japan around the 2000s is relatively low, even among advanced
economies, and close to that of the US (Schneider (2005)). The duality and risk sharing in theinformal sector were not Japan-specific but have been pervasive among emerging economies.
On the one hand, emerging economies have shown complementarity between the agricultural sector and the manufacturing sector in their economic growth (de Souza (2015)).

3

On the other hand, Loayza and Rigolini (2011) found that a greater proportion of the traditional/informal sector implies lower growth in the long term but provides a risk-sharing
mechanism in the short term. Advanced economies including Japan, today share the samechallenges of a century ago. Reexamining the observations by economists in the period andre-framing their arguments would help understand the challenges that emerging economies
face today a little better.
As we demonstrate in the following sections Yamada (1934a) considered the essential roleof tenancy contract in modern Japan after the shogunate regime which had born the risk offarmers, was abandoned. However, the intention was neither well understood nor explicitly
discussed, by either opponents or proponents in the “debate on Japanese capitalism” that Yamada (1934a) ignited. Thus, we place his focus on the risk sharing mechanism into the context
of the “debate.”
By doing so, we can better present the conceptual framework of Japanese economists inthe first half of the twentieth century, who were to embrace neoclassical economics at somepoint in the second half of the century. Notably, Japanese economics faculties fully accommodated neoclassical economics not in the 1950s but in the 1980s, when game theory andcontract theory came to represent a substantial part of the subject. This was arguably becausea critical concern in Japanese Marxian economics was the risk sharing mechanism, since Yamada (1934a). Ultimately, the risk sharing mechanism was explicitly analyzed by game theory
and contract theory in the 1980s and neoclassical economics prevailed in Japanese academia.
Our scope is narrow; however, this focus helps us cover the transformation of Japanese
economics spanning almost the entire twentieth century, and given the influence of Marxian
economics on other social sciences then, that of Japanese social sciences. Out contribution isto establish this viewpoint.
We organize the rest of the paper as follows. Section 2 concisely retraces the concept of4

risk in the history of economic thought to understand theoretical tools available to Yamada’s
generation. Section 3 overviews the “debate on Japanese capitalism” and Marxian economics
schools, which were derived forms of the “debate.” Section 4 reflects on the historical contexts
Yamada (1934a) addressed. Section 5 places Yamada (1934a)’s argument in the frameworksuggested by Lewis (1954), following Yasuba (1975), and extends the framework by introducing the risk attitude of agents. Section 6 attempts to match our framework with Yamada(1934a). Section 7 concludes.

2

The “risk” in the history of the economic thought

2.1

Finding the risk

Economists in the generation of Moritaro Yamada learned classical economics. While Marx
(1988[1867]) affected many of them, Marx (1988[1867]) was in essence also within the logicof the classical economics. A reason why Yamada (1934a) had to struggle to grasp the conceptof the risk is that the classical economics he learned did not give an analytical view on it.
For practical purposes, the merchants and investors have recognized the impact of therisk on their businesses, at latest since the fifteenth century (de Roover (1958)). In economics,
William Petty accrued a source of profit to the risk-taking (Ullmer (2004)). Petty (1899)[1662]
differentiated the opportunity cost and the default risk premium. On the opportunity cost,“Wherefore when a man giveth out his money out upon condition that he may not demand it
back until a certain time to come, whatsoever his own necessities shall be in the meantime, hecertainly may take a compensation for this inconvenience which he admits against himself”(Petty (1899)[1662], p .47). On the default risk, “As for Usury, the least that can be, is theRent of so much Land as the money lent will buy, where the security is undoubted; but where
the security is casual, then a kinde of ensurance must be enterwoven with the simple natural5

Interest, which may advance the Usury very conscionably unto any height below the Principal
it self” (Petty (1899)[1662], p. 48).

2.2

Interchangeable risk and uncertainty in Smith (1776)

Smith (1937[1776]) differentiated the opportunity cost as the “clear profit,” or, the profit without risk “to compensate the occasional to which every employment of stock is exposed,” andthe default risk premium “for compensating extraordinary losses,” with using the word “risk”
and “uncertainty” explicitly.
When the law does not enforce the performance of contracts, it puts all borrowers
nearly upon the same footing with bankrupts or people of doubtful credit in better
regulated countries. The uncertainty of recovering his money makes the lender
exact the same usurious interest which is usually required from bankrupts (Smith(1937[1776]), p. 95).
The lowest ordinary rate of profit must always be something more than what is
sufficient to compensate the occasional to which every employment of stock is
exposed. It is this surplus only which neat or clear profit. What is called grossprofit comprehends frequently, not only this surplus, but what is retained for compensating such extraordinary losses. The interest which the borrower can afford
to pay is in proportion to the clear profit only.
The lowest ordinary rate of interest must, in the same manner, be something morethan sufficient to compensate the occasional losses to which lending, even withtolerable prudence, is exposed (Smith (1937[1776]), p. 96).
In a country where the ordinary rate of clear profit is eight or ten per cent., it
may be reasonable that one half of it should go to interest, wherever business is6

carried on with borrowed money. The stock is at the risk of the borrower, who, as
it were, insures it to the lender; and four or five per cent. may in the greater part oftrades, be both a sufficient profit upon the risk of this insurance, and a sufficient
recompense for the trouble of employing the stock (Smith (1937[1776]), p. 97).
Emphasis added.
Thus, Smith (1937[1776]) treated the “risk” as the default risk of the borrower and used
the “uncertainty” for a broader set of the possibilities of nonfulfillment of the contract. The“uncertainty” by Smith (1937[1776]) included the risk and also seemed to include the “uncertainty” we know, that is, the volatility whose variance is unknown. However, concepts of therisk and uncertainty were not inherited by Marx (1988[1867]). Marx (1988[1867]) focused on
analysis of the convergence to the competitive equilibrium. Regarding the tenancy contract,
Smith (1937[1776]) considered the strength of incentives but not the risk-sharing. Without
counting the risk attitude of tenant farmers, it follows that the fixed rent contract was judged
to be superior to the sharecropping (Smith (1937[1776]), pp. 367).

2.3

Behavioral distinction in Kinight (1921)

Then, Knight (1921) revisited the risk and the uncertainty and attempted to differentiate
the measurable “risk” and the “unmeasurable” “uncertainty” (Knight (1921), p. 233). It
was a deviation from the interchangeability between the risk and the uncertainty in Smith(1937[1776]). At the same time, Knight (1923, 1924) referred to the words logically indifferently. Furthermore, even Knight (1921) referred “uncertainty” to describe both insurable
and uninsurable hazards (Brooke (2010)). The differentiation between the risk and the uncertainty in Knight (1921) was not based on logical elaboration but on observation of different
behavioral attitudes to the uncertainty between the business elites, “a special social class,7the business men” and the mass workers, “the great mass of the population.” The former isless uncertainty-averse and, as a reward, is entitled to the “residual income or profit” because“[a]ny degree of effective exercise of judgment, or making decisions, is in a free society coupled with a corresponding degree of uncertainty-bearing, of taking the responsibility for thosedecisions” (Knight (1921), p. 271 and Eichberger, Kelsey and Schnipper (2009)).
Meanwhile, Arrow (1951) and Arrow (1971[1965]a) gave analytical interpretation of theuncertainty by Knight (1921). Meantime, Markowitz (1952) and Tobin (1958) associatedthe risk to the volatility measured by the variance, which became the definition of the risk
today (Engle (2004)). Arrow (1971[1965]b) gave a tractable definition of the risk aversion.
Specifically regarding the understanding of the tenancy contract, Newbery (1977) updated thatof Smith (1937[1776]) by applying Stiglitz (1974).
Then, Savage (1954) presented a framework to define the uncertainty by the subjective
expected probability to integrate the risk and the uncertainty under the expected utility model.
As Smith (1937[1776]) indifferently treated the risk and the uncertainty, Savage (1954) recognized no theoretical difference between attitudes toward the risk as the objectively known
probability and the uncertainty/ambiguity as the objectively unknown probability. Responding to Savage (1954), however, Ellsberg (1961) pointed out behavioral difference between
attitudes to the risk and the uncertainty/ambiguity, followed by Sherman (1974). The direction inherited and updated behavioral differentiation between the risk and the uncertainty by
Knight (1921). The risk and the uncertainty/ambiguity can be consistently presented by the
subjective utility model but have been demonstrated to be different in the behavioral sense.
In sum, until the early 1950s, the distinction between the risk and the uncertainty had been
yet to be deliberated. Accordingly, the risk was not a tractable concept when a rational agent
was assumed. Economists could bypass the risk and uncertainty and build a clear argumentwith assumption of rational risk-neutral agents. Also, they could attempt to incorporate the8risk and uncertainty together, but with making discussion less clear and assuming something
behavioral for agents who bear the uncertainty. Yamada (1934a) as well as Knight (1921) took
the latter way. Knight (1921) described the “business men” who take the risk and uncertainty
and boast themselves as “a new class.” Yamada (1934a) described the landlords who took risk
and uncertainty as “semi-feudalistic.”
Referring an institution in the modern times as being “semi-feudalistic” was not an appreciation but a critics. He judged that the modern Japanese agriculture and the modern Japanesesociety whose stability relied on it were not fully modernized. The view reminds us that ofFriedrich August von Hayek on modern Germany. He scented a possible conflict between
the security and the freedom and argued that a fatal problem of the modern German society
was in its historically dense non-market mechanism for risk-sharing. He recognized it as areason why Germany embraced a welfare state that might trade off the freedom against the
security. His accusation against Germany, in comparison with the US and the UK, is almost
behavioral attitude of Germans. The fatally behavioral fault of Germans is their risk attitude
and risk-sharing mechanism (Hayek (2007[1944]), p. 155 and Hayek (1960), p. 60). In critically treating the non-market paternalistic mechanism for risk-sharing and its implication forbehavioral attitude of the constituents of the society, Yamada (1934a) and Hayek (2007[1944])
present a significant resemblance.

3

Marxian schools in Japan

3.1

Debate on Japanese capitalism

A group of Marxian economists, historians, and legal scholars published volumes on the development phase of Japanese capitalism, titled Nihon Shihonshugi Hattatsushi Koza (Lecture
Series on History of Development of Japanese Capitalism) (1932–1934). While the series con9

tained substantial diversity in arguments, a shared view was that the paternalistic, or in theirwords, “semi-feudalistic” institutions, notably in tenancy contracts, in the traditional sector,
were not negligible (Matsukata (1934)). Moritro Yamada was the leading Marxian economistof the group and his essays contributed to the series were edited as Yamada (1934a). While theexpression “semi-feudalistic” sounds inflated, logically similar mentions are not rare. Francks(1983) described the tenancy relationship as an exchange between the “subservience” of poor
households and the “more powerful obligations” to “protect” poorer households (Francks(1983), pp. 41–42).
The series, notably Yamada (1934a), ignited an intense debate on the issue. The debate
attracted not only academic interests but also the interest of activists. If the Japanese economy
was an emerging one, whose traditional sector had a significant role in resource allocation,
the political agenda should be to reform the economy into a more transparent market economy, before a socialist revolution. However, if the economy was sufficiently modernized, theMarxists should immediately move forward to a socialist revolution. Thus, agreeing with Yamada (1934a) directly related to reform or revolutionary strategy of activists. This is why thedebate attracted a wide range of readership. The debate was called the “debate on Japanese
capitalism” and scholars gathered for the Nihon Shihonshugi Hattatsushi Koza (Lecture Series
on History of Development of Japanese Capitalism) (1932–1934) called the Koza (Lecture)school (Nagaoka (1984); Morris-Suzuki (1989), pp. 81–85; Ando (1998); Walker (2011);
Lange (2014); and Walker (2016), pp. 28–74).
Their political biases affected the development of Marxian economics in Japan in the following years. The Lecture school scholars focused on institutional characteristics rooted inJapan’s historical path, in particular, to find evidence of the paternalistic institutions of the
traditional sector.
The other camp of scholars gathered at a journal for Marxian studies, the Rono (Worker

10and Farmer), and were called the Rono (Worker and Farmer) school. A leading figure of thisschool was Tamizo Kushida. These scholars wanted to demonstrate that the Japanese economy
was sufficiently industrialized, and hence, attempted to describe Japanese capitalism using theplain logic of classical economics. They explained the existing institutional arrangement of theJapanese economy using classical economics and justified its abstracted description without
focusing on historical and institutional factors (Morris-Suzuki (1989), pp. 85–88).

3.2

Does risk sharing matter?

Marx (1988[1867]) did not present an alternative framework to replace classical economics.
Instead, relying on the logic of classical economics, Marx (1988[1867]) attempted to list findings that classical economists had overlooked. Accordingly, Marx (1988[1867]) presented
historical and institutional observations around the logical core based on classical economics.
In addition, to describe the dynamism of development, Marx (1988[1867]) applied therhetoric of Georg W. Hegel. Notably, Marx applied the intuition of Hegel (1986) to describe
the development of Vernunft (reason) from individual to family, the state, and the supra state,
to the development stage of the real economy. The historical materialism of Marx was formed
as a real economy version of the historical rationalism of Hegel. As economics did not have adynamic theory then, it was also a practical choice.
At that time, Marxian economists knew economic theory as classical economics, which
was their baseline. This allows us to differentiate Marxian economists by whether they upheld
the logic of classical economics or added something else.
The Rono (Worker and Farmer) school tended to directly apply classical economics to understand Marx (1988[1867]) and apply their understanding to the Japanese economy. Thus,
they unconsciously purified Marx’s text through the screen of classical economics and removed the subtle implications regarding incentives and risk sharing, which classical eco-11

nomics did not support. A typical example was Tamizo Kushida, whose work we discussin section 6.
Classical economics did not contain the economics of information and risk sharing. It
made any focus on institutions for risk sharing appear beyond economics. Therefore, Kushida
denied any significance of institutional arrangement to share the risk in the traditional/informal
sector of the Japanese economy. This was the focal point in the debate between Yamada andKushida.

3.3

Two currents

Therefore, essentially, the followers of Marx (1988[1867]) had two choices. One was to trim
the detailed facts from Marx’s text and abstract its logic in the context of classical and neoclassical economics. The Worker and Farmer school chose this path. Itsuro Sakisaka, on
an opinion leader of this school was indifferent to the specific characteristics of the Japanese
economy (Walker (2016), pp. 49–53).
Sakisaka’s positioning was, in a sense, a practical choice to pursue the politically predetermined aim of the Worker and Farmer school, an immediate socialist revolution of Japan.
However, probably ironically, the attitude enabled a divorce of research and practice for Marxian economists of the Worker and Farmer school in academia. The representative descendant,
who furthered the academic study of Marxian economics was Kozo Uno, who rewrote Marx
(1988[1867]) in a classical presentation. Uno’s representative work, Uno (1977) removed
historical and institutional descriptions from Marx (1988[1867]) and meticulously rephrased
the logic of Marx (1988[1867]) with a cleaner one of classical economics. Accordingly, Uno(1977) is much thinner and more readable than Marx (1988[1867]) in describing the logic ofMarx (1988[1867]). In describing the development stages, Uno allowed some institutionaland historical elements to remain; however, simplified Marx’s text significantly in Uno (2016)

12

(Sekine (1975, 1995); Mawatari (1985); Krätke (2007), pp. 120–121; Walker (2013); andLange (2014)).
Similar to Kozo Uno, but a more sophisticated version of the purifying approach wasapplying neoclassical economics to interpret Marx (1988[1867]) (Morris-Suzuki (1989), pp
91, 111–114). Analytical Marxian economics after the Second Word War, led by Nobuo
Okishio (Okishio (1966, 1977, 2001)) and followed by Romer (1981) and Yoshihara (1998a,
1998b, 2010) among others, placed Marxian perspectives in the context of neoclassical growthmodels (Yoshihara (2017) and Tavani and Zamparelli (2017)).
The other choice was to enrich the list of historical and institutional observations, on whichclassical economics failed to focus. Nihon Shihonshugi Hattatsushi Koza (Lecture Series on
History of Development of Japanese Capitalism) (1932–1934), led by Yamada (1934a) belonged to this camp. Yamada’s interests were predominantly on “specificity” of the “structuralcharacter” of the Japanese economy formed by its historical path throughout Yamada (1934a)(Yamada (1934a), pp. 44–68). In hindsight, we could say this approach was an institutionaland historical Marxian approach. Their works, notably Yamada (1934a) contained historicaland institutional details, in contrast to Kozo Uno, who dropped any historical and institutional
specificity in his primary works. This difference made Uno’s works readable to non-Japanesescholars and vice versa. Valuable academic study on Yamada (1934a) written in English has
been effectively limited to Yasuba (1975).
Furthermore, as we discuss below, even Yasuba (1975), which relied on classical economics, failed to capture the institutional essence of the Japanese economy that Yamada(1934a) struggled to grasp. A clear-cut institutional analysis of the Japanese economy, whose
institutional arrangements are different from those of the West, particularly the US, was realized only by Aoki (1988), which replaced the Marxian description with game-theoretic analysis.

13

We also reconsider their understanding of the Japanese economy before the Second World
War. To do so, we must first review the historical and institutional conditions of tenancy
contract, surrounding Moritaro Yamada.

4

Historical contexts

4.1

The shogunate regime

From 1603 to 1868, Japan was under the shogunate federation. Under this regime, the shogunate assumed the diplomatic and supreme command, as the central government, and ruled overits own domains directly. Lords assumed sovereignty for domestic affairs in their domains,
including taxation, as hereditary governors. While they carried exclusive power to levy tax intheir domains, they were not entitled to the property rights of land. Instead, registered farming
households were entitled to the property right of the parcel of farmland they cultivated. A
registered household was obliged to pay land tax determined by the land surveillance of the
shogunate or a lord, depending on jurisdiction of the village. As long as the stipulated land
tax was paid, the shogunate court or the lord’s court protected the household’s property right.
The unit of property right protection was a stem family. An individual household, which
provided manual labor to cultivate a parcel of farmland, was recognized as the property rightholder of the parcel. This property right system was completed by the 1670s in the shogunate domain and was followed by lords in developed regions. While the village-level joint
ownership remained in backward regions, where lower productivity implied that farmers were
too vulnerable to take risk, individually and exclusively (Brwon (1993), pp. 39–112 and Brwon (2011), pp. 58–100). In particular, Brwon (2011) estimated that domains whose lords
mandated joint ownership for risk sharing amounted to less than 30 percent of national output (Brwon (2011), p. 94). However, individual and exclusive ownership prevailed in the14

shogunate and advanced domains (Mandai and Nakabayashi (2018)).
Not only did the shogunate create massive populations of small owner-farmers and theirproperty rights, but it also heavily regulated the agricultural financial markets and the farmland markets to check the concentration of land ownership. First, by the Ban of Perpetual
Sell and Purchase of Farmland of 1643, the shogunate banned outright the “perpetual” selland purchase of a parcel of farmland (Saito (2009)). While the transfer of property right between fellow farmers within a village was in practice possible, the ban denied, for instance, apossibility that a merchant or financier in a city accumulated land to emerge as a significant
landlord.
A general restriction of transfer of property granted as settlement by the crown was notunique to Japan. For instance, in the age when farmers became property owners in Japan, exfeudal lords became property owners in the UK. The British crown had banned the transfer ofland other than inheritance in general, and every single transfer other than inheritance had tobe approved by a special act with parliamentary consent (North and Weingast (1989); Bogart
and Richardson (2011); and Bogart (2011)). The Premier Ordinance Number 50 of 1872
repealed Japan’s restriction on land transfer, after the Meiji Restoration of 1868. In the UK,
the Settled Land Acts of 1882–1925 led to its gradual removal. The restriction in the UK
helped solidify an extremely unequal land ownership among early modern UK feudal lords,
including the crown itself, which survive as the most significant landlords in the modern UK.
By contrast, the shogunate of Japan attempted to solidify the egalitarian land ownership of the
independent farmers it created.
Another regulatory instrument was regulation on foreclosure. There were two kinds ofloans with farmland collateral. One was with a “pledge (schiire)” of a parcel of farmland.
A “pledge (shichiire)” was a form of collateral under which the lender paid the land tax ofthe pledged parcel. The other was a loan “secured (kakiire)” by a parcel of farmland under15

which the owner (borrower) paid the land tax of the collateral parcel that secured the loan.
The shogunate law categorized the former as a “legal case related to real right (honkuji)” andthe latter as a “legal case related to financial claim (kanekuji).” The shogunate court only
guaranteed the enforcement of the former category. For the latter, the shogunate court often
encouraged private settlement (Mandai and Nakabayashi (2018)).
The shogunate appointed a farmer as the mayor of the village, who served as the local
taxation authority and the court of first instance, under the shogunate judicial system. The
mayor was the first to resolve a dispute. Then, in case of a “pledge (shichiire)” contract, either
party would file a complaint at the court of the magistrate (daikan) in charge of the county,
who was a shogunate bureaucrat samurai. If the case was hard to resolve based on existinglaws and previous cases, the magistrate consulted the Conference Chamber (Hyojosho) at theEdo (Tokyo) castle of the shogunate, which was the final court of appeal, about handling thecase. Meanwhile, in case of a loan contract “secured (kakiire)” by a parcel of farmland, themagistrate usually did not take a complaint and instead encouraged both parties to settle thedispute privately. In other words, the shogunate adopted the “judiciary foreclosure” system,
and it was applied only to a loan contract “pledged (shichiire)” by a parcel of farmland. In
addition, since the village office was in charge of collecting land tax from registered owners,
a party that was not registered as a resident of the village could not pay the land tax levied ona parcel of farmland. Thus, a party that was not a registered resident of the village could not
be a lender of a “pledged (shiciire)” loan contract, which was eligible for enforcement by the
shogunate court (Mandai and Nakabayashi (2018)).
In short, the shogunate court protected the lender’s claim by enforcing foreclosure andhaving the lender repossess the pledged parcel only if the contract was concluded between
fellow farmers of the same village. The restriction of judicial service provision substantiallyhindered a geographic integration of agricultural financial markets. Furthermore, observing

16

an increase in foreclosure and gradual concentration of land ownership, the shogunate tightened procedural requirements for enforcement of foreclosure in the early eighteenth century(Mandai and Nakabayashi (2018)).
In addition, the shogunate and lords allowed farmers to pay land tax in kind, and thevillage jointly took liability of land tax payment. That is, if the crops of a household fell
short of the land tax payment, fellow households were allowed to temporarily assume theland tax payment, such that the liability transformed into a debt within the village and thefailing household circumvented immediate default. Furthermore, if the whole village sufferedfrom a poor crop, the mayor negotiated with the magistrate (daikan) in charge of the county
for temporary land tax reduction, and often, such a request was approved (Nakabayashi andMoriguchi (2017)).
In addition, farming households were shielded from competition in the outside labor market to some extent. Under the shogunate regime, the household head would approve the movement of dependents. If a son wanted to leave his farming family and join the service sectorin Edo, his father would send a letter of movement to his employer in Edo, which ensured
his residence registration in Edo. However, if a son ran away to Edo seeking a more relaxedjob in the service sector, without a letter of movement from his father, his stay without residence registration or a travel permission would be illegal, and such a person did not enjoy
legal protection as a shogunate subject (Saito and Sato (2012)).
In summary, while the shogunate regime protected the property rights of individual farmers
strictly, it also regulated and protected them from commodity market risk, financial market
risk, and natural risk.
This institutional arrangement resulted in relatively small wealth inequality. Saito (2015)
estimated income distribution in the State of Choshu (Yamaguchi prefecture) in the 1840s. The
relative household income distribution ratio between the samurai class, merchant class, and17

farmer class in the 1840s was roughly 1.2 : 1.1 : 1.0. As a comparative number, the relative
household income distribution ratio between the aristocracy and gentry class, the middle class,and the lower class in England, as of 1688, was 7.3 : 2.4 : 0.8 (Saito (2015), pp. 405–411).
The samurai class in Saito (2015)’s estimate includes all of the lords and the lowest public
servants, and thus, income inequality within the class was substantial. Thus, let us cite anotherstudy. In 1886, less than 20 years since the Meiji Restoration of 1868, the Gini coefficient ofincome of Japan was estimated to be higher than that of Japan and Germany in the 2000s.
However, it was almost the same as that of the US in the 2000s, and much lower than thatof England from the seventeenth to eighteenth centuries (Milanovic, Lindert and Williamson(2011) and Moriguchi and Saez (2008)).

4.2

Meiji Restoration of 1868

In 1868, the imperial court backed by lords in West Japan toppled the shogunate and installed
itself as the government, an event that is called the Meiji Restoration. Premier Ordinance,
Number 50 of 1872, repealed the ban of “perpetual” sell and purchase of farmland, and thecentralized registration of land ownership was implemented that year. Next year, the Land
Tax Reform Act of 1873 reauthorized the property right of registered farmers. Furthermore,
the Ordinance of Secured and Pledged Farmland (Jisho Shichiire Kakiire Kisoku) of 1873
stipulated that the state court should protect the claims of lenders for loans with a “pledge(shichiire) ” of a parcel of farmland and loans “secured (kakiire)” by a parcel of farmland.
Furthermore, the state court should enforce foreclosure in both types of loans. A loan witha “pledge (kakiire)” of a parcel of farmland, under which the lender paid the land tax, could
be made only by a person whose registered address was the same as the borrower’s. Thus,
the ordinance technically meant the removal of geographical restriction of enforcement offoreclosure by the state court. The state court now enforced foreclosure of collateral farmland,18regardless of whether the lender’s address was in the same village as the borrower’s, andboosted geographical expansion and integration of farmland-collateral loan markets (Mandai
and Nakabayashi (2018)).
Meanwhile, the National Bank Act of 1872, modeled on the US national bank system,
introduced a liberal modern banking system. Through the end of the 1870s, more than 150
local banks were established all over Japan by local landlords, especially, in rural regions.
Farmers now had broader access to farmland-collateral loans.
In addition, the Land Tax Reform Act obliged taxpayers to pay land tax in money, notin kind, and did not permit temporary reductions in years of poor crop output. This resulted
in a sharp rise in the commercialization of agricultural products. The ratio of market tradedagricultural value-added rose from about 50 percent in the late 1880s to over 70 percent in
the 1910s (Karshenas (1995), p. 132). The government abolished the joint tax liability at thevillage level also. By the mid-1880s, the government had also repealed the regulations on
movement through residence registration and travel permission.
Therefore, owner farmers suddenly had the freedom to access the financial market and therisk sharing mechanism of the shogunate regime ended. The outcome was straightforward. In
the early 1870s, just after the Meiji Restoration, the ratio of tenanted farmland in the entire
farmland of Japan was estimated to be 27 percent. This ratio jumped to 45 percent in the 1900s(Furushima (1958), p. 332; Francks (1983), 148–150; Smethurst (1986), pp. 57–67; Hayami(1991), pp. 64–66; Sakane (2002), p. 410; and Francks (2006), pp. 44–47, 136–139).
The deregulation after the Meiji Restoration prompted small owner farmers to borrow
more but removed the shogunate risk sharing mechanism. It converted a mass of independent
owner farmers, who often borrowed from local banks owned by landlords, into tenant farmers.
Often, owner farmers who fell behind in payments remained in the foreclosed parcel offarmland and continued to cultivate it as tenant farmers. Thus, the concentration of ownership

19

did not accompany the change in the scale of business, and small farming continued to be
dominant, under the land-saving, fertilizer intensive, and labor intensive technologies (Francks(1983), pp. 19–46, 63–65 and Francks (2006), pp. 136–143). In other words, the change inthe ownership did not lead to a change in agricultural techniques. If any, the change was inrisk and incentives.
A typical example of more significant role of landlords was temporary rent reduction.
While the government never conceded land tax in severe weather conditions, landlords often
accepted temporary rent reduction when crop output was poor. Arimoto (2005) argued that thiswas efficient risk sharing between the landlord and tenant. It maximized the expected revenueof the landlord if the tenant was not extremely vulnerable to risk. Indeed, in most regionsin Japan after the Meiji Restoration, the fixed rent contract with covenant for temporary rent
reduction prevailed (Arimoto (2005)).
In some regions, where harvests were especially volatile, and hence, tenants were vulnerable to the weather risk, landlords offered sharecropping. Sharecropping transfers greater risk
from the tenant to the landlord. Thus, a sharecropping contract could be more efficient than afixed rent contract with temporary reduction, if the tenant was greatly risk-averse or the crop
was vastly volatile (Arimoto, Okazaki and Nakabayashi (2010)).

4.3

Dual structure

While allowing landlords to take a greater role in the traditional sector, the government pursued Westernization and industrialization in the modern urban sector. Separation of the court
from the administration in 1875, the Constitution of the Empire of Japan of 1889, modeled on
Austria, the Civil Code of 1896 and 1898 modeled on France, and the Commercial Code of1899 modeled on Germany, completed the judicial system for protecting property rights andfreedom of contract through standardized measures. The government also introduced modern

20technologies of manufacturing and mining industries.
The first age of globalization (Mauro, Sussman and Yafeh (2002); Clemens and Williamson(2004); and Ferguson and Schularick (2006)), when leading economies sustained the free trade
regime, brought significant opportunities to emerging Japan. Among new industries, the silkreeling industry, followed by the cotton spinning industry, rose as competitive industries, withthe former pushing out the Italian competitors in the US market and the latter the British andIndian competitors in the Asian markets. The rise of silk reeling was especially remarkable.
The share of Japanese raw silk in the US market reached 50 percent in the 1890s and 80 percent in the 1920s (Nakabayashi (2006, 2014); Abe (2005); and Dong, Gong, Peng and Zhao
(2015)).
The rise of the silk-reeling industry affected the peasant economy as well. While the cotton
spinning industry imported raw cotton from India and China, silk reeling depended on domestically cropped cocoon as raw material. Cocoon raising, or sericulture, which was alreadyprevalent in East Japan, drastically expanded from the 1880s and provided small farmers witha source of income. Heads of small owner and tenant farming households were able to protect their dependent family members against possible market shocks using the cocoon raisingincome (Smethurst (1986), pp. 184–231).
Both the silk reeling and cotton-spinning industries relied on young unmarried females offarming households as their labor force. It meant that females shuttled between traditional andmodern sectors. In the traditional sector, small farming was dominant, with slow improvement in technology. Most women were born into farming households in the traditional sector.
When young, they worked for a silk-reeling or cotton-spinning factory with increasing laborproductivity, and consequently, rising real wages. When mature, they returned home to marrya farmer (Hunter (2003), pp. 89–143). Women in farming households often engaged in handweaving at home in slack seasons, such as summer and winter (Hashino and Otsuka (2013)21

and Nakabayashi (2017)).
Therefore, while for males, the modern sector and the traditional sector did not interact,they had connections through female labor. The channel worked as a downward pressure on
wages in the modern sector in the short term. In the long term, however, the growth in themodern textile industry, which employed a female workforce, raised the opportunity cost of
female dependents of farming households in the traditional sector. The drying up of slack
labor in the traditional sector was a primary reason for the vanishing of hand weaving in the
1920s (Abe (2005) and Hashino and Otsuka (2013)).

4.4

Possibility of structural changes in 1920–30s

The structure was challenged in the 1920s and the 1930s from different directions. The FirstWorld War was a big push for Japanese heavy industry and the prevalence of electric power resulted in further growth in modern manufacturing. This was because electric motors had muchwider scope than did steam power units, not only in large establishments, but also in small factories and workshops. An increase in cheaper electric power also accelerated urbanization andexpanded the service sector (Waley (2009)).
This development provided both females, who had been involved in the modern textile
industry, and males, respectively, with more job opportunities in the urban secondary andtertiary sectors. It implied a rise in the reservation value of tenant farmers. Thus, tenant
farmers grew more demanding, and tenancy disputes were very common the 1920s (Francks(1983), pp. 267–269; Smethurst (1986), pp. 78–95; Francks (2006), pp. 155–157, 236–243;
and Arimoto and Sakane (2008)). If the existence of slack labor in the traditional/informal
sector was a factor of social stability in the dual structure economy, further growth in themodern sector posed a significant challenge to it.
With the integration of the labor markets, the financial markets soon followed in the 1920s.

22Until the 1920s, Local banks had no direct exposure to competition with major banks. The
exposure of local banks to financial market integration was twofold. Regarding the shortterm inter-bank markets, such as for the discount of commercial bills or overdraft, local banks
were connected to the national market and borrowed short from major banks in Tokyo andOsaka cheaply (Mitchener and Ohnuki (2009)). Meanwhile, before the 1920s, the branch
networks of major banks had not yet reached rural markets, and they did not have accessto information about local businesses. Local businesses were embedded in dense personal
networks within local communities, and relational banking from local banks was an essential
source of corporate finance for them (Nakamura (2015)). Local banks borrowed short in thenational market and lent long, at higher interest rates to local businesses, and earned the spread.
However, major banks rapidly extended their branch networks throughout the 1920s. Thisdevelopment squeezed the spread between the national market and local markets earned by
local banks. Major banks could access cheaper money in the national market, implying increase in their shares, both in the savings account and lending. One outcome was the massbankruptcy of local banks in the financial crisis of 1927 and their consolidation by majorbanks (Okazaki and Sawada (2007)). Local landlords were losing their wealth to bear external
shocks for subordinate constituent members in local committees, such as tenant farmers.
Meanwhile, the great depression in the 1930s in the US resulted in the collapse of raw
silk prices, and consequently, of the cocoon, which severely affected the peasant economy,
especially in East Japan. Peasant households lost their ability to bear external shocks for
dependent family members. Extreme measures, such as women sold into prostitution, became
an alarmingly common occurrence. The devastating impact decimated trust in the democracy
and the market economy. On the one hand, a socialist party, the Social Mass Party, which had
gained seats in the Imperial Diet, the Japanese parliament, as the Universal Manhood Suffrage
Act of 1925 came into force, increased its number of seats. On the other hand, imperial army

23

officers who considered the state socialism of the USSR as a model attempted a coup in 1936,
seeking the establishment of a command economy. Although suppressed, the coup changed
the tide. Japan invaded China in 1937, and the cooperation between the Social Mass Party
and the army brought about the National General Mobilization Act of 1938, which virtuallysuspended property rights and transformed Japan into a command economy. Ultimately, Japan
attacked the US and the UK in 1941 (Okazaki and Okuno-Fujiwara (1999)).
With the war effort, the government launched legislation to build a welfare state. Afterthe National Health Insurance Act of 1938 covered self-employed households in the primarysector, it had extended its reach to the public healthcare system. The National Health Insurance
Act of 1958 established the universal healthcare system, which provides medicines at thesame prices to any resident in Japan. This made the Japanese healthcare insurance the mostegalitarian in the world and Japan’s life expectancy the longest.
For the pension plan, the Mariners Insurance Act of 1938 was the first to provide a public pension program to workers in the private sector. The program extended its reach also,
and the National Pension Plan Act of 1959 eventually covered all residents in Japan. Boththe National Health Insurance Act of 1958 and the National Pension Plan Act of 1959 were
submitted to the Diet by the administration of Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi, who served
the wartime administration as the minister of commerce and industry and led the command
economy. Japan’s welfare state has its origin in the disappointments of the market economy
in the 1930s.

5

Reframing the argument

5.1

The classical duality model

Lewis (1954), Ranis and Fei (1961), and Fei and Ranis (1963, 1964) argued that an institu24

tional minimum wage set in the traditional/informal sector, which is above the marginal laborproductivity of dependents, fails to clear labor markets of modern and traditional sectors.
Using a similar framework, Harris and Todaro (1970) discussed that the politically set minimum wage of the urban/formal sector fails to clear markets, and the metropolises of emerging
economies tend to reserve slack labor. The origin of both strands of this literature is with Lewis(1954). Yasuba (1975) argued that Yamada (1934a) described the dual structure suggested by
Lewis (1954) in a descriptive manner.
Let us briefly review the classical duality model by Lewis (1954). Consider an economy
where labor is uniform, and production functions in both agricultural and industrial sectors are
marginally decreasing in labor. Let Le denote the endowment of labor in the entire economy,
Ya = Fa (·, L) the production function in the traditional sector, Ym = Fm (·, L) the production
function in the modern sector, fa (L) the marginal productivity in the agricultural sector, La =(fa )−1 the labor demand function in the agricultural sector, fm (L) the marginal productivity
in the modern sector, Lm = (fm )−1 the labor demand function in the modern sector, DL =La + Lm the total labor demand function in the economy, and ws the “subsistence” wage paid
to subordinates in the traditional sector.
Suppose that the labor supply function is perfectly inelastic, such that SL = Le . We
then have the equilibrium wage w∗ , which satisfies DL = Le . Since we assume that labor is
uniform in this economy, all populations are employed by either the traditional or industrial
sector under w∗ if any institutional or legal constraint does not bind. Then, the allocation oflabor between both sectors is determined, such that fa = fm = w∗ .
However, in a developing economy, where the productivity of the modern sector is quite
low, the competitive equilibrium wage w∗ satisfying DL = Le might be lower than the level
perceived, as “subsistence” level, ws , in traditional society. In this case, paternalistic community superiors, such as household heads and landlords might keep paying ws , and by doing25

so, offer some subsidy, such that their subordinates receive ws greater than w∗ for respectfrom subordinates. The labor supply is restricted up to the capacity of the subsidy provided
by the paternalistic superiors, and the market wage in the modern sector wm = ws , shall begreater than w∗ . With marginally decreasing technology, the modern sector’s output becomes
lower than the optimal allocation. Such labor reserve sustained in the traditional sector under
ws > w∗ is “slack.” Minami (1968) argued that labor in the agricultural sector was obviously
slack in that sense until the end of the 1950s.
Meanwhile, technological improvement in the modern sector might move fm upward, andat some point, fm might hit ws . Then, even a marginal rise  in fm = wm implies a sudden
jump in labor supply from the traditional sector, because subordinates’ reservation wage wtm =smand subordinates choose the market rather than
+  in period t is greater than wts = wt−1
wt−1

traditional paternalistic communities. Until slack labor has dried up, the price elasticity oflabor supply appears infinite. This phenomenon was called the “unlimited supply of labor” by
Lewis (1954). In addition, the point where slack labor dries up and the real wage in the entire
economy begins to increase, was called the “turning point” by Lewis (1954).

5.2

Yasuba’s (1975) interpretation

Lewis (1954) and Ranis and Fei (1961), Fei and Ranis (1963, 1964) assumed that a typeof institutional minimum wage fed the slack labor reserve in the traditional sector. Slacklabor is considered to receive benefits, as the institutional minimum wage in the traditional
sector above the modern market wage, and to distort the labor markets (Lewis (1954), Fei and
Ranis, and Fei and Ranis (1963, 1964)). Meanwhile, Harris and Todaro (1970) argued that thepolitical minimum wage above the competitive market wage in the urban sector retained slack
labor in the urban sector.
Yasuba (1975) argued that Yamada (1934a) considered a similar labor market distortion.

26

Simultaneously, Yamada (1934a) argued that high tenancy rent in the agricultural sector lowered wages in the modern sector, wm . Yamada (1934a) thought that labor supply from theagricultural sector to the industrial sector kept wages low, which enabled the industrial sector
to adopt labor intensive technologies (Yamada (1977[1934]b), pp. 33, 46, 88–91, 165, 197–
201, 219). Thus, Yamada (1934a) does not seem to assume E [ws ] > E [wm ], but instead, his
description indicates E [ws ] ≤ E [wm ].
How then could the paternalistic traditional sector be sustained under E [ws ] ≤ E [wm ]?
An interpretation by Yasuba (1975) is that Yamada (1934a) assumed a strong institutional
constraint in the traditional sector, which restricted labor mobility under a low ws from wm .
Presenting such an interpretation, however, Yasuba (1975) rejected this observation of pre-war
Japanese society as unrealistic.

5.3

Introduction of the risk attitude

The regulation on movement under the shogunate regime intended to help farming households
retain workforce. In that sense, E [ws ] ≤ E [wm ] was within its scope. In reality, however, urbanization progressed through the early modern times and dependents of farming households
went back and forth between the secondary and tertiary sectors in a city, and the primary sector at home. Instead of preventing their dependents from going to secondary/tertiary sectors,
household heads arbitraged between the labor markets of the primary and secondary/tertiary
sectors, such that E [ws ] = E [wm ]. As described, a formal approval from the household head
was necessary to leave home and work in the secondary/tertiary sectors legally. This implies
that bargaining between the household head and a dependent made part or all of any possible
gain from arbitrage between both labor markets belong to the household as a whole. Theirchildren brought back money earned in Edo rather than spending it themselves. Indeed, fromthe eighteenth century, along with urbanization, sectoral wage differentials decreased (Saito

27

(1978)).
Therefore, the shogunate regulation did not impede arbitrage between the primary andthe secondary/tertiary sectors through the allocation of dependents’ workforce by the farming
household heads.
Furthermore, after the Meiji Restoration, the government repealed this restriction of movement, which meant individual family members gained greater freedom of movement without
approval from their household heads. In time, the government also repealed the remaining
institutional constraints of movement.
The effects of the deregulation of labor markets were substantial. Fukao and Settsu (2017)
estimates that labor productivity rose 1.75 percent annually. Of this 1.75 annual growth, anincrease in capital intensity contributed just 0.29 percent, while 1.49 percent came from improvements in total factor productivity. Furthermore, of the annual 1.75 total factor productivity growth, labor reallocation from the farm sector to the non-farm sector was 0.27 percent(Fukao and Settsu (2017), p. 9).
Thus, we should not assume immobility of labor between the farm and non-farm sectors
because of institutional constraints on arbitrage between labor markets, particularly after the
Meiji Restoration. However, a remaining question is why a paternalistic traditional sector ismaintained even under E [ws ] ≤ E [wm ], while the mobility between the sectors was substantial.
One condition that Lewis (1954), Ranis and Fei (1961), Fei and Ranis (1963, 1964), Harrisand Todaro (1970) and Yasuba (1975) overlooked was the role of risk sharing. They implicitly
assumed a utility function u(w) linearly increasing in w, such as u(w) = a + bw.
However, the traditional/informal sector often provides a risk sharing mechanism to constituent members (Besley (1995)). Here, for simplicity, based on Holmstrom and Milgrom(1987), let us suppose that subordinate agents in the traditional sector and workers in the28modern sector have an absolutely risk-averse utility function, approximated by u(w) = 1 −exp[−rw], where r is a constant, while the paternalistic principal is risk-neutral. Then, theexpected utility of subordinate agents is defined as E[u(w)] = − exp [−r (E[w] − rV [w]/2)],and the certainty equivalent is E[w] − rV [w]/2.
2
Assume that E[wm ] = wm , V [wm ] = σm
, E[ws ] = ws , and V [ws ] = σs2 . Then, theincentive compatibility constraint for the subordinate agents to stay within the paternalistic
traditional sector, rather than go to the modern sector market is,σ2σ2
ws − r s ≥ wm − r m
2
2

(1)

⇔

σ 2 − σs2
wm − ws ≤ r m
2Thus, as long as the paternalistic principal can somehow bear the risk from market volatil2
ity, such that σs2 ≤ σm, the risk-neutral principal can earn the risk premium E[wm ] − E[ws ]2(≤ r [σm− σs2 ] /2) by offering E[ws ] (≤ E[wm ]), with the agents willingly accepting the offer.

In other words, the traditional sector leaders’ opportunity to earn risk premium depends
on their ability to bear the market risk. Once the market volatility goes beyond the ability,
the regime would lose legitimacy to be obeyed by the agents, and a structural crisis faces theregime.

6

Paternalistic tenancy contract in Yamada’s (1934) text

6.1

Peasant economy under the tenancy contract

We can now track Yamada (1934a)’s thoughts by examining his text. Yamada (1934a) characterized the relationship between the modern sector and the traditional sector by particularrhetoric. Regarding the symbiosis of high rents in the traditional sector and low wages in29the modern sector, he noted, “as the process of re-organizing semi-villain peasants and semiservant wage workers under the capitalism, that is as the process of creating the relationshipof dual structure between the high semi-serf rent and the low semi-servant wage” (Yamada(1977[1934]b), p. 32.); “[because] it is able to wearingly use vast semi-servant wage workers
flowing out from the semi-serf peasantry, technological progress has been prevented” (Yamada (1977[1934]b), p. 165); “[t]he baseline. Determined by the interaction between thesemi-serf peasantry and the capitalism. Determined by the semi-villain rent paid in kind andthe semi-servant labor wages” (Yamada (1977[1934]b), p. 197); “interaction between thesemi-serf rent collection and the semi-servant labor” (Yamada (1977[1934]b), p. 200); “[A]sthe process about the late 1890s and the 1900s, that is, organizing the duality of the highsemi-serfdom rent and the low semi-servant” (Yamada (1977[1934]b), p. 219).
Furthermore, regarding the level of rent on rice production, he depicted it as “the categoryof the rent that never enables generation of profit [of tenants]” (Yamada (1977[1934]b), p.
233). These statements logically mean that E [ws ] ≤ E [wm ] between the modern sector andthe traditional sector.
Beyond the logic, this exaggerative rhetoric misled Yasuba (1975) to interpret that Yamada(1934a) assumed coercive relationships between the landlords and tenants. However, coercive
relationships contradict with the above text, stating “Determined by the interaction between
the semi-serf peasantry and the capitalism. Determined by the semi-villain rent paid in kindand the semi-servant labor wages” (Yamada (1977[1934]b), p. 197), which assumed that labormarkets of the modern and traditional sectors were cleared such that the payoffs of subordinate
agents match each other.
Instead, Minami and Makino (2017) argued that the Lewis model is directly applicable tothe symbiosis of high rent and low wage Yamada (1934a) mentioned (Yamada (1977[1934]b),
pp. 89, 197 and Minami and Makino (2017), p. 48). However, the original Lewis model does30not explain E [ws ] ≤ E [wm ] Yamada (1934a) described, although it does, E [ws ] = E [wm ].
Yamada (1934a) conceived that the stable structure of the Japanese economy was challenged in the 1920s and 1930s. In other words, he understood that the structure had beenstable before the 1920s. The basis of this stability was the “two-story arch of the ‘Napoleonicidea’ and the ‘patriarchal family”’ (Yamada (1977[1934]b), p. 170). The “Napoleonic idea”
is the loyalty of the “middle independent owner farmers” to serve the nation, such as French
infantrymen served their nation during the Napoleonic Wars (Yamada (1977[1934]b), pp. 55–
56).1
Notably, Japanese intellectuals after the Meiji Restoration considered the willing service
for the nation in modern France as a model of the relationship between the state and individual citizens. When Yukichi Fukuzawa, the most influential enlightenment thinker during the
Meiji Restoration and one of the earliest scholars who introduced Western economics (Bronfenbrenner (1984), p. 10), claimed that the basis of a modern nation state is the spirit of “asindividual become independent, the nation attains independence” in 1872, he exemplified theFrench army spirit (Fukuzawa (2008[1872]), pp. 21, 31).
Therefore, the upper layer of the two-story architecture of the Japanese society, the relationship between the state and the citizens described as the “Napoleonic spirit” was notconsidered as Japan-specific by Yamada (1934a). If there was any “specificity,” it was about
the lower layer, the “patriarchal family” and the institutional arrangement surrounding this.
In addition, a willing, not coerced, service for the nation meant that either small independent owner farmers or tenant farmers benefited from the regime. They were patriotic citizens
1

The words “Napoleonic idea” (idées napoléoniennes”)) are quotation within quotation of title of a book by
Napoleon III (Bonaparte (1839)) by Marx (Marx (1982[1852]), p. 151), and Marx himself was considered to havequoted them as an innuendo (Marx (1982[1852]), p. 621). However, Yamada (1977[1934]b) used the expression
to describe “the basis of the mighty army of Napoleon [I] during the French Revolution,” and mentioned the armyof Oliver Cromwell during the English Civil War in 1645 and the Prussian army during the Franco-Prussian from1870 to 1871 as their counterparts in other countries (Yamada (1977[1934]b), pp. 57–58). In short, Yamada(1977[1934]b) used the expression to describe the spirit of soldiers who pledge allegiance to the flag, without nointention to be cynical.

31

in the upper modern story of the “Napoleonic spirit” and protective household heads of the“patriarchal family” in the lower traditional story. Yasuba (1975) missed the point.
Thus, Yamada (1934a) meant that even if the expected payoff from tenancy contract was
equivalent to or less than the market wage in the growing modern sector (E [ws ] ≤ E [wm ]),farmer household heads were satisfied with the regime, having obtained protection for theirfamilies against the vagaries of the weather and the market. Income from sericulture, in
addition to that from rice, bolstered the lower-story of the arch. This enabled household
heads of the “patriarchal family,” to reallocate resources to bear the risk facing dependents(Nakabayashi (2019)). “It is evident that by the reorganization of production (modernizationof the silk industry) and the industrial policy by the government, sericulture has become theessential means of life for semi-villein[A12] peasants” (Yamada (1977[1934]b), p. 56).
A more institutional condition was risk bearing by landlords. Why did small independent
owner farmers with bequeathed family farmland for generations under the shogunate regime,
fell into tenant status after the Meiji Restoration? With an example of typical peasant management, Yamada (1934a) stated, “on the one hand, the fixed amount of money, 1.632 yen of
the land tax (public dues), on the other hand, rice crop in general inevitably affected by thegood and bad harvests (288.6 liters of rice in this case) and always fluctuating rice prices (3yen per 180.4 liters in this case), being captured in this pincer attack, the revenue of independent owner farmers uninterruptedly gyrates. Through the process, ordinary owner farmers
chronically drop” (Yamada (1977[1934]b), p. 252). “Note that the impact of fall in the rice
price is (in general) further greater to independent owner farmers than to landlords” (Yamada(1977[1934]b), p. 253). The Land Tax Reform Act of 1873 obliged owner farmers to pay land
tax in money, while the shogunate allowed them to pay land tax in kind (Francks (1983), p.
68). The reform exposed small owner farmers directly to commodity market risk, which was
the primary driver that turned independent owner farmers into tenant farmers after the Meiji

32

Restoration. This was emphasized by Yamada (1934a). “Rent paid in rice (rent paid in kind)
inevitably re-emerges in backward Japanese agriculture” (Yamada (1977[1934]b), p. 260).
If tenant households were risk-averse, the regime in the traditional sector does not needto leave any strictly positive quasi-rent to tenant households in the terms of expected revenue. By transferring the risk from the rice market to risk-neutral landlords, risk-averse tenanthouseholds improved their expected utility. For landlords, as long as the incentive compatibility constraint (1) is satisfied, they were allowed to earn risk premium E [wm − ws ] underaccordance with tenants, not coercion.
The informal risk sharing mechanism in the traditional sector had peasants willingly support the regime of landlordism in the traditional sector and serve the nation in the modern military sector and provided them some flexibility in shouldering the risk their family members
faced. They maintained the stability of society as patriotic citizens and protective household
heads. Traditional landlordism provided tenant farmers with security to protect their dependents against the weather and market risks.
Protection of owner peasants by the shogunate had been bequeathed partly to landlords
for farmers who fell into tenancy after the Meiji Restoration and to the imperial government
for surviving owner peasants. Their service to the nation over time stepped further into fullcommitment to the nation by the Universal Manhood Suffrage Act of 1925. Now, all maleadults were involved in decision making as constituents and enforced decisions as soldiers.
Nihon Shihonshugi Hattatsushi Koza (Lecture Series on History of Development of Japanese
Capitalism) (1932–1934), led by Moritaro Yamada, began a debate with the other camp of
Marxian economists, Worker and Farmer school. The most heated issue was understanding
the peasant economy. The leading scholar, Tamizo Kushida of the Worker and Farmer school
argued that whether the rent was paid in money or in kind should be irrelevant. High rent
simply indicated the market equilibrium price, where the supply of tenants was abundant, and33

hence, there was no reason to focus on the Japanese peasant economy specifically (Kushida(1931), pp. 71–76). Given the best knowledge filtered by classical economics, which implicitly assumed that both parties were risk-neutral, Kushida’s argument was consistent.

6.2

Risk bearing by landlords

However, once the risk attitude of the poorer party is counted, the difference between rent
paid in kind and that in cash is not trivial. When the shogunate allowed owner farmers to pay
land tax in kind, the former shielded the latter from commodity market risk. After the Meiji
Restoration, the government obliged owner farmers to pay land tax in cash, and by doing so,
exposed them to commodity market volatility.
The new owners who repossessed a parcel of collateral farmland became landlords andex-owners became tenant farmers of the parcel they once owned. While the landlord paid
land tax in cash, the tenant farmer was allowed to pay rent in kind to the landlord (Yamada(1977[1934]b), p. 197). Now the landlord took the risk of the commodity market volatility.
The landlordism that rapidly expanded only after the Meiji Restoration was a new institutionalarrangement of risk sharing that replaced the village-level joint liability of land tax payment,
land tax payment in kind, and temporary reduction in the land tax during poor harvests, under
the shogunate regime.

6.3

Upward and downward pressures

Yamada (1934a) argued that the stable structure of the Japanese economy faced a crisis in the
1920s and 1930s. However, the characteristics of the “crisis” he conceived are not very clear.
When defining the stability of the Japanese economy before the 1920s, Yamada (1934a)also discussed the significance of the intermediary bodies in the modern sector. They were
informal in the shipping and mining industry. In shipping, “between officers and crew,” there
34

existed “the ‘relationship between the boss and the henchman” (Yamada (1977[1934]b), p.
183). In the metal mining industry, workers “joined the ‘relationship of the boss and the henchman’ with senior workers, vowing that he should ‘strive diligently and devotedly”’ (Yamada(1977[1934]b), p. 190). In the machinery[A13] industry, Yamada (1934a) emphasized that
middle-level managers modeled on the army and the navy disciplined and controlled workers(Yamada (1977[1934]b), pp. 171–182).
In one sense, Yamada (1934a) stressed that middle-level managers were being removed, as
strikes increased and as part of reform to improve productivity, which he called “rationalization of the Japanese type” (Yamada (1977[1934]b), pp. 209–211). He predicted “objectively
inevitability of the progress of the rationalization of the Japanese type and the [formation ofthe] proletariat” (Yamada (1977[1934]b), p. 213). He seems to have hoped that with tightening labor markets, the now segregated workforce was uniting as a proletariat and might finallytrigger a revolution toward a socialist state. This story should be based on an increase in wm .
There was upward pressure toward instability, and the observation seems to be justified for the
1920s.
The Japanese economy was severely affected by the Great Depression in the 1930s. The
effect on the peasant economy was devastating, eliminating the ability of patriarchal household
heads to bear the risk of their dependents. It was not rare for peasants to sell their daughters
into prostitution in the 1930s in East Japan. Naturally, fathers who sold their daughters losttheir dignity. These downward pressures destabilized the Japanese socio-economy.

7

Conclusion

Regardless of opinion, Yamada (1934a) was hardly tractable. We have shown that this was
mainly because he struggled with the informal risk-sharing mechanism in the informal sector. Once we count the risk attitudes of subordinate agents in the traditional sector in modern
35

Japan, picture becomes clear. Provided with the risk sharing mechanism, the subordinates
willingly committed to the paternalistic social regime. Furthermore, under the protection of
the risk bearing ability of their fathers, Japanese women were obedient to the patriarchal family system. It was the symbiosis between social stability and productivity stagnancy of theJapanese economy before the 1920s.
Simultaneously, although he was a pioneer in attempting to grasp the risk sharing mechanism in the informal sector, his understanding of its significance might be insufficient. The
upward pressure in the 1920s and the downward pressure in the 1930s threatened the stableregime. At the publication of Yamada (1934a), Yamada was optimistic over the future as a
Marxian revolutionist, maybe for a revolution from below. The outcome was different. People lost their confidence in the capitalist market economy, which might bode well for him, aMarxist. However, they then sought the social security provided by the state socialist administration; the healthcare system from 1938 and the pension system from 1939, and pushed thenation towards destruction.
However, Japan’s defeat and the US occupation, did not change the deeply rooted trend.
A draft amendment of the Constitution of the Empire of Japan lacked article 25, an essential
article that defines entitlement to the benefit of social welfare as social “right,” a human right,
not a “privilege,” as in the US. The US officers did not suggest the concept. When the last Imperial Diet discussed the amendment plan suggested by the US, the House of Representativesof the Imperial Diet added the article modeled on the Constitution of the German Reich of1919. The House of Peers and the Privy Council consented to it and the Emperor approved it.
Building Japan’s welfare state to replace the “patriarchal family,” which was decimated amid
the Great Depression and to take on its risk-sharing function was completed in 1958 and 1959
by the administration of Nobusuke Kishi, a leading minister of the wartime administration.
Japan adopted isolationist and assertive policies in the 1930s when the country was af-

36fected by the Great Depression, and its insurance mechanism fell apart. After its defeat in
World War II, the country was reconstructed in the free trade camp led by the US. However,Japan continued to build an extensive welfare state from 1938 to 1959, led by the right campof policymakers.
The historical development of a large welfare state in Japan and Germany might lookcoincidental. However, the risk-sharing mechanism is under the two-story of the arch fromthe state to the family, which Yamada (1934a) considered the core of Japanese society, reminds
us of the vertical mechanism of risk sharing from Preussen to the German Reich that Friedrich
August von Hayek denounced (Hayek (2007[1944]), p. 155 and Hayek (1960), p. 234). A
deeper risk sharing mechanism in the traditional sector might tend to be replaced by a larger
welfare state (Nakabayashi (2019)). If so, the similarity between Germany and Japan analyzed
by Hayek and Yamada was not accidental.
Yamada (1934a) himself failed to predict the outcome. This is partly because economics
lacked the theory of risk sharing and dynamic growth models. This also might be because
desire for a socialist revolution as a Marxist hindered him from finding the real needs of thepeople for a welfare state. For the former, it was not his fault and the institutional and historicaldescriptions of a nation had remained an issue that mainstream economics did not addressuntil the 1970s. Marxian institutional economics completed its historical mission, when in the
1980s, game-theoretic institutional and organizational economics began to analyze it.

References
Abe, Takeshi, “The Chinese market for Japanese cotton textile goods, 1914–30,” in Kaoru
Sugihara, ed., Japan, China, and the Growth of the Asian International Economy, 1850–
1949, Oxford University Press New York 2005, pp. 73–100.
Ando, Takaho, “The debate on Japanese capitalism: The Koza faction and its perception ofsociety,” in Shiro Sugihara and Toshihiro Tanaka, eds., Economic Thought and Modernization in Japan, Edward Elgar Cheltenham 1998, pp. 78–96.

37

Aoki, Masahiko, Information, incentives, and bargaining in the Japanese economy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
, Toward a Comparative Institutional Analysis, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2001.
Arimoto, Yutaka, “State-contingent rent reduction and tenancy contract choice,” Journal of
Development Economics, Dec 2005, 76 (2), 355–375.
and Yoshihiro Sakane, “Kosaku sogi no fuken paneru deta bunseki: 1915–29 nen
Nihon no roddo shijo to nogyo saihen (A prefecture-level panel data analysis of tenancy
disputes: labor market and restructuring of the agricultural sector in Japan, 1915–1929),”
Shakai Keizai Shigaku (Socio-Economic History Review), Jan 2008, 73 (5), 65–82.
, Tetsuji Okazaki, and Masaki Nakabayashi, “Agrarian land tenancy in prewar Japan:
Contract choice and implications on productivity,” The Developing Economies, Aug
2010, 48 (3).
Arrow, Kenneth J., “Alternative approaches to the theory of choice in risk-taking situations,”
Econometrica, Oct 1951, 19 (4), 404–437.
, “Exposition of the theory of choice under uncertainty,” in Kenneth J. Arrow, ed., Essays
in the Theory of Risk-bearing, North-Holland Amsterdam 1971[1965], pp. 44–89.
, “The theory of risk aversion,” in Kenneth J. Arrow, ed., Essays in the Theory of Riskbearing, North-Holland Amsterdam 1971[1965], pp. 90–120.
Besley, Timothy, “Nonmarket institutions for credit and risk sharing in low-income countries,” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Summer 1995, 9 (3), 115–127.
Bogart, Dan, “Did the Glorious Revolution contribute to the transport revolution?: Evidence
from investment in roads and rivers,” The Economic History Review, Nov 2011, 64 (4),1073–1112.
and Gary Richardson, “Property rights and Parliament in industrializing Britain,” The
Journal of Law and Economics, May 2011, 54 (2), 241–274.
Bonaparte, Louis-Napoléon, Des idées napoléoniennes, Paris: Paulin, 1839.
Bronfenbrenner, Martin, “The State of Japanese Economics,” The American Economic Review, May 1956, 46 (2), 389–398.
, “Presidential Address History of Economics Society Annual Meeting, 1983 Western
economics transplanted to Japan,” History of Economics Society Bulletin, Winter 1984,
5 (2), 5–18.

38

Brooke, Geoffrey T. F., “Uncertainty, profit and entrepreneurial action: Frank Knight’s contribution reconsidered,” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Jun 2010, 32 (2),
221–235.
Brwon, Philip C., Central Authority and Local Autonomy in the Formation of Early Modern
Japan, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993.
, Cultivating Commons: Joint Ownership of Arable Land in Early Modern Japan, Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2011.
Clemens, Michael and Jeffrey G. Williamson, “Wealth bias in the first global capital market
boom, 1870–1913,” The Economic Journal, Apr 2004, 114 (495), 304–337.
de Roover, Raymond, “The concept of the just price: Theory and economic policy,” The
Journal of Economic Policy, Dec 1958, 18 (4), 418–434.
de Souza, Joao Paulo A., “Evidence of growth complementarity between agriculture and industry in developing countries,” Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Sep 2015,
34, 1–18.
Dong, Baomin, Jiong Gong, Kaixiang Peng, and Zhongxiu Zhao, “Little divergence: Evidence from cotton textiles Japan and China 1868–1930,” Review of Development Economics, Nov 2015, 19 (4), 776–796.
Eichberger, Jürgen, David Kelsey, and Burkhard C. Schnipper, “Ambiguity and social
interaction,” Oxford Economic Papers, Apr 2009, 61 (2), 355–379.
Ellsberg, Daniel, “Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Nov 1961, 75 (4), 643–669.
Engle, Robert, “Risk and volatility: Econometric models and financial practice,” The American Economic Review, Jun 2004, 94 (3), 405–420.
Fei, John C. H. and Gustav Ranis, “Innovation, capital accumulation, and economic development,” The American Economic Review, Jun 1963, 53 (3), 283–313.
and, Development of the Labor Surplus Economy: Theory and Policy, Homewood,
IL: Richard D. Irwin, 1964.
Ferguson, Niall and Moritz Schularick, “The empire effect: The determinants of country
risk in the first age of globalization, 1880–1913,” The Journal of Economic History, Jun
2006, 66 (2), 283–312.
Francks, Penelope, Technology and Agricultural Development in Pre-War Japan, New
Heaven: Yale University Press, 1983.

39

, Rural Economic Development in Japan: From the nineteenth century to the Pacific War,
Abingdon: Routledge, 2006.
Fukao, Kyoji and Tokihiko Settsu, “Seicho to makuro keizai (Growth and macroeconomy),”in Kyoji Fukao, Naofumi Nakamura, and Masaki Nakabayashi, eds., Iwanami Koza Nihon Keizai no Rekishi Dai 3 Kan, Kindai 1: 19 Seiki Kohan kara Dai Ichiji Sekai Taisen
Mae (1913) (Iwanami Lecture Series, History of the Japanese Economy, Volume 3, The
Modern Period 1: From the Late Nineteenth Century to the First World War (1913)),
Iwanami Shoten Tokyo 2017, pp. 2–22.
Fukuzawa, Yukichi, Gakumon no Susume (Suggestion of Learning), Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten,
2008[1872]. First published in 1872.
Furushima, Toshio, “Chiso Kaisei go no jinushiteki tochi shoyu no kakudai to nogyo rippou(Expansion of landlordism and the land policy after the Land Tax Reform of 1873),” inToshio Furushima, ed., Nihon Jinushisei Shi Kenkyu (Study on the history of the Japanese
Landlord System), Iwanami Shoten Tokyo 1958, pp. 315–357.
Harris, John R. and Michael P. Todaro, “Migration, unemployment and development: A
two-sector analysis,” The American Economic Review, 1970, 60 (1), 126–142.
Hart, Oliver, Firms, Contracts, and Financial Structure, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.
Hashino, Tomoko and Keijiro Otsuka, “Hand looms, power looms, and changing production
organization: the case of the Kiryu weaving district in early twentieth century Japan,”
The American Economic Review, Aug 2013, 66 (3), 785–804.
Hayami, Yujiro, “Institutional aspects of agricultural development,” in Yujiro Hayami and
Saburo Yamada, eds., The Agricultural Development of Japan: A Century’s Perspective,
University of Tokyo Press Tokyo 1991, pp. 61–108.
Hayek, Friedrich August von, The Constitution of Liberty, Chicago: Chicago University
Press, 1960.
, The Road to Serfdom, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2007[1944].
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts, oder, Naturrecht und Staatswissenschaft im Grundrisse: mit Hegels eigenhändigen Notizen und den
mündlichen Zusätzen, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1986.
Himeoka, Reiji, Nihon Kokka Dokusen Shihonshugi no Seiritsu (Formation of Japanese State
Monopoly Capitalism), Tokyo: Gendai Shicho Sha, 1960. Reiji Himeoka is a pen nameof Masahiko Aoki.
Holmstrom, Bengt and Paul Milgrom, “Aggregation and linearity in the provision of intertemporal incentives,” Econometrica, Mar 1987, 55 (2), 303–328.
40

Hunter, Janet, Women and the labour market in Japan’s industrialising economy: the textile
industry before the Pacific War, London: Routledge, 2003.
Karshenas, Massoud, Industrialization and Agricultural Surplus: A Comparative Study of
Economic Development in Asia, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Knight, Frank Hyneman, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1921.
, “The ethics and competition,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Aug 1923, 37 (4),579–624.
, “Some fallacies in the interpretation of social cost,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Aug 1924, 38 (4), 582–606.
Krätke, Michael R., “On the history and logic of modern capitalism: The legacy of Ernest
Mandel,” Historical Materialism, Jan 2007, 15 (1), 109–143.
Kushida, Tamizo, “Waga kuni kosakuryo no tokushitsu ni tsuite (On the feature of tenancy
rent in Japan),” Ohara shakai mondai kenkyu zasshi (Journal of the Ohara Institute forSocial Research), Jun 1931, 8 (1), 63–103.
Lange, Elena Louisa, “Failed abstraction–The problem of Uno Kōzō’s reading of Marx’s
theory of the value form,” Historical Materialism, Jan 2014, 22 (1), 3–33.
Lewis, Arthur W., “Economic development with unlimited supplies of labour,” The Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, May 1954, 22 (2), 139–191.
Loayza, Norman V. and Jamele Rigolini, “Informal employment: Safety net or growth engine?,” World Development, Sep 2011, 39 (9), 1503–1515.
Luporini, Annalisa and Bruno Parigi, “Multi-Task Sharecropping Contracts: the Italian
Mezzadria.,” Economica, Aug 1996, 63 (251), 445–457.
Mandai, Yu and Masaki Nakabayashi, “Stabilize the peasant economy: Governance of
foreclosure by the shogunate,” Journal of Policy Modeling, Mar–Apr 2018, 40 (2), 305–
327.
Markowitz, Harry, “Portfolio selection,” The Journal of Finance, Mar 1952, 7 (1), 77–91.
Marx, Karl, “Der achtzehnte Brumaire des Louis Napoleon,” in Institute f´’ur MarxismusLeninismus beim zk der SED, ed., Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke Band 8, Dietz
Verlag Berlin 1982[1852], pp. 111–207. First published in 1852.
, Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke Band 23, Das Kapital, Berlin: Dietz Verlag,
1988[1867]. First published in 1867.

41

Matsukata, Saburo, “A Historical Study of Japanese Capitalism,” Pacific Affairs, 1934, 7 (1),71–76.
Mauro, Paolo, Nathan Sussman, and Yishay Yafeh, “Emerging market spreads: Then andversus now,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 2002, 117 (2), 695–733.
Mawatari, Shohken, “Japanese Economics from a Sociological Perspective,” History of Economics Society Bulletin, Fall 1988, 10 (2), 147–153.
Mawatari, Shoken, “The Uno school: A Marxian approach in Japan,” History of Political
Economy, Fall 1985, 17 (3), 403–418.
Milanovic, Branko, Peter H. Lindert, and Jeffrey G. Williamson, “Pre-industrial inequality,” The Economic Journal, Mar 2011, (121), 255–272.
Minami, Ryoshin, “The turning point in the Japanese economy,” The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, Aug 1968, 82 (3), 380–402.
and Fumio Makino, “Shotoku to shisan no bunpai (Distribution of income andwealth),” in Kyoji Fukao, Naofumi Nakamura, and Masaki Nakabayashi, eds., Iwanami
Koza Nihon Keizai no Rekishi Dai 4 Kan, Kindai 2: Dai Ichiji Sekai Taisen kara Nicchu
Senso Mae (1914–1936) (Iwanami Lecture Series, History of the Japanese Economy, Volume 4, The Modern Period 2: From the First World War to the Eve of the Sino-Japanese
War (1914–1936)), Iwanami Shoten Tokyo 2017, pp. 43–60.
Mitchener, Kris James and Mari Ohnuki, “Institutions, competition, and capital market
integration in Japan,” The Journal of Economic History, Mar 2009, 69 (1), 138–171.
Moriguchi, Chiaki and Emmanuel Saez, “The evolution of income concentration in Japan,
1886–2005,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, Nov 2008, 90 (4), 713–734.
Morris-Suzuki, Tessa, A History of Japanese Economic Thought, London: Routledge, 1989.
Nagaoka, Shinkichi, Nihon Shihonshugi Ronso no Gunzo (Portraits of the Debate on
Japanese Capitalism), Kyoto: Minerva, 1984.
Nakabayashi, Masaki, “The Rise of a Factory Industry: Silk reeling in Suwa, Nagano,” in
Masayuki Tanimoto, ed., The Role of Traditional Factors in Japanese Industrialization:
1880–1920, Oxford University Press Oxford 2006, pp. 183–216.
, “Imposed efficiency of treaty ports: Japanese industrialization and Western imperialist
institutions,” Review of Development Economics, May 2014, 18 (2), 254–271.
, “Honesty, diligence and skill: Risk sharing and specialization in the Kiryu silk weaving
cluster, Japan,” Review of Development Economics, Nov 2017, 21 (4), 1401–1424.

42

, “From family security to the welfare state: Path dependency of social security on the
difference in legal origins,” Economic Modelling, 2019. In press/published online.
and Chiaki Moriguchi, “Joshou Dai 2 setsu: Seifu no yakuwari (Introduction: Section 2. Role of administration),” in Kyoji Fukao, Naofumi Nakamura, and Masaki
Nakabayashi, eds., Iwanami Koza Nihon Keizai no Rekishi, Dai 2 Lan, Kinsei: 16 Seiki
Matsu kara 19 Seiki Zenhan (Iwanami Lecture Series, History of the Japanese Economy,
Volume 2, The Early Modern Period: From the End of the Sixteenth Century to the Early
Nineteenth Century), Iwanami Shoten Tokyo 2017.
Nakamura, Naofumi, “Reconsidering the Japanese industrial revolution: Local entrepreneursin the cotton textile industry during the Meiji Era,” Social Science Japan Journal, Jan2015, 18 (1), 23–44.
Newbery, David M. G., “Risk sharing, sharecropping and uncerain labour markets,” The
Review of Economics Studies, Oct 1977, 44 (3), 585–594.
Nihon Shihonshugi Hattatsushi Koza (Lecture Series on History of Development ofJapanese Capitalism), Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1932–1934.
North, Douglas C. and Barry R. Weingast, “Constitutions and commitments: The evolutionof institutions governing public choice in seventeenth-century England,” The Journal of
Economic History, Dec 1989, 49 (4), 803–832.
Okazaki, Tetsuji and Masahiro Okuno-Fujiwara, “Japan’s present-day economic system
and its historical origins,” in Tetsuji Okazaki and Mashiro Okuno-Fujiwara, eds., The
Japanese Economic System and Its Historical Origins, Oxford University Press New
York 1999, pp. 1–37. Translated by Susan Herbert.
and Mitsuru Sawada, “Effects of a bank consolidation promotion policy: Evaluating
the 1927 Bank Law in Japan,” Financial History Review, Mar 2007, 14 (1), 29–61.
Okishio, Nobuo, “Technical choice under full employment in a socialistic economy,” The
Economic Journal, Sep 1966, 76 (303), 585–592.
, “Notes on technical progress and capitalist society,” Cambridge Journal of Economics,
Mar 1977, 1 (1), 93–100.
, “Competition and production prices,” Cambridge Journal of Economics, Jul 2001, 25(4), 493–501.
Otsuka, Keijiro and Yujiro Hayami, “Theories and share tenancy: A critical survey,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, Oct 1988, 37 (1), 31–38.

43

, Hiroyuki Chuma, and Yujiro Hayami, “Land and Labor Contracts in Agrarian
Economies: Theories and Facts,” Journal of Economic Literature, Dec 1992, 30 (4),1965–2018.
, Masao Kikuchi, and Yujiro Hayami, “Community and market in contract choice,”
Economic Development and Cultural Change, Jan 1986, 34 (2), 279–289.
Petty, William, The Economic Writings of Sir William Petty, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899.
Ranis, Gustav and John C. H. Fei, “A theory of economic development,” The American
Economic Review, Sep 1961, 51 (4), 533–565.
Romer, John E, Analytical Foundations of Marxian Economic Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Saito, Osamu, “The labor market in Tokugawa Japan: Wage differentials and the real wage
level, 1727–1830,” Explorations in Economic History, Jan 1978, 15 (1), 84–100.
, “Land, labour and market forces in Tokugawa Japan,” Continuity and Change, May
2009, 24 (1), 169–196.
, “Growth and inequality in the great and little divergence debate: a Japanese perspective,” Economic History Review, 2015, 68 (2), 399–419.
and Masahiro Sato, “Japan’s civil registration system before and after the Meiji
Restoration,” in Keith Breckernridge and Simon Szreter, eds., Registration and Recognition: Documenting the Person in World History, Oxford University Press Oxford 2012,
pp. 113–135.
Sakane, Yoshihiro, “Kindaiteki tochi shoyu no gaikan to tokushitsu (Characteristics of themodern land ownership and overview of them),” in Takashi Watanabe and Fumihiko
Gomi, eds., Shin Taikei Nihonshi 3 Tochi Shoyu Shi (New Series History of Japan 3
History of Land Ownership), Iwanami Shoten Tokyo 2002, pp. 407–427.
Savage, Leonard J., The Foundations of Statistics, New York: Wiley, 1954.
Schneider, Friedrich, “Shadow economies around the world: What do we really know?,”
European Journal of Political Economy, Sep 2005, 21 (3), 598–642.
Sekine, Thomas T., “Uno-Riron: a Japanese contribution to Marxian political economy,”
Journal of Economic Literature, Sep 1975, 13 (3), 847–877.
Sekine, Thoms T., A Japanese Approach to Political Economy: Unoist Variations, New York:
St. Martin’s Press, 1995.

44

Sherman, Roger, “The psychological difference between ambiguity and risk,” The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, Feb 1974, 88 (1), 166–169.
Smethurst, Richard J., Agricultural Development and Tenancy Disputes in Japan, 1870–
1940, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.
Smith, Adam, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, New York:
Modern Library, 1937[1776].
Stiglitz, Joseph E., “Incentives and risk sharing in sharecropping,” The Review of Economics
Studies, Apr 1974, 41 (2), 219–255.
Tavani, Daniele and Luca Zamparelli, “Endogenous technical change in alternative theories
of growth and distribution,” Journal of Economic Surveys, Dec 2017, 31 (5), 1272–1303.
Tobin, James, “Liquidity preference as behavior towards risk,” The Review of Economics
Studies, Feb 1958, 25 (2), 65–86.
Townsend, Robert M., “Consumption insurance: An evaluation of risk-bearing systems in
low income economies,” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Summer 1995, 9 (3),83–102.
, “Village and larger economies: The theor and measurement of the Townsend Thai
project,” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Fall 2016, 30 (4), 199–220.
Ullmer, James H., “The macroeconomic thought of Sir William Petty,” Journal of the Historyof Economic Thought, Sep 2004, 26 (3), 401–413.
Uno, Kozo, Principles of Political Economy: Theory of a Purely Capitalist Society, Atlantic
Highlands, NJ: Humanities, 1977. First published in 1950. Translated by Thomas T.
Sekine.
, The Types of Economic Policies under Capitalism, Leiden: Brill, 2016. First publishedin 1936. Translated by Thomas T. Sekine.
Uzawa, Hirofumi, “On a two-sector model of economic growth,” The Review of Economic
Studies, Oct 1961, 29 (1), 40–47.
Waley, Paul, “Distinctive patterns of industrial urbanisation in modern Tokyo, c. 1880–1930,”
Journal of Historical Geography, Jul 2009, 35 (3), 405–427.
Walker, Gavin, “Postcoloniality and the national question in Marxist historiography,” Interventions, 2011, 13 (1), 120–137.
, “The absent body of labour power: Uno Kz’s logic of capital,” Historical Materialism,
2013, 21 (4).
45

, The Sublime Perversion of Capital: Marxist Theory and the Politics of History in Modern Japan, Durham: Duke University Press, 2016.
Yamada, Moritaro, Nihon Shihonshugi Bunseki (Analysis on Japanese Capitalism), Tokyo:
Iwanami Shoten, 1934.
, Nihon Shihonshugi Bunseki (Analysis on Japanese Capitalism), paperback ed., Tokyo:
Iwanami Shoten, First published in 1934, 1977[1934].
Yasuba, Yasukichi, “Anatomy of the debate on Japanese capitalism,” The Journal of JapaneseStudies, Autumn 1975, 2 (1), 63–82.
Yoshihara, Naoki, “Characterization of the public and private ownership solutions,” Mathematical Social Sciences, Mar 1998, 35 (2), 165–184.
, “Wealth, exploitation and labor discipline in the contemporary capitalist economy,”
Metroeconomica, 1998, 49 (2), 23–61.
, “Class and exploitation in general convex cone economies,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Aug 2010, 75 (2), 281–296.
, “A progress report on Marxian economic theory: On the controversies in exploitation
theory since Okishio (1963),” Journal of Economic Surveys, Dec 2017, 31 (5), 1421–
1448.

46