Technology Transfer

Hoshimi Uchida
Professor emeritus, Tokyo Keizai University

Chapter 3, in The Era of Industrialisation, Eds. Shunsaku Nishikawa and Takeji Abe,A History of the Japanese Economy, Vol. 4, Iwanami Shoten, 1990.

< Table of Contents >1. The Role of Technology Transfer in Economic History
1-1 A World History of Technology Transfer
1-2 Types and Means of Technology Transfer

2. The Process of Technology Transfer from the West
2-1 End of the Tokugawa Shogunate (1868)
2-2 The Oyatoigaikokujin System
2-3 Engineering Education
2-4 Importing Machinery and Collaboration with Foreign Businesses

3. Traditional Industries and Technology Transfer

References

Translated from the Japanese by Anjali Patel.
Co-edited by Anjali Patel, Izumi Ohno, and Azko Hayashida.

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

1. The Role of Technology Transfer in Economic History
1-1 A World History of Technology Transfer
Japan’s opening of its ports in 1859 brought with it the beginnings of trade with Europe and theUnited States (US), and, at the same time, opened a way for it to import technologies from theWest. Since then Japan has achieved industrial modernisation through the deliberate andselective introduction of these technologies. This paper will describe Japan’s industria lisation asa process of technology transfer from the West, from a global perspective. It will analyse thesixty-year period that stretches from the last days of the Tokugawa Shogunate (1850s) to Japan’s
involvement in the First World War (1910s).
General usage of the term technology transfer is relatively recent, and there are several
approaches in treating it as a subject. However, these approaches can be broadly divided andunderstood as either an economic analysis of the activities of globally-active enterprises or asociological analysis of technology transfer between different cultures (Ito 1986: 63, Komota
1982: 1).
Much of the current debate on technology transfer is largely concerned with the contemporary
policy challenge of how developed countries can provide effective technical co-operation todeveloping countries. Since this policy debate is one that is premised on an institutionalframework that reflects the latter half of the twentieth century, it may not have much relevanceto the discussion of technology transfer within economic history. Nevertheless, we should notethat nineteenth-century Japan stands out as the sole historical example of a successful transfer oftechnology from the West to a non-Western society. So setting aside the question of whether
Japan’s experience, taken as is, has any lessons for developing countries of today, thetechnological transfer that occurred from the West to Japan from the end of the Tokugawa
Shogunate through to the early Meiji period (1868-1912) still merits examination as an
one-of-a-kind event in world history (Hayashi 1984: 139- ).
The transfer of technology around the globe is obviously not a modern phenomenon. Since
ancient times it has played a critical role in economic history. That hard technologies, such asiron production, or the soft technologies, such as an alphabet, originated in a specific locationand subsequently travelled to other locations is indisputable archaeological fact. The
technologies that developed in the three centres of civilisation in the pre-Christian world, China,
India and the Mediterranean, spread to their respective peripheries. The Kojiki and the
Nihonshoki, the two oldest extant chronicles of Japanese history, record how the transfer ofmetalwork technology, silk weaving and other know-how from China contributed to thefounding of Japan as a nation. The economic development of Western Europe from the twelfth
century onwards owes much to the printing and manufacturing technologies for paper,1

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

gunpowder and compasses that developed in China and the Muslim world. Even blast-furnacesteel manufacture and clock making can be attributed to technologies that originated from China(Needham 1970 [Yamada [trans.] 1974]).
When viewed in this manner, pre-Renaissance Western Europe was initially technologicallyunderdeveloped and less prosperous than the East. However, as a result of the transfer oftechnology described above, as well as further independent innovation based on it, Western
Europe was able to develop its own technologies of gunmaking, shipbuilding and navigation.
These new technologies paved the way for the Age of Discovery, during which time Western
European technology influenced other parts of world (Cipolla 1965). It was in this period that
Western technologies for processing minerals and gunmaking first arrived in Japan. Learning
how to refine metals for coins provided the material basis for the Bakufu to establish a monetarysystem during the Tokugawa period (1603-1868). Gunmaking technology, on the other hand,
sped the process domestic unification that had begun in the late sixteenth century and brought
about the creation of a nationwide market. However, as domestic demand for guns was low
during this prolonged period of peace, the impetus for Japan’s military technolog y to develop to
the same extent as Western Europe’s was scant (Perrin 1979 [Kawakatsu [trans.] 1984]).
Similarly, this first instance of technology transfer from sixteenth century Western Europe to
Tokugawa Japan had a limited effect on the development of the economy. Even with the Sakoku
or ‘seclusion’ enforced during this period, some degree of scientific knowledge continued toflow into Japan from the Netherlands via the port of Nagasaki. However, while scholars ofWestern studies enthusiastically compiled this learning, it by no means represented the transfer
of practicable industrial technology. Indeed, it was still a time when the West was attempting to
reproduce the production technologies for the Japanese and Chinese ceramics that it was
importing.
Over in Great Britain, as the industrial revolution progressed over the eighteenth and the earlynineteenth centuries, new technologies to build steam engines, coke-fired blast furnaces,
spinning machines, railways and steam ships were steadily being developed and applied (Arai,
Uchida and Toba [eds.] 1981). The industrial revolution in Continental Europe and in the US
that followed was chiefly achieved through the transfer of these technologies. As such, thetransfer of technology from Britain to Germany, France and the US is a topic of major
significance within the study of modern Western economic history, when viewed as aphenomenon that enabled the spread of industrial know-how and industrialisation. This topic
lies at the intersection of socio-economic history and the history of technology and innovation,and since Henderson’s groundbreaking book on this subject (Henderson 1954), scholars of
economic history and the history of technology have described the process of technology
transfer for individual industries as well as specific countries in detail (L’Acquisition desTechniques par les Pays Noninitiateurs 1973, Kroker 1971, Jeremy 1981).

2Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

The transfer of technology from Western Europe to Japan during the latter half of the nineteenth
century can be viewed as part of the process that began in Britain with the industrial revolution
and spread all over the globe. Within the current body of historical research that focuses on the
Meiji Restoration or Japan’s industrial revolution, the topic of Japan’s assimilation of Western
technology has been thoroughly examined following the publication of Hiroto Saigusa’s seminal
book (Saigusa 1940). As a result, scholars of modern Japanese economic history are well versed
in Meiji government policies to promote industrialisation and introduce Western technologies tospecific sectors. However, current historical perspectives have held to one premise; they view
the processes of Western socioeconomic development and technological progress as models thatcan be applied universally. Thus, the transfer of Western technology to the less developed Japanof the sixteenth century just followed a path set by the inevitable course of history. Furthermore,using this logic, the transfer of technology from Britain to the Continent and the US would
possess the same qualities and characteristics as the transfer of technology from the West to
Japan.
Recent progress in research on economic history of the Tokugawa period, however, shows thatprior to its adopting Western institutions Japanese society was already assimilating anddeveloping technologies. Scholars have discovered technologies that originated in Tokugawa
Japan and others that were developed from earlier Chinese and Western influences. A significant
and common feature in the development of all these technologies was the creation of a uniquely
Japanese production culture, which made skilful use of the limited resources available during
the Sakoku (seclusion) to create highly processed goods that were particular to and a speciali ty
of a given region (Uchida 1982: 17-25, Uchida 1989).
When we compare the technologies developed in Tokugawa Japan with those originating fromBritain, France, Germany and the US, we see that they clearly belong to a different culturalcontext. Technologies that stemmed from Western Europe are characterised by their roots in thetwelfth century; the pursuit of complex mechanisms; and the demand for mass energy
consumption (White 1962 [Uchida [trans.] 1985: 122-151]). Fossil fuel technology to generateenergy from coal that Britain developed during the eighteenth century drastically expanded thescope for applying these technologies, and they spread easily to other Western nations that heldcommon cultural traditions. This was the beginning of a large-scale industrial revolution (Harris
1974, [Uchida [trans.] 1974: 106-114]).
With its own distinct institutions and systems for technology, Japan faced certain challenges in
adopting Western technologies. A simple example illustrates this point well. The tran sfer oftechnology from Britain to the Continent and the US was facilitated by the migration andemigration of entrepreneurs and skilled workers. However, because of racial, cultural andlinguistic differences, technology transfer to Japan via this method was rather an exception than
the rule.

3

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

Gerschenkron’s model (Gerschenkron 1962: 8, Nakagawa 1981: 49-78), which maintains that
latecomer industrialised countries gain an advantage because they can kick start their economic
development by borrowing technologies from forerunner industrialised countries, forms thebasis for international technology transfer as defined by economic history. Yet, even if this logic
applies to Western nations, the challenges mentioned in the previous paragraph mean that anyedge that Japan possesses as a latecomer would be diminished.
A re-examination of the process of technology transfer from Western Europe during the Meiji
period, adopting a global perspective, is still in its early stages (Kobayashi 1981, Hayashi 1986,
Jeremy [ed.] 1991). In the following sections I will adopt this viewpoint to analyse Japan’s
experience in adopting and assimilating different systems of Western technology from the end of
the Tokugawa period.

1-2 Types and Means of Technology Transfer
In general terms, technology is transferred through the actions of both the supplier and receiverof a technology (such as enterprises or the governments). Technology transfer can take a numberof different forms, depending on the capacity and policies of the parties involved, the size of thetechnological gap, the amount and quality of the technical information available, the degree ofsupplier intervention and the initiative shown by the recipient. The various forms of technology
transfer can be classified as follows, with reference to historical events and the conventions ofcontemporary international technology transfer. The methods recipients use to obtain technology
are listed below in order, from A to K, starting with the types of transfer where the recipient
exhibits a high degree of dependence on the supplier country to types where the recipient
exercises a high degree of independence.
A.

Overseas factories founded through direct investment by suppliers

B.

Businesses established by migrants from the supplier country

C.

Joint ventures

D.

Management contracts with suppliersE.

Turnkey contracts, where suppliers guarantee the transfer of technology when they
construct a factoryF.

The employment of engineers and skilled workers provided by the suppliers o r bybusinesses owned by the receivers

G.

Purchase contracts for machinery and know-how

H.

Technology transfer as an integral part of the machinery imported by the recipientI.

Patent licence agreements

J.

Production of imitations

K.

In-house development of a technology

4

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

Types A and C (joint ventures and overseas concerns) are initiated by a supplier as part of amanagement strategy that promotes multinational business, while type I (a patent licenceagreement) becomes widely practiced once an international patent system has been established.
As discussed previously, type B (migrant-owned business) is a common means of technology
transfer in Western countries, but much less so in Japan. A turnkey contract or type E is the usualmeans of technology transfer that accompanies the export of industrial plants from developed
countries to developing countries today. In principle, any form of technology transfer throughout
history belongs to one or other of the types listed above, although each type is somewhat
influenced by the international economic relations prevalent at the time. As I will show in
Section 2, the transfer of technology that took place from the West to Japan at end of theTokugawa Shogunate and throughout the Meiji period could belong to any of the types listed
here.
Differences among the various types of technology transfer can be understood clearly when one
observes the movement of people, goods (machinery or products) and knowledge (public
information or know-how), which provide the means for technology transfer. Normally, in thetransfer of technology, people move between suppliers and receivers in both directions, however,goods and knowledge travel only in one direction, from suppliers to receivers.
Figure 3-1 illustrates the movement of the three means of technology transfer for type G (apurchase contract for machinery and know-how) over time. Purchase contracts were the primarymethod Japan used to introduce foreign technology during the Taisho (1912-1926) and Showa(1926-1989) periods (Uchida 1972: 67). Technology from the West flowed through establishedchannels of public information such as academic journals and patent documents. A cadre ofJapanese engineers, who had the ability to comprehend and evaluate the technology, travelledabroad to identify which technologies should be adopted and negotiated terms with the supplierbusiness. On conclusion of the contract, the suppliers shipped the machinery or equipment toJapan, providing short-term engineers, technicians or skilled operators to install and test run the
hardware. It was also standard for foreign workers to train domestic workers so that upon theirdeparture, the receiver could operate the imported technology independently. Furthermore, incases where the receivers were particularly capable, they could opt to import a portion of themachinery (H) or obtain a patent license (I). Finally, where no patent restrictions existed, it waspossible for countries to reproduce a technology by copying imported products or making
replicas using publically available information as in type J.
At end of the Tokugawa Shogunate and during early Meiji period, however, Japan did notpossess the capacity for type H or I transfers. It lacked the means for obtaining public
information and did not possess any domestically-trained engineers or technicians. Thus
technology came solely via the goods and technical services provided by the supplier and thecountry began the process of introducing new technology without any resources depicted in the5Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

top half of Figure 3-1.
Figure 3-1 Technology Transfer Process
Flow of information
Flow of people
Flow of goods

Suppliers

Recipient

Basic Research
Research and Development

Academic Papers

Process Completion

Patents

Patents

Industrialisation

Public Information(newspapers & magazines)

Academic Societies
Government
Departments &Offices

Sales Policy(know-how & patents)

Business Plan

Trading Companies
Import of Products
Agent
Affiliates
Domestic Researchers

Selection of Desired
Technology
Overseas
Inspectionand Study
Tours

Introduction of aTechnology
Negotiation

Domestic
Development

Select Destination
for New
DesignSite Visits

Contract

Plant Construction

Training
DesignPlant Construction

Domestic Machinery
Manufacturers

Installation& Support
Facilities
Import of Foreign
Machinery
ForeignEngineers &SkilledWorkers
Operation

Operation

Improvement
Malfunction/Breakdown

Improvement

Introduction of
Improved Technology

Independent
Development

2. The Process of Technology Transfer from the West
2-1 End of the Tokugawa Shogunate (1868)
The first conscious decision by Tokugawa government to introduce foreign technology to Japanwas in 1854, when it adopted Western-style armaments to equip its coastal defences (Uchida
1986: 166-173). Japan sought to replicate foreign technology as part of this effort and built
furnaces at various sites nationwide to smelt and process metals (in particular for casting
cannons). Scholars of Dutch studies and craftsmen designed and built these furnaces, relying
solely on descriptions by Huguenin in An Explanation of [the] Technology of Liège Artilleryman

6Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

Arsenal[s] or Riêjyu hôhei kôshô gijyutsu kaisetsu ([Saigusa (ed.) 1942: 296]). The method oftechnology transfer employed in this instance is type J (the production of imitations). However,most attempts to refine iron ore and produce arms failed, and there is no evidence to show thatthe cannons or bullets produced were used effectively in the battles that brought an end to the
Tokugawa Shogunate. The Dutch texts used to reproduce Western technology had been
published more than twenty years ago and were already outdated in the West. Realizing thelimits to imitating technology or developing it independently, the Bakufu and some of thepowerful han (local governments in the Edo period) changed their strategy and reverted tobuying firearms that were manufactured abroad as soon as Japan opened its ports in 1859.
Each Japanese han also produced copies or models of Western-style ships and steam engines
based on the Dutch texts they had in their possession. However, the gap in technology between
the results of their efforts and the foreign ships that actually visited Japan was so great that it led
the Bakufu to start importing warships from the West (Imazu 1966: 56).
However, even after a country imports hardware the problem of how to make it operational still
remains. The solution here lies in the movement of people from abroad who can impart therequired know-how. In this sense, the construction of a Russian ship at Izuheta port in 1854 andthe founding of the Nagasaki Naval Training Centre (Nagasaki Kaigun Denshûjyo) in 1855 wereboth groundbreaking events that transferred technology to Japan through enabling interaction
between naval personnel. While the Izuheta case did not have the specific objective oftransferring Russian technology to Japan, the Japanese, who built the wooden sailing ships,
using designs by Russian naval officers and working under instructions set by Russian
shipwrights, later became the first skilled labourers to work at Japanese naval arsenals or
privately-owned shipyards. Thus, Izuheta can be regarded as a successful case of on-site
technology transfer (Katsu 1973: 52).
The Nagasaki Naval Training Centre was established to train the crew of Japan’s first
Western-style battleship, the Kankô-maru, which was a gift from the Dutch government to the
Bakufu. Five Dutch navy personnel, including the naval officer Kattendijke, trained 167 samurai
who had been competitively selected by the Bakufu and various han. Courses offered by thecentre focused on soft or operational technologies such as navigation, artillery training and thecare and maintenance of steam engines, which were a normal part of the curriculum for abattleship crew. The crew also received on-the-job training through an exercise to navigate to
Kagoshima (Katsu 1973: 151-232, Kattendîke [Kattendijke] 1964). As the centre was a joint
undertaking of the Dutch navy and the Bakufu, with daily management entrusted to Dutch
instructors, it possesses the characteristics of a type C transfer (a joint venture) .
Between 1860 and 1870 the Bakufu and each han imported a total of 166 ships of various kinds(Sugiyama 1981: 482). While these vessels were imported, it was the graduates of Nagasaki

7

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

Naval Training Centre and other similar centres that the Bakufu subsequently set up in Tokyo(then Edo) and Hyogo who operated them. This achievement demonstrates the deep impact thatthe transfer of soft technology from Nagasaki Naval Training Centre had. At the same time, theintroduction of so many different types of sea vessel (goods) in itself acted as a means oftechnology transfer, and enabled the Bakufu and han to enriched their knowledge of warships,
engines, and gunnery. In a similar way, the Bakufu army acquired soft technology both throughthe artillery it imported and the elite troop training corps that it set up to invite foreign militaryadvisors to Japan.
Moreover, the Shogunate built the Nagasaki Steel Mill (and shipyard for repairs) in 1857 and the
Yokosuka Steel Mill in 1866 as ancillary facilities for Nagasaki Naval Training Centre. These
two facilities, which later became Mitsubishi Nagasaki Shipyard and Yokosuka Naval Arsenal,
were at the forefront of Western mechanised factory production in Japan and also spearheaded
the systematic transfer of hardware technology to Japan through the employment of foreign
engineers and skilled workers. Kagoshima Spinning Mill, established in 1867 and run by theSatsuma han, also employed a similar approach. After the Meiji Restoration, the experiences ofthese three businesses formed a model for the new government’s programme to engage foreign
advisors with specialist knowledge, who came to be known as oyatoigaikokujin or ‘honorable
hired foreigners’.

2-2 The Oyatoigaikokujin System
The success of Western-style, government-run businesses in the railways, telegraphy and silkreeling that employed large numbers of foreign advisors hired by the Meiji government is wellknown, and the lives of many of the foreign experts involved have been explored (Saigusa,
Nozaki, and Sasaki 1960, Kashima Shuppankai 1968-1973). However, praising foreign experts
as the benefactors of Japan’s modernisation or commending the resolve of the Meiji government
who engaged them at extraordinary expense is insufficient treatment of the phenomenon if weare aiming to deepen our understanding of the role of technology transfer within economic
history. Here, it is useful to examine how the oyatoigaikokujin or the foreign experts provided
by suppliers and hired by Japan are positioned as an overall means of technology transfer within
our classification of the various types, from A to K. In this connection, it would also be useful todiscuss how supplier policy for transferring technology at the time enabled the movement ofsuch a large number of people to Japan.
Using the Ministry of Public Works’ Report on Development (Kôbushô Enkaku Hôkoku)(Ôkurashô [ed.] 1931) and other materials to compare the number and professions of foreigners
hired, government-run businesses of the early Meiji period can be roughly divided into two
types. The first type consists of businesses that employed large numbers of foreigners. As wellas hiring engineers, these workplaces assigned a skilled foreign worker as a foremen to8

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

supervise each area of its business. In doing so, these businesses transplanted an exact replica of
the supplier’s factory organisation as well as importing its hardware. The majority of foreigners
at a site came from the same country as the machinery and equipment that had been imported.
Furthermore, in most cases, a foreign director, who was not necessarily an engineer, would
oversee the work of his fellow countrymen. Yokosuka Shipyard, the Tokyo-Yokohama Railway,
the Imperial Mint and Ikuno Silver Mine, as shown in Tables 3-1, 3-2, 3-3 and 3-4, provide four
specific examples of the positions foreign workers held.
The second type consisted of businesses that employed a limited number of foreigner workers.
Here none of the foreigners hired served as managers or performed clerical duties. Rather, they
were hired as consultant engineers for designing and planning or as skilled workers ass igned to
specific areas of work. There were also cases where the foreigners of different nationalities
worked together. Many local offices for industry and mining and the agricultural businesses run
by the Japanese Home Office as well as some businesses run by the Hokkaido Settlement
Bureau provide examples of this type of model.
Turning to our classification of the different types of technology transfer, we can regard
businesses that employed large numbers of foreigners and procured management from the
supplier as type D transfers. For those businesses that employed fewer foreigners, engaging
them as specialist advisors or skilled workers from the supplier, type F is applicable. While bothcategories of business relied on hired foreign workers, they differed significantly in terms of thelevel of independence and involvement in the technology transfer that they displayed. In thecase of the Kagoshima Spinning Mill, the British cotton spinning machinery manufacturer, PlattBros & Co Ltd, dispatched seven engineers (or skilled workers) under a chief engineer named
Holm. The team was able to return to Britain in one year having laid out the factory, installed themachinery and trained Japanese workers for each of the departments (Kagoshima -shi 1935:
311-314). The approach employed here to transfer technology through hiring foreigners lies
between the two described earlier and corresponds to type E, i.e., a turnkey contract.
However, our greatest interest lies in those cases where technology was transferred through theuse of management contracts. Here, gathering public and privileged technical information as
well as making decisions about which technologies to introduce—which are regarded as part of
the receiver's role in Figure 3-1—were entrusted to foreign experts or to the foreign firms that
acted as the suppliers of the technology. Japanese did not undertake any missions abroad.
Furthermore, foreign engineers and skilled workers managed the operation as well as theconstruction of the factories. As a result, technology transferred through this method was limitedin scope and impact, affecting only those Japanese workers at the site of operation.

9

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

Table 3-1 Number of Foreigners Employed by Yokosuka Shipyard in 1872 (by Occupation)
Director 1 Deputy Director 1 Bookkeeper 1 Secretary 1 Chief Design Engineer 1 Design Engineer 1
Draughtsmen 1 Head of Ship Repairs 1 Ship Repairer 1 Shipwright 1 Caulker 1 Master Blacksmith 1
Blacksmith 1 Master Plater/Tin & Iron Worker 1 Plater/Tin & Iron Worker 1 Casters 3 Coppersmith 1
Master Iron-maker* 1 Iron-maker* 1 Lead Equipment Operators 2 Equipment Operator 1 Master Turner 1
Watcher 1 Doctor 1 Deputy Instructor 1(All were French.)
Source: Kôbushô Enkaku Hôkoku [Kôbushô History Report]: 324-326.
* Provisional translation.

Table 3-2 Number of Foreigners Employedby the Imperial Government Railway of Japan in 1872 (by Occupation)
Director 1 Lead Building Engineer 1 Deputy Building Engineers 3 *Chief Design Engineers/Sub-Chiefs 9
Ironworkers 3 Chainmaker 1 *Ropemaker 1 Carpenters & Fitters 2 Woodworkers 4 Mason 1*Track Constructors 7 Time Guard 1 Drivers 5 Dispatchers 6 Inspector 1 Railway Guards 5
Building Inspector 1 Warehousekeepers 2 Machinery Operators 9 Machinery Fitters 1 *Clockmaker 1
Carriage Builders 3 Head Bookkeeper 1 *Secretaries 8 *Doctors 3(* All but one person employed in each of these occupations was British.)Source: Kôbushô Enkaku Hôkoku [Kôbushô History Report]: 165.

Table 3-3 Number of Foreigners Employed by the Imperial Mint in 1873 (by Occupation)
Director 1 Secretary 1 Examiner/Analyser** 1 Master Gold & Silver Refiner 1 Examiners/Analysers** 3*Metal Value Assessors Valuers** 2 *Rolling Mill Assistant 1 Head of the Stamping Bureau 1 Deputy Head 1
Stamp Sculptor-Engraver 1 Head of the Machine Bureau 1 Machinery Operators 2 Master Capacity Assessor 1
Captain 1 Shipping Equipment Operator 1 Doctor 1(* included an Italian and two Portuguese. All the other foreigners were British.)Source: Zôhei Hyakunen [A One Hundred Year History of Minting] (1971): Zôheikyoku Senyûkai: 13.
** Provisional translation.

Table 3-4 Number of Foreigners Employed by Ikuno Silver Mine in 1872 (by Occupation)
Master Miner 1 Geological Surveyors 2 Doctor 1 Miners 7 Bricklayer 1 Master Mineral Ore Refiner 1
Machinery Operators 2(All were French.)
Source: Kôbushô Enkaku Hôkoku [Kôbushô History Report]: 91-92.

It is difficult to obtain an accurate picture of how these early businesses functioned if we takeofficial accounts at face value. Every year, the Imperial Mint published its Annual Report of the
President of the Imperial Mint, in the name of its director, William Thomas Kinder. Kinder,
along with other foreign experts, was dispatched by the British Oriental Bank, which theJapanese government had contracted to manage the mint. It seems that these foreign directors
and advisors had real command over Japanese workers (Hidemura 1968: 385-386). In the case of10

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

Telegraphic Service of the Ministry of Public Works, however, the official report was created in
the name of the Japanese second-in-command. The first few times it was released, the report
appeared in both English and Japanese. Whether by intention or chance, differences are evident
in the guidance given. For example, ‘in the telegraphic service, we shall work in co-operation
with foreigners, sharing the duties of construction engineers and maintenance staff, andrequesting their support when necessary’, appeared in Japanese ostensibly giving Japanesemanagerial responsibility. Meanwhile, the English version presented a clearly different situation
where ‘the telegraph wire will be managed through co-operation between Europeans andJapanese. The latter [the Japanese] will work under the supervision of foreigners as telegraphoperators, clerks, engineers, inspectors and labourers’ (Nihon Teikoku Denshin Dai’ichi
Hôkokusho [The First Report of Japanese Imperial Telegraph Service], 1875: 22).
The realities of technology transfer within what can be considered as government-owed,
foreign-run businesses like these could hardly have been systematic or smooth. The experienceof Masahide Yoshida, regarded as one of the first Japanese engineers at the Telegraphic Service,illustrates this point. Yoshida was official of the Shogunate, and while a studying English atShûbunkan school in Yokohama, a Briton called Gilbert recruited him along with other students.
Gilbert had come to Yokohama in 1869 to set up a telegraph service for Japan. From his third
day on the job, Yoshida was required to send and receive telegraphs despite having no idea what
to do. Using his spare time to practise, he finally learned how to move the handle over the dialof the telegraphic device. However, because its operation required minimal academic ability, herequested a transfer to the construction of the wire. He worked as an interpreter and assistant toforeign engineers engaged in laying telegraphic cable between Tokyo and Nagasaki, and waschiefly occupied with negotiating with government officials at various locations along the line
and translating instructions for the workers. In later years, he spoke of the challenges he faced inthat role; ‘they took on apprentices to operate the telegraph or to build the wire, setting them towork without any training or established construction practices. The men had no idea what to do.
How could I interpret anything for them under those conditions?’ (Yoshida 1935: 15 -16).
The establishment of a mint, a telegraphic service, railways and shipyards were all endeavours
with one aim; rapidly introducing same kind of infrastructure that existed in the West to a
post-seclusionist Japan. It is not surprising then that these enterprises were run using a large
number of foreigners who managed them in the same manner as the businesses they had
managed at home. These businesses did not always consciously aim at transferring technology toJapan.
Let me turn my attention to a second challenge, i.e., the nature of the technology transfer
policies of Western countries towards Japan. As an inevitable result of Japan’s o pening in 1859,
it was useful, not to say necessary, for the various foreign legations, shipping lines andmerchants to have Japan build the type of infrastructure described. Nagasaki and Yokosuka Steel

11

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

Mills became indispensable facilities for the repair of foreign ships because they now lay at theend of long-distance sea routes that linked Europe to the Far East (Sonoda 1985: 25). For
Nagasaki Kosuga Dock, managed by the British firm of Glover, (Sugiyama 1981: 499) and
Takashima Colliery (Ishii, Kanji 1984: 251, Mitsubishi Kôgyô Semento Kabushikigaisha 1989:2-7), which both could be classified as type B or C, repairing foreign ships and replenishing fuel(charcoal) was their aim.
The construction of lighthouses and the telegraph service originated in a request from the British
consul general, Harry Smith Parkes, to the Meiji government, shortly after the government’s
formation. The lighthouses that were constructed under the command the British engineer, R H
Branton, ensured safe passage for foreign and Japanese ships alike. By the end of 1874 Branton
had assembled a large team of workers, 88 men strong. It consisted of builders, lighthouse
keepers and boat crews, in which Chinese and Filipinos as well as Britons served (Ôkurashô(ed) 1931: 285-298). While the Meiji government bore the cost of construction, Branton’s teamcompleted all the building work and undertook maintenance.
Let us take a look at technology transfer within the area of telegraphy. The US, the Netherlands,
Prussia and Austria all presented Japan with telegraph boxes when the Treaty of Friendship andthe Treaty of Amity and Commerce were concluded towards the end of the Tokugawa Shogunate.
In 1866 an envoy of the Bakufu signed an agreement with the French government to build atelegraph service, but circumstances changed when the Meiji government took power, andthrough the mediation of the British consul general, a domestic telegraphic service was started
up instead. The Danish Ôkita Telegraph Company was awarded a contract for sole agency.
Behind these developments lay the completion of a long distance international telegraphic
communication net technology that had grown out of the Anglo-French co-operation on
submarine transmission cables in 1851. The telegraph network stretched from Europe to the Far
East via an overland route that the Russian Government had laid, reaching Vladivostok in 1866.
Between 1869 and 1871, submarine telegraphic cables laid by private British companies
connected Aden to Hong Kong and Shanghai via Bombay and Singapore. The Ôkita TelegraphCompany was set to extend coverage by connecting Nagasaki and Yokohama to the other cable
networks. Thereafter, the Tokyo-Yokohama and Tokyo-Nagasaki telegraphic lines enabledforeign legations and merchants in Japan to have virtually instantaneous contact with home,which proved of great benefit and profit to them. From the beginning, the Telegraphic Service
was set up to send messages in the Roman alphabet as well as in Japanese characters. The factthat 10 percent of the messages sent were in Roman characters demonstrates that theconstruction of telegraph system proved useful to foreign residents as well as to the Japanese
government and public (Uchida 1989: 154). The technological advances in seafaring andtelegraphy in the West that made passage to Japan possible were also the technologies that Japanneeded to operationalise in order to create its own businesses. Now we understand theinternational backdrop to government-owned business that relied on foreign advisors hired

12Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

through management contracts made with suppliers.
It is easy to imagine how the near total reliance of these Japanese businesses on imported
machinery, equipment and materials brought handsome profits to foreign merchants, who werethe mediators of the technology transfer. Jardine Matheson & Co and the Oriental Bank
competed over an order to build and equip the Imperial Mint. The Oriental Bank won the orderand provided Japan with the management expertise I described earlier. In addition, it obtained
the rights to sell old equipment from the Hong Kong Mint as well as gold and silver groundmetal (Ishii 1984: 249). For any project, merchants would also act as middlemen, providing
Japanese government-run businesses with engineers and skilled workers from the merchants’home country. In this context, we can understand why a Scotland connection, brought to light by
Masami Kita’s study (Kita 1984: 3-28), existed among engineers dispatched to Japan by T B
Glover and Jardine Matheson.
How was the movement of so many engineers and skilled workers, primarily from Britain,
possible? Was the movement directed to Japan only? Or was it chiefly a result of thecircumstances these workers faced in the West? According to Buchanan (Buchanan 1986:
501-524), as the pace of building railways, ports and other infrastructure slowed in Britain
during the latter half of the nineteenth century, there was a surplus of civil engineers. Needing
work, greater numbers of them chose to pursue careers building railways and cities in colonies
such as Canada, India and Australia. As domestic investment in Britain slowed, machinery andequipment makers, beginning with the textile industry, also turned their attentions to exporting
to colonies such as India.
In Britain the railways were built by contractors, who supervised subcontractors and teams ofskilled workers. As domestic orders fell off in the 1850s, these contractors extended theiractivities first to the Continent and then on to India, South Africa, South America and Australia(Yuzawa 1988: 133-142, Tsunoyama 1972: 85-105). Once a railway engineer received an orderto build a railway abroad, it was normal for him to travel to his destination with a retinue ofassistants, skilled workers and labourers, having first secured the materials needed such as train
tracks and locomotives from foundries and machinery manufacturers in Britain.
In the case of Argentina, 160 Britons, including engineers, came to build its railway in 1857
(Buchanan 1986: 509, Izawa 1938: 164). Thirteen years later, we can easily imagine how asimilar team moved to Japan to begin construction on a railway here. Japan’s adoption of thenarrow gauge of 3 feet 6 inches is often thought to be an error, but I suspect that the British
engineers engaged to complete the project naturally choose this gauge because they viewed
railway construction in Japan as an extension of the work they had completed in the Britishcolonies. The railways built in Australia and South Africa in around 1860 are of exactly thesame gauge.

13

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

We can imagine how easy it was for foreign legations and merchant houses to attract foreign
workers to work in Japan if we view their move as an extension of the overseas assignments that
had become normal for engineers and skilled workers as number of British and French colonies
grew (1850 to 1860).
Hiring foreign workers and experts through management contracts did not guarantee systematic
technology transfer, but the system did have the merit of transferring the work practices ofadvanced countries to businesses in Japan. As a result, it created groups of skilled workers thatwere new to Japanese society, including machine operators, steam engine drivers, steelworkers
and electricians, who formed the basis of modern industry. These new workers moved fromgovernment-run businesses to the private sector or set up for themselves, thus spreading thecomponents of Western technology that they had acquired and paving the way for theWestern-style management of industry by the Japanese from the 1880s onwards.
From around 1875 government-run businesses began shifting away from hiring foreigners, andby 1880 foreign engineers and skilled workers had disappeared from all but a few workplaces.
Businesses that had used type D transfer (management contracts) now shifted to typ e F (hiring
workers from suppliers). The shift resulted from a change in policy by the Meiji government,
which could no longer afford to hire highly paid foreign workers. At the same time, it was also
the natural consequence of fixed-term contracts expiring at around the same time, which many
foreign experts did not expect to renew. Many businesses managed to continue operations
without hiring replacement foreign workers because now there were skilled Japanese workers
who could take their place. Foreign workers were retained only in those areas where the transfer
of technology had been inadequate. Furthermore, businesses also continued to develop because
trained Japanese technicians were ready to take over the duties of foreign ‘engineers’.

2-3 Engineering Education
After the departure of foreign engineers, Japanese engineers adopted the role of internalisingand diffusing Western technologies in Japan. They now understood the fundamentals of Western
technology and had the ability to put this knowledge to practical use by playing the role ofreceivers as shown in Figure 3-1. Japanese engineers took responsibility for each aspect of thisrole, from collecting and digesting technical information from abroad and selecting which
technologies to introduce to negotiating terms with suppliers and directing factory construction
and installation. Once a factory was ready, they also supervised its operation. The prime reason
why the transfer of Western technology to Japan continued smoothly was because Japan trainedlarge numbers of engineers to an exceptionally high standard throughout the Meiji period.
So how were these domestic engineers trained? In terms of the technical education system,engineers from the Meiji period onwards can be classified into three categories: early Meiji-era

14

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

engineers, university graduates, and technical high school graduates.
Early Meiji-era engineers comprised of men who had studied Western technology before Japan
had established a formal university and technical higher education system. The group consistedof men with three types of background. First, there were the scholars of Dutch studies from thelate Tokugawa period who had taught themselves from technical journals. These men worked forWestern-style businesses owned by the Bakufu or various han, and they were later recognised as‘engineers’ by the Meiji government. Although few in number, many are still remembered fortheir achievements; Takato Ôshima for building the first blast furnace in Japan, Ayasabur ô
Takeda for building the star-shaped fort Goryôkaku and Saburô Utsunomiya, as Japan’s first
cement manufacturer.
Second, were graduates selected from the Nagasaki Naval Training Centre, the Yokosuka
Shipyard School (1870), the Telegraphic Service Technical Training College (1871), theImperial Japanese Naval Academy’s Institute for Maritime Studies (1873) and the Railway
Engineer Training Centre (1877), all of which were established as businesses that foreigners had
been hired to manage. At these schools, foreign engineers taught Japanese trainees theengineering knowledge required for the functions they performed. The graduates later worked as
foremen or junior technicians throughout Japan’s modern army as well as in the telegraphic
service, the railways and in shipbuilding, during their infant stages.
The education offered at these institutions was limited to foreign language training and theknowledge necessary to run the business at hand. For example, the Telegraphic Service
Technical Training College focused almost exclusively on operator training. Yet, while theacademic standard of these facilities in general was not high, it was sufficient to ensure thatthese businesses could continue as normal once foreign management had left. Graduates fromthe Railway Engineer Training Centre supervised the construction a railway line from Kyoto andOtsu between 1878 and 1880, which successfully opened up the route to traffic and included
tunnelling through Osaka Mountain (Harada 1979: 60-65).
The third group of early Meiji-era engineers consisted of the first ryûgakusei, Japanese who
were sent abroad to study. By the Western educational standards of the time, these graduateswere extremely knowledgeable and experienced. On their return to Japan, they worked as seniortechnical experts for the government or for the private sector. Japan began sending students
abroad to study engineering shortly before it opened its ports, and even before it began hiring
foreign advisors and technicians. The very first overseas students were seven men sent to theNetherlands by the Bakufu when it ordered the warship Kaiyô-maru in 1862. Some overseas
students also left the country without permission, including master engineers Yôzô Yamao and
Masaru Inoue, who belonged to the anti-Bakufu hans of Satsuma and Chôshû. After the Meiji
Restoration, these men became senior bureaucrats in the Ministry of Public Works. Even during

15

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

the early years of Meiji government, Japanese students from every domain (han-controlled area)
continued to travel abroad to study. They included men like Takuma Dan, who later became thedirector of Mitsui Mining Co Ltd. The navy also sent many trainees from the Yokosuka Shipyard
School and the Naval Academy abroad to master technologies for shipbuilding and arms
manufacture, as did Kaisei Gakkô, the precursor to Tokyo University. By 1880, Japan had sent
around 80 students abroad to train as engineers.
Looking at overseas student numbers by the field of study, 21 studied shipbuilding, 17 studied
mechanical engineering, 13 studied civil engineering, 10 studied mining and metallurgy, 6
studied arms manufacture and 4 studied chemistry. As for the destination country, 28 were sent
to Britain, 20 to the US, 14 to France, 9 to Germany and 8 went to the Netherlands (the number
visiting the Netherlands dropped to zero after the Meiji Restoration) (Uchida 1985: 112-116). A
study by Kita (Kita 1984: 181-189) focuses on overseas engineering students who trained in
Britain, but we should note that when figures are combined, a comparable number of students
trained in other major industrialised countries. Furthermore, the destination for study was notalways a university. Indeed, the majority of students attended various recognised technicalschools, received on-the-job training, or had private lessons. However, this did not mean thatthey received a substandard education.
To understand why we should remember that for many years traditional Western European
universities did not acknowledge nor offer technical education. In Great Britain, only
universities in Scotland and London established mechanical and civil engineering chairs before
the 1840s. Before the industrial revolution, it was the custom in Britain for an engineer to train
on site, first serving an apprenticeship and then working as an assistant. Man y of the British
engineers who came to Japan had been trained in this manner. On the Continent, however,technical and vocational schools as well as universities had been established. The École
Polytechnique was founded in Paris at the end of the eighteenth century. Graduates from theschool proceeded to the École d’Application to graduate as technical specialists for thegovernment. In contrast, the École Centrale supplied the private sector with engineers. In
Germany, each state boasted a number of technical and vocational schools, including the mining
school of Freiberg established in 1765. However, these schools were still considered a rank
below universities until the end of the nineteenth century. In the US, there were few technicaleducation institutions until the first half of the nineteenth century. Boston Tech, which later
expanded into MIT, was founded in the 1860s – just before the Meiji Restoration and at aroundthe same time that Columbia and Cornell universities first offered civil, mechanical and mining
and materials engineering courses (Uchida 1985: 124-129, Kranzberg [ed.] 1986).
We see that when the first Japanese students went abroad to complete their education, theengineering education on offer varied considerably from country to country. Although Franceand Germany had relatively well-equipped technical schools, Japan had yet to establish a16Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

relationship that enabled it send large numbers of students to them. Thus, Japan sent the
majority of its students to Britain and the US, where technical education was still in its infancy,and students served an apprenticeship according to the prevailing practice of the time.
Table 3-5 shows the number of early Meiji-era students and the technical education institutions
they attended. We note that all the leading engineering institutes in Europe and the US of thetime are represented. One cannot help but be impressed at how the most appropriate destinations
for study were selected.
We see that most of first Japanese overseas students received an education on par with engineersof the first rank in Europe and the US. Thus, it is no surprise that on their return, these engineers
were able to assume the responsibilities and positions occupied by foreign technical advisorsand engineers.
Table 3-5 Number of Overseas Engineering Students (by Educational Institution)
Founding
NumberYear

Country[Britain]Royal Naval College, Greenwich
University of Glasgow
University of Edinburgh
Royal School of Mines
University College, London
Owens College, Manchester[France]
École d’application du génie maritime, Cherbourg
École centrale des arts et manufactures, Paris
École polytechnique, Paris
École des mines, St Etienne[Germany]
Bergakademie, Freiberg
Technische Hochschule, Hannover[United States]
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Rennselaer Polytechnic Institute
Columbia College
Rutgers College
Stevens Institute
Rose Polytechnic InstituteWorcester Polytechnic School
Lafayette College
Source: Uchida (1985: 122).

17(1873)(1840)(1840)(1851)(1841)(1851)

6
3
2
2
2
1

(1795)(1829)(1795)(1795)

5
2
1
1(1765)(1831)

3
1(1864)(1849)(1864)

3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1

(1870)(1870)(1865)

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

Table 3-6 The Distribution and Types of Engineer Employed
by Government Departments in 1880●: Dutch scholars, ○: First overseas engineering students,◆: Early Meiji-era engineers (domestically trained at various colleges and institutions),△: Imperial College of Engineering graduates, ▲: University of Science graduates(according to Shôzô Hikone [ed.][1881])
Agriculture Promotion Bureau (Goyôgakari-jyunsô) ○Shôzô Inoue, Ishirô Wada
Civil Engineering Bureau (Goyôgakari-jyunpan) ○Seizô Miyanohara, ▲Satoru Usui, ▲Tanenobu Oka,
▲Yasuto Koshiba, ▲Hide Koizuka, ▲Benjirô Kusakabe(Kyokuchô) ○Yasuyo Ishimaru, (Cyû-gishi) ○Norichika Ôno, (Ittô-gishi) ◆Nobuharu Katô,
Ministry of Finance
Bureau of the Mint ◆Tsuneyasu Yajima, ◆Takahiro Sugitani(Nitô-gisyu) ◆Shinsuke Hanada
The Department of the Army (Hôhei Kyokuchô-taisa) ○Kazumichi Harada, (Tokyo Hôhei Kôshô Goyôgakari-chûsa) ●Tsuneyoshi Murata(Osaka Hôhei Kôshô Kanmu-tai'i) ○Tokusaburô Ôta
The Department of the Navy (Gijyôkan-shôshô) ○Noriyoshi Akamatsu, (Gotô-syusshi) ○Tarozaemon Sawa
(Dai-kikanshi) ○Shôtarô Yamagata, (Hachitô-syusshi) ○Naokata Kumagai, (Dai-jyôshi) ◆Kinzô Watanabe(Shô-shôji) ○Hidemiki Hamaguchi, ○Gosaku Akamine, ○Kinjirô Matsuda, ○Kanichi Shidô,○Sukenaka Satô, ○Sotojirô Haji
(Ittô-shi) ◆Shinzô Nishikawa, ◆Heizô Usami, ◆Korekazu Asai, ◆Heisaku Iwata, ◆Toshikuni Kirino(Nitô-shi) ◆Han'nojyô Yamana, ◆Kiheiji Kukita, ◆Izô Okada, ◆Yûshin Itô(Santô-shi) ◆Katsuji Mutô, ◆Hirotaka Kobayashi, (Jyunpan) ○Fukuhiro Tsumura, ○Tatsuya Yamaguchi(Heigakkô Kyôjyu-ho) ○Chokunoshin Sone, ○Chikashi Yokoi
The Ministry of Public Works (Kyô) ○Yôzô Yamao
Bureau of Mining (Gon Dai-gichô) ○Moriyoshi Asakura(Goyôgakari-jyunsô) ●Taktô Ôshima, (Shô-gichô) ●Rin'nosuke Koma, ○Shigesuke Môri, ●Taro Adachi(Gon Shô-gichô Kaigun-taii) ○Sôsuke Harada, (Nitô-gisyu) ○Sumiyasu Yamada

Home Ministry(Shichitô-gisyu) △Masa Kuwabara, △Tatsuo Oki(Hachitô-gisyu) △Masakata Asô, △Kôji Miyazaki, △Masamichi Yoshihara, △Tôka Kojika,△Chikanari Matsushita, △Ryô Sengoku, △Tominori Kitsunezaki, △Kinichi Yamada△Rikusaburô Kondô, △Mitsugu Arakawa, △Masanobu Maki, △Yonehachi Takashima
Bureau of Railways (Kyokuchô Gikan) ○Masaru Inoue, (Gon Dai-gichô) ○Toshinori Iida
(Ittô-gisyu) Yatarô Kurobe, (Santô-gisyu) ○Hiroshi Hiraoka, ◆Yoshinaga Kunizawa(Yontô-gisyu) ●Yoshimasa Matsunaga, (Gotô-gisyu) ●Masatsune Kimura, ◆Kinsuke Hasegawa,Shû Shimazaki(Rokutô-gisyu) Hidetama Ôshima, Hidekichi Kawahara, ◆Mitsu'uta Musha, ◆Syudô Nagae,◆Masa'aki Satake, ◆Shôgo Matsui, ◆Noriyoshi Kidera(Shichitô-gisyu) Kumasaku Ten'numa, ◆Norichika Uzuo, ◆- Kimura, Nobutake ShimadaLighthouse Service (Ittô-gisyu) ○Kentatsu Fujikura, Takamasa Nakazawa
Telegraphic Service (Nitô-gisyu) Ginji Inagaki, (Santô-gisyu) ○Seisuke Tanaka(Yontô-gisyu) ●Daikichi Tanaka, ○Shigenobu Sei'ike
Bureau of Construction (Gon Dai-gichô) ●Saburô Utsunomiya, (Shô-gichô) ○Kôzô Watanabe(Nitô-gisyu) ○Yôkichi Yamada, (Santô-gisyu) ○Kôichirô Sugi, (Shichitô-gisyu) △Yoshiaki Yasunaga,△Torazô Harada(Hachitô-gisyu) △Shôgo Mori, △Yasuo Torii, △Yôkichi Tatsumura, △Kurô Yoshimi, △Jin Saka,△Yasu Ieiri
Bureau of Maintenance (Nitô-gisyu) ○Shûji Matsuda& Repairs
Hokkaido Settlement Bureau (Goyôgakari-jyunsônin) ○Sôichirô Matsumoto, ○Seijirô Hirai, ○Shigen Ogawa

Source: Uchida (1985: 135-137).

Table 3-6 shows the distribution of engineers employed by government offices in 1880 (Uchida
1985: 135-137). Most engineers at the time worked in the public sector as modern Western -styleindustries had yet to develop in the private sector. Practically all foreign engineers had left Japanby now and the senior positions they had held were mostly filled by early Meiji-era engineers
who had studied overseas. Some positions were filled by scholars of Dutch studies. As support,
they relied on domestic technical high school graduates and the first engineers and scientists tograduate from the University of Science and the Imperial College of Engineering (1879).

18

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

While engineers continued to go abroad to study, they were sent primarily by the Ministry of
Education or the military once they had graduated from a Japanese university (Watanabe 1977).
A small number of engineers, however, continued to choose an engineering education abroadrather than study at a domestic university.
It is widely accepted that Japan’s industrial success is owed largely to the development of thetechnical educational system (Umetani 1974: 59-94). Here, I would like to look at the distinctive
characteristics of Japan’s engineering education, comparing it to education in Western Europe.
Unlike Western Europe, Japan had no tradition of universities and thus engineering was not
excluded as an unsuitable subject for study at the highest educational institutions. Like the studyof medicine or law, engineering was considered a new subject of academic enquiry from theWest, and as such, was treated with equal interest and respect. Therefore, the early establishmentof faculties of engineering at Japanese universities became a distinctive feature of the education
system, and the large number of engineers they produced greatly contributed to the country’s
technological advance. The beginnings of engineering faculties lie with the founding of Kobu
Daigakko or Imperial College of Engineering in 1871 and the courses in applied science andcivil and mechanical engineering offered at the University of Science.
The role played by the Imperial College of Engineering is highly (often excessively) appreciated.
The institution was created by the Ministry of Public Works as an internal training centre to train
a cadre of engineers for each of its bureaus; mining, railways, telegraphy and construction. As
the ministry did not possess the technical know-how to provide an engineering education, it
hired a foreign engineer by the name of Henry Dyer to run the college, using a management
contract. As the principal and professor of engineering of the college, Dyer was in the fortunate
position to be able to create a school that realised his own ideals, by combining the strengths ofBritish technical education (e.g., empirical knowledge) with what Britain itself lacked (i.e., asystematic education). Thus, within the six years of engineering training the college offered,
students received a basic education in English and mathematics during the first two years; thenext two years were spent attending classes in science and engineering; and the final two years
were devoted to placements at various bureaus of the Ministry of Public Works under thesupervision of foreign engineers. On graduating, the engineers assumed positions within the
Ministry of Public Works (Umetani and Yamanaka 1976-78, Miyoshi 1983: 15-43, Kita 1984:
93-142). On the other hand, and as Table 3-6, shows, a small number of students who took
engineering related courses at the University of Science found employment in the Home
Ministry and the Imperial Mint.
This division disappeared once the Ministry of Public Works was dismantled in 1885. The
engineering courses at Imperial College of Engineering and the University of Science werecombined into a three-year course offered by the Faculty of Engineering at Tokyo Imperial

19

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

University (known at the time as the National Tokyo Technical College). By the end of the Meiji
period, each of the other imperial universities founded in Kyoto, Tohoku, and Kyushu possesseda faculty of engineering from the very beginning.
The faculties of engineering at Meiji-era imperial universities did not resemble theresearch-oriented institutions of today. Rather, they were dedicated solely to transmitting
Western engineering knowledge. The textbooks used were all from abroad, and many of thelectures and the examinations were conducted in a foreign language. Even the journals publishedby the Societies of Industrial, Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, formed mainly byimperial university engineering graduates, devoted many of their pages to overseas mission
reports or excerpts from foreign journals. The science education offered by high schools in
preparation for university entrance, too, devoted a considerable amount of time to helping theirstudents master English and German as well as mathematics.
The faculties of engineering of imperial universities were able to prepare Japan for the
introduction of Western technology on a massive scale, and Japan benefited from fortuitous
timing in designing its curriculum. Britain during the industrial revolution had gained
experience in various areas of industry but had not yet systematised it into a body of technicalknowledge. This step first came when engineering was ordered into a system of knowledge
based on natural sciences, as it was at various technical schools in France and Germany. And it
took until mechanical engineering and electrical engineering were taught at universities in
Scotland in the latter half of the nineteenth century before standard textboo ks for these subjects
appeared English. Thus, the technical higher education system that emerged in Japan from the1870s was able to benefit from an engineering education system that had just been established inWestern Europe, and, as a result, the country spared itself a hundred years of trial and error that
Western Europe had invested in this field. Japan’s experience with educating engineers presents
a noteworthy example of the advantage conferred upon Gerschenkron’s latecomer industrialised
countries. Yet, we should remember that Japan managed this feat at a considerable cost; having
also had to master a number of foreign languages.
The technical and vocational schools that trained middle-ranking engineers contributed more to
Japan’s industrialisation than the faculties of engineering of imperial universities. In 1881, theTokyo Shokkô Gakkô (the Tokyo Workers School) was established to train worksite foremen.
What it in actual fact did was to train engineers. In 1897 under the Technical Schools Act, it
became a technical high school along with Osaka Technical High School, which had been
established a few years earlier. The technical and vocational school system was further expanded
during the Taisho and early Showa periods and Tokyo and Osaka Technical High Schools were
upgraded to university status (Tokyo Technical University and Osaka Technical University).
Under further educational reform conducted after the World War II, these colleges and otherschools became the engineering faculties of universities created under the new system.

20

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

The education offered at technical high schools was more limited than that offered at theuniversity faculties of engineering, but the quality of the students was outstanding. The students
had enrolled in these schools after completing junior high school because they could not afford
to attend a university. And while graduates from the university faculties of engineering were
chiefly employed as engineers by government offices or family-controlled conglomerates(zaibatsu) or worked as teachers in schools, technical high school graduates became the coreengineers of many private-sector enterprises. As I will discuss in Section 3, these early technicalhigh schools also offered specialist courses that were corresponded closely to indigenous
Japanese industries like textiles, ceramics and brewing, and they proved instrumental tointroducing Western technologies into these industries. During the first half of the Meiji period,
university engineering graduates outnumbered technical high schools graduates. However, by
the latter half of the period the opposite was true, and the technical higher education system
contributed many more engineers than the university system did.
The three tables 3-7, 3-8 and 3-9 show how the number of engineers employed by thegovernment and the private sector increased between 1880 and 1920 (Uchida 1988: 289 -291).
The total number of engineers employed in 1880 is estimated to be fewer than one hundred,
implying a scarcity of people who could comprehend and use Western technologies early in the
Meiji period. A large proportion of these engineers comprised of the first Japanese overseas
students. They, along with institutions that offered on-the-job training, made an enormous
contribution to the introduction of Western technology to Japan at a time when the Imperial
College of Engineering had produced only two batches of graduates. However, with time, thenumber of the university-educated engineers began to grow and graduates from technical highschools, which appeared in the 1890s, added to their numbers. With this kind of output, the total
number of engineers increased exponentially, tripling every decade. By 1910, there were morethan 5000 engineers in Japan, with the number of technical high school graduates exceeding thatof university graduates. At the same time, the number of engineers employed by the private
sector overtook that employed by government offices. As mentioned earlier, technical highschool graduates accounted for seventy per cent of the engineers employed by the private sector
while roughly equal numbers of university and technical school graduates were employed bygovernment offices. Examples of government agencies that employed large numbers ofengineers in 1910 are the Japan Government Railways, schools, local government offices andthe navy. Looking at the private sector, the biggest employers of engineers were the mines, thetextiles industry, shipbuilding, and power generating enterprises. These four industries, which
depended on the major Western technologies of the time, employed forty per cent of all theengineers engaged in the private sector. It may be surprising to find that commerce occupies
fifth place, but the reason will become apparent in the next section.

21

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

Table 3-7 Number of Engineers Employed by the Pubic and Private Sector
During the Meiji Period (by Category)
Employer

Category of Engineer

Government
Departments& Agencies

Early Meiji-era engineers
University graduates
Technical college graduates
TOTAL:
PrivateEarly Meiji-era engineers
Organisations University graduates
Technical college graduates
TOTAL:
GRAND
Early Meiji-era engineers
TOTAL
University graduates
Technical college graduates
TOTAL:

1880
61
25
86
61
25
86

1890
72
183
45
300
17
131
34
182
89
314
79
482

Year
1900
474
263
737
54
385
389
828
54
859
652
1,565

1910 1920
1,075 1,795
1,160 1,999
2,235 3,79434
846 3,230
1,963 7,138
2,843 10,368
34
1,921 5,025
3,123 9,137
5,078 14,162

Source: Uchida (1988: 290).

Table 3-8

Number of Engineers by the Public Sector Employer

Year
Home Ministry
Local government offices
Hokkaido Settlement Bureau
Ministry of Finance
Schools
Army
Navy
Ministry of Agriculture andCommerce
Ministry of Communications
Japanese National Railways
OthersTOTAL:

1880
8
3
6
6
14

1890
39
33
18
53
14
54

1900
64
89
23
43
169
9
90

1910
61
295
160
169
349
98
248

1920
206
624
179
208
594
163
418

-

31

83

198

400

13
39
6
300

57
105
5
737

120
514
23
2,235

222
751
29
3,794

*49
86

* Ministry of Public Works
Source: Uchida (1988: 291).

22Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

Table 3-9

Number of Engineers by Private Sector Employer

Year
Railways
Maritime Transport
Construction Industry
Commerce
Mining
Metals Industry
Shipbuilding
Machine Manufacture
Electric Machinery Manufacture
Electric Power Generation / Gas
Industry
Ceramic Industry
Chemical Industry
Paper Manufacturing
Food
Textiles Industry
OthersTOTAL:

1890
34
3
16
2
46
16
6

1900
153
15
10
34
177
8
69
38
23

1910
149
28
23
186
513
47
250
106
104

1920
496
85
131
745
1,779
635
1,071
554
770

20

34

231

861

11

24
12
14
17
77
123
828

90
93
68
149
300
506
2,843

302
570
207
180
1,103
879
10,368118
9182

Source: Uchida (1988: 291).

As we have seen in this section, technical high school and university-educated engineers worked
in government offices to build modern infrastructure such as railways, ports and roads and tocreate the basis for a Western-style professional military. In the private sector, they played apivotal role in privatised mines and shipyards and in emerging industries like spinning andpower generation. They were the central figures acting as receivers of technology transfer in
Meiji-era Japan. In this role their task was twofold; to digest and manage the Western
technologies introduced in each area of endeavour, and to select technologies that could be
adopted to create new industries.

2-4 Importing Machinery and Collaboration with Foreign Businesses
From 1880 onwards, new industries in spinning, paper manufacture, processing sugar,
shipbuilding, telephony, electric power generation and electrical instruments and equipment
production grew from technologies transferred from the West. How did the transfer oftechnologies to these industries take place? The most common means was the transfer of thetechnology embodied within the capital goods Japan imported, in this case machinery andequipment. Returning to our classification of technology transfer, this method of transfer
encompasses types G (the technology embodied in goods) and H (purchase contracts for goods
and services). From the 1900s, Japan employed a second method to facilitate technology
transfer; it entered into technical collaboration agreements with Western enterprises to introduce
technology to specific industries. Contracts were drawn with companies that offered people andknow-how as well as providing machinery and equipment so this method of transfe r can be

23

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

classified as type A, C or E (affiliates, subsidiaries, joint ventures or turnkey contracts) (Minami
1987: 9-10).
These two methods of transfer were established and implemented at a time when growing
number of engineers had improved Japan’s capacity to absorb technical information, selecttechnologies and assimilate them. At the same time, there existed a global environment, where
technological advances resulted in a widening knowledge gap and large Western businesses
began to adopt these new technologies as tools in their technology transfer strategies.
When the Ministry of Communications, which took over the Telegraphic Service fro m the
Ministry of Public Works, set up a telephone network, a group of engineers, including Saitarô Ôi,a graduate of the Imperial College of Engineering, collected publically-available information,
visited Britain, the US and Germany to study their telephone systems, negotiated with telephoneequipment makers and selected the kind of system Japan should adopt. That is to say, there wasan inflow of foreign information during the first stage of the transfer process as shown in Figure
3-1, and this flow was increased through the movement of people from the recipient (country) tothe supplier. Goods such as telephones and telephone exchanges were imported, but domestic
workers, without any foreign assistance, laid the lines and managed operations. Compared to thetime when Japan created a telegraph service, its capacity as a receiver had improved remarkably
and this case of technology transfer belongs to type G or H, where the purchase of equipment
acts as the means of technology transfer.
As for the navy, early Meiji-era engineers trained in Britain and France along with shipbuilding
and armaments engineers, who graduated from naval technical high schools from 1883, were
key figures in designing plans to reinforce and expand the naval fleet. Throughout the Meiji
period capital ships were imported chiefly from Britain. It was an age when the “all-big-gun
mixed calibre ships” principle reigned and countries pushed to build ever-larger steel-armoured
battleships and revolutionise their architecture. In this context, the decision to depend on
imported battleships to keep apace of advances in Western military technology proved a sensible
choice. Furthermore, Japanese naval shipbuilding and armaments engineers made it a custom toremain in Britain as observers while the battleships were being readied for delivery, and thus
learned a great deal about ship design and construction technology from the British Navy andshipyards. Their knowledge proved invaluable to the domestic production of arms and support
vessels by Japanese naval arsenals. And with time, Japan was able to build its own capital ships.
Along with the technology embodied within these state-of-the-art battleships, shipbuildingknow-how and the design and manufacture of arms were all transferred to Japan (Uchida 1986:
206-209, Yamauchi 1914: 52-60). Privately-owned shipyards also gradually improved theirability to construct steel-hulled ships through importing machinery and equipment. These
enterprises relied on importing steel materials and parts that could not be produced domestically;sometimes they also procured designs from Britain as a means to adopt technology.

24

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

Finally, in the period when privately-owned cotton mills began to emerge, the government
imported ten large-scale sets of ‘spinning machinery’ equipped with 2,000 spindles from Britain.
After installing and test running the equipment at government-run mills in Aichi, thegovernment sold these concerns off to the private sector as ten equipped cotton mills. Engineers
and skilled workers from Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce assisted in the privatisation ofthese factories. Meanwhile, graduates of the Imperial College of Engineering, employed as
master engineers, built and managed Owaribô and Miebô, the two dominant mills of that early
period (Okamoto 1973: 101-104). In the next phase of development, the large-scale private
cotton mills of Osakabô, Amagasakibô, and Kanebô were built. Here, the university educatedengineers who designed the factory plans and imported the spinning machinery were sent to
Britain to select machinery and acquire the practical skills and technology needed.
As these typical examples show, technology transfer from the middle of the Meiji period
onwards occurred chiefly through importing machinery (type H) or the transfer of know -howthat accompanied imported goods (type G). From Table 3-10, we see how the amount ofmachinery imported for communications, transport, and automotive industry as well as forequipping factories increased throughout the Meiji period.
Table 3-10 Major Machinery Imports During the Meiji Period(Unit: 1000 yen)

Telegraphic
Period& Telephone(5-year)Equipment
1878-1882
11.8
1883-1887
19.3
1888-1892
35.8
1893-1897
43.1
1898-1902
65.1
1903-1907
113.5
1908-1912
78.0

Railway
Carriages

Locomotives Steamships

-

-

29.0
355.8
518.5
1,045.6
1,771.7
2,336.0

72.2
408.2
1,505.4
1,963.5
1,705.8
1,156.8

81.9
718.5
841.7
4,744.5
3,562.2
4,692.1
2,215.6

SteamEngines
*81.7
329.1
586.2
759.8
1,208.8
797.2

Internal
Dynamos /Combustion
Electric
Engines
Motors
102.5
322.6
262.2
1,546.0873.9
2,275.4

MachineTools

Spinning
Machines

Looms

-

-

-

3.0
4.5
106.1
649.1
2,404.2
2,687.971.9
784.5
3,012.1
1,330.3
1,840.8
3,608.0

25.6
99.0
206.1
199.8
391.5
1,060.8TOTAL
VALUE OFMACHINES
1219.2
12,066.4
5,755.0
16,427.7
19,145.1
30,354.8
37,381.6

Source: Nihon Bôeki Seiran [Japan: A Statistical Survey of Foreign Trading] (1935, Tôyô Keizai Shinposha).
*Average for 1884-1887 years.

Reliance on imported machinery usually means that its domestic production is delayed. Yet, an
industry will naturally continue to import machinery even if that machinery is available
domestically, if it seeks to obtain the Western technology embedded within it. Also, in the caseof Japan, imported machinery entered domestic market at virtually no cost until the tariffreforms of 1910. Tomokichi Yoshida, an engineer who worked at Suzuki Kikai (Suzuki Machines& Co), a rather unusual company that developed and produced a range of industrial machinery at
the end of the Meiji period, remarked that at the time, “most machinery to make paper, processsugar or spin cotton was imported even though Japan had the technology to produce it. There
was no domestically produced machinery because buyers opted to import less expensive
machinery.” (Yoshida 1910: 69-72). Under these circumstances, it is remarkable that Japanesecompanies ever produced machines like steam engines and internal combustion engines tocompete with imports.

25

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

The production and design techniques of the Meiji-era domestic machinery industry were lesssophisticated than those of other countries. The main cause for poor production tec hnology was
the lack of skilled machine operators. It is no exaggeration to say that forty-five years of the
Meiji period were spent on building up sufficient numbers of skilled operators. As for design
techniques, nearly all of the machinery manufactured in Japan was copied from imports.
Therefore, we see that the gradual growth of domestic machinery production was only possible
through the technology transferred by copy production (type J), accompanied with an increased
machinery imports.
The early days of electric equipment production in Japan provide a good example of how thecapacity of a domestic machinery manufacturer affects the technology choices made by anindustry. In the beginning, pioneering enterprises like Tokyo Light & Co attempted to support
the domestic production of dynamos and light bulbs while still relying on imported goods.
Senju Power Plant purchased dynamos from Ishikawajima Shipyard that were designed and copy
produced from a catalogue by the National Tokyo Technical College professor, Hatsune Nakano.
However, the dynamos proved unreliable as the heat they generated distorted their shape.
Similarly, Miyoshi Electric Machine & Co, a pioneer electromechanical manufacturer, supplied
dynamos to Kobe Light & Co and train engines to Kyoto City. In both instances the goods werereturned as defective. Through experiences like these, Japanese industries learned that they
could not yet rely on domestic machine manufacturers (Uchida 1980: 149). Thus, imports ofmachinery that embodied Western technological progress continued to increase, and themechanical engineering technology they contained was gradually transferred to Japan throughcopy production.
In this light, it is important to examine the role of the importer, who acted as a mediator o ftechnology transfer through the movement of machinery (i.e., goods) during the Meiji period.
There were two kinds of importers: foreign businesses, which acted as agents for foreignmachinery manufacturers, and domestic general trading companies such as Mitsui & Co, Takada& Co and the Okura Group. Importantly, these trading companies acted not only as middlemen,but also provided information and technical services to domestic producers. As mentioned
earlier, a relatively large number of graduate engineers were employed by the commercial sector,
and their employers were private trading companies. In 1910 Mitsui & Co employed 42
engineers, Takada & Co employed 36 engineers and the Okura Group employed 12 engineers. A
considerable number of these engineers either lived in Europe and the US or travelled there on
business. As well as interacting with manufacturers in the West to keep abreast of new trends
and circulating manufacturer catalogues domestically, these engineers performed some of thefunctions of a recipient company, such as providing local investors with business plans andselecting and installing mechanical equipment.

26

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

From the 1890s, when spinning mills were being set up in fast succession, Mitsui & Co, acting
as the Japanese agent for Britain’s Platt Bros & Co, provided most of the equipment. In the caseof electrical machinery, Bagnal Hills, an American trading company, was the agent in Japan for
General Electric, and Britain’s Healing & Co represented British manufacturers. The Okura
Group acted as the agent for Allgemeine Elektricitäts-Gesellschaft (AEG) and Takada & Co was
the agent for Westinghouse. Siemens had its own branch office in Tokyo. Mitsui & Co was incharge of sales for Shibaura Seisakusho (Shibaura Engineering Works) and it competed with theother agents over electrical equipment sales to the Japanese market. Japanese trading companies
facilitated the building of new hydroelectric power plants that appeared throughout the country
at the end of the Meiji period. Agents actively provided domestic entrepreneurs with basic
knowledge needed for the electricity business, helped choose locations, and set up the imported
machinery (Maeda 1914: 314-317, Uchida 1989: 166-167).
From the 1900s, technical collaboration agreements offered a new model for the transfer ofrelatively new technology between large foreign enterprises from various countries. In somecases, such as Japan Steel Works, Nippon Electric Company (NEC), Tokyo Electric andShibaura Engineering Works, these contracts were accompanied by the acquisition of stocks by
the foreign enterprise.
First, let us look at the introduction of steam turbine technology. The steam turbine was a newtechnology invented in Britain in 1884 by Charles Parsons. Within a decade, this technology had
become the basis for ship engines and thermal power plants throughout the West.

Navy yards

and private shipyards in Japan were producing their own reciprocating steam engines and boilers.
However, in 1905 the Japanese navy learned that the British navy planned to use steam turbines
to make their capital ships faster. In response, it quickly imported Curtis turbines from the US
and installed them on the Ibuki and Aki, battleships that were under construction at the time.
Furthermore, the navy acquired the patent for turbine technology from Curtis and encouraged
Mitsubishi Shipyard to acquire the Japanese patent for Parson’s turbines. Thereafter, Mitsubishi
and the Japanese navy continued to import turbines for those ships under construction, but, atthe same time, they began their own turbine production for future ships (Uchida 1986: 208,
Matsumoto 1989: 140-146). This was an ingenious way to acquire technology, by combining
types H (transfer through importing goods), I (the rights to patent execution) and J (copyproduction).
During the 1870s and 1880s, the Ministry of Public Works had failed in its attempt to introduce
steel manufacturing technologies to Japan through setting up the Kamaishi Mines using hired
foreign experts. Transferred into private hands later on, the mine succeeded in producing pig
iron and steel, but it still continued to rely on importing the steel necessary for shipbuilding,arms manufacture, railways and civil engineering projects. In 1901, the government-run Yawata
Ironworks, which had adopted technology from Germany’s Gutehoffnungshütte (GHH), opened

27

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

for business. At that time, technology in the US and Germany had made great strides. Improved
open-hearth furnaces and basic oxygen furnace (BOF) steelmaking methods, enabled theestablishment of large-scale mills which integrated ironmaking, steelmaking and rolling
processes. Strong petitioning from the Japanese military led the government to import acomplete set of technologies available from a German integrated steel mill, just like theironworks introduced at the beginning of the Meiji Restoration. The transfer of technology
included confidential information about the design of the integrated mill, goods in the form ofimported machinery and the provision of German engineers and skilled workers (Iida 1973: 225).
This type of technology transfer is classified as E (a turnkey contract). Although the mill’s set up
resembles the oyatoigaikokujin system, it differs in one significant respect; the metallurgy andmaterials engineers involved were Japanese. Furthermore, the Japanese chose the location of thefactories and the type of technology to adopt as well as taking the decision to rely on China forthe raw materials. In addition, when operations at the mill using the technology imported
directly from Germany at first failed, Japanese engineers demonstrated their skill by adjusting
the technology to local conditions allowing the mill to operate successfully.
The creation in 1907 of Japan Steel Works, a joint stock company owned Mitsui & Co and two
British companies, Armstrong & Co and Vickers & Co, also originated from a request by theJapanese military, which sought locally-produced armour plating and large-calibre guns for its
lead ships. In this case, equipment and know-how were transferred completely from Britain
through a joint venture or type C technology transfer; but the Japanese skilled workers andengineers, who came mostly from naval munitions factories, quickly learned and assimilated thetechnology transferred (Nihon Kogyô Ginkô Gaikokubu 1948: 87-94).
With regard to the three electromechanical manufacturers, each was the recipient of technology
transfer as a joint venture of an American company. The following circumstances led to thisdevelopment. First, in accordance with treaty revisions of around 1900, Japan’s commercial
code permitted direct investment by foreigners on the principle of equal treatment with nationals.
Furthermore, the code upheld the patent rights of foreigners, and domestic manufacturers wereno longer allowed to reproduce the latest imported goods. Meanwhile, major electromechanicalmanufacturers in America were investing in technological development and had begun to adopt
a corporate strategy of manufacturing new products in overseas subsidiaries.
In 1899 America’s Western Electric & Co founded the telephone manufacturer Nippon ElectricCompany (NEC) as the first subsidiary in Japan by obtaining fifty-four per cent of the shares.
Western Electric and NEC were bound by a technical collaboration agreement that gave NECsole agency in Japan and a monopoly on the patent re-execution rights in the future. Under theagreement, Western Electric was obliged to offer NEC technical guidance. In return NEC paid
Western Electric roughly two per cent of the value of its sales. Western Electric was the
manufacturing department of American Telephone & Telegraph Corporation (AT&T). In 1896

28

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

the Japanese government had decided to adopt AT&T system under its First National Plan to
Expand Telephony. As the government intended to produce telephone equipment domestically,
Western Electric first tried to form a joint venture in Japan by acquiring the stock of Oki ElectricIndustry Co Ltd. However, negotiations with Oki Electric failed, paving the way for WesternElectric to establish NEC. NEC began by selling and repairing imported telephones. Later, it
built a manufacturing plant by importing designs and equipment from Western Electric andproduced standard telephones, purchasing materials of standard specification and using
standardised processes supervised by American foreman. All documents within the company
were in English (Okamoto 1965: 59-87, Elliot 1923: 95-106, Nihon Kôgyô Ginkô Gaikokubu
1948: 57-72, Nihon Denki Kabushikigaisha 1962: 56-67). That is to say, this manufacturer madethe same products as in America and in the same way as in America, but in Japan. This means oftechnology transfer belongs to type A (overseas factories founded through direct investment by
suppliers).
In 1905 America’s General Electric (GE) entered into a technical collaboration agreement with
Tokyo Electric that was nearly identical to the one between Western Electric and NEC. The
agreement was accompanied by GE’s acquiring fifty-one per cent of Tokyo Electric’s shares.
Tokyo Electric had evolved from Hakunetsusha, a light bulb manufacturer that had started
business in 1890. The company had fallen into difficulty because it could neither establish a
viable production technology nor compete with imported light bulbs from Germany in terms of
quality or price. As a result it sought management assistance from GE, a world leader in terms ofscale and the technology at the time. Tokyo Electric chose to enter into this collaboration
because GE had a policy that allowed subsidiaries to manufacture light bulbs under their own
patents. On conclusion of the contract, equipment and materials were imported from GE, andGE engineers moved to Japan to demonstrate manufacturing methods. Under the agreement,
Tokyo Electric engineers were also well placed to master any new technology as soon as it
emerged from other GE factories (Nihon Denki Kabushikigaisha 1940: 99-101, Nihon Kôgyô
Ginkô Gaikokubu 1948: 35-44). Unlike NEC, Tokyo Electric was not a new company, but
acquired by GE as an overseas factory. Nevertheless, as a means of technology transfer it
belongs to type A, where technology is transferred through direct investment by the supplier tocreate an overseas factory.
The business collaboration between GE and Shibaura Engineering Works in 1907 differed instyle from the above two cases. GE acquired only twenty-four per cent shares in Shibaura, well
below the fifty-one per cent needed to give it majority control. Technical assistance came chiefly
through patent licensing agreements, but GE also offered the transfer of know-how throughreciprocal reporting of research results, the exchange of engineering personnel, and access to theblueprints for factory machinery. In return for these services, Shibaura paid GE one per cent inroyalties on the value of sales. Conscious of research and development advances abroad, theheads of Mitsui & Co, who were the owners of Shibaura, proposed this technical collaboration

29

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

because of the fear that the technology gap with Japan would grow ever wider. The kind of copy
production used previously was no longer possible as Japan had signed onto the Universal
Patent Convention that protected the patents of overseas electromechanical manufacturers fortheir new technologies (Mitsui Bunko 1971: 83, Ôtaguro 1910). Through this businesscollaboration, Shibaura was able to design heavy electrical equipment by executing its rights on
the GE patent and also obtain technical information on research topics through the exchange ofengineers. But, it did not enjoy the introduction of revolutionar y technology in the production
process as NEC and Tokyo Electric did. Large-scale dynamos continued to be imported from GE
and competed with the Shibaura products. Although Shibaura became a joint venture companyof Mitsui and GE, the existing technology of Shibaura did not fundamentally change. GE justadded its technology to the outdated technology of Shibaura. In this light, it is more appropriate
to treat this example as type I (a patent licensing agreement) and to some extent type G (apurchase contract for machinery and know-how), rather than type C (joint venture).
Introducing integrated production technology to government-run ironworks, the production ofsteel for arms manufacture by Japan Steel Works, the manufacture of steam turbines by the navyand Mitsubishi Shipyard, the production of telephone equipment by NEC, light bulbs by Tokyo
Electric or heavy electrical machinery by Shibaura—all are examples of how the latest
technology was introduced to Japan from the West. Whether technical collaboration agreements
included foreign investment depended largely on the corporate strategy of the supplier involved.
Except for the Shibaura example and the cases involving steam turbines, foreign experts guided
every aspect, right up to the technology available on site. In this respect, the examples seem tobe a repetition of the early Meiji period’s system for hiring foreign experts. However, there areimportant differences. First, the various technologies that were introduced to Japan in the early
Meiji period had already spread across Western Europe over the proceeding several decades, andwere introduced to Japan in the same way as they were to the colonies. At the end of the Meiji
period, however, with the exception of steel, the spread of technology to Japa n and advanced
Western nations occurred simultaneously. Japan was not the only latecomer country. Second,
Japanese engineers assumed responsibility at the workplace, and the excellence of Japaneseenterprises, including the talent of their skilled workers, was one of the reasons why Tokyo
Electric was chosen by GE as a partner for a business collaboration. As mentioned earlier,Japanese engineers at Yawata Ironworks were competent enough to adapt foreign technology tolocal conditions. When the first steam turbine was developed, Japanese engineers were quick tocomprehend its potential from publically available information. After carefully examining thetest results from abroad regarding its application to shipbuilding, they selected the mostappropriate foreign partner through which to acquire the technology, and the appropriate timing
too (Matsumoto 1986: 193).
Thanks to these improvements in domestic manufacturing potential, many Japanese enterprises
were in a position to produce machinery, electrical goods and steel using a variety of means,

30

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

including copy production, when the outbreak of the First World War stopped the import ofgoods.

3. Traditional Industries and Technology Transfer
The previous sections have focused on how technology transfer from the West led to thedevelopment of new, so-called modern industries. However, according to research that makes
use of the information within the statistical yearbooks for agriculture, commerce and prefectures
as well as the directory of Japanese factories from the period, the scale of these new modern
industries was rather small. Throughout the Meiji period, traditional industries such a weaving,brewing and ceramics, which had existed from before the Tokugawa period, still accounted foran overwhelming proportion of the employment and output in manufacturing and mining(Matsuda, Arita, and Satô 1987: 279). Estimates by Takafusa Nakamura show that even in 1920,
modern industry represented less than twenty per cent of employers in non-agriculture andforestry sectors and that most people were employed in traditional industries (Nakamura 1985:
188). Modern industry was still a small island afloat on the ocean of traditional industries.
This was to be expected. People’s tastes and habits in food, clothing and housing during the
Meiji period were much the same as they were during the Tokugawa period. Traditional
industries from around the country supplied the type of goods that consumers desired, andleaving aside exceptional periods like wartime, household consumption accounted for seventy toeighty per cent of GNP. Traditional industries continued to occupy a major position during the
Meiji period, and because the Japanese economy belonged to a different cultural context, a limit
was imposed on the growth of the new modern industries that emerged through the transfer ofthe Western technology. Thus, the export-oriented industries that grew out of the Meiji period
were extensions of traditional industries such as silk reeling and ceramics.
Traditional industries were far from stagnant during the Meiji era. They increased output in
response to the demands of a growing consumer population and the expansion of exports, and by
1910, factory production systems had spread to even rural traditional industries (Furushima
1966: 399-474). During this period, many traditional industries achieved not only a quantitative
expansion, but also achieved technological advances that created new product types andimproved production processes. To highlight these developments, Takafusa Nakamura adopts
the term ‘new’ traditional industries.
Naturally, traditional industries employed native technologies dating back to the Tokugawa
period. The Western technologies introduced in the Meiji period did not replace them, but rather
co-existed with them.

31Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

Here two questions arise. First, were these home-grown technologies applied to any of themodern industries that had been developed through technology transfer from the West? Second,
were the technological advances within traditional industries a result of the Western technologythat had been introduced? If so, did the means of technology transfer differ from that employed
to develop new industries?
In terms of the content of technology transfer, some industries that are understood as derivingfrom the Western technology introduced at the beginning of the Meiji period, were in fact ‘new’
traditional industries.
The first one of these examples is mining. Nearly all the metal ore mines that the Meiji
government took over and modernised with the advice of foreign experts had been in operation
since the Tokugawa period. With the exception of Ikuno Silver Mine, foreign employees werelimited to a small number of engineers working under a chief engineer. These engineers did notcompletely overhaul existing mining technology, but rather they designed and installed a modern
system for the mine. This included test boring the entire mountain to map the veins by using
their knowledge of geology, creating a comprehensive system of shafts and tunnels, and mak ing
it possible to mine deeper into the ground by using steam engines to drain the tunnels andoperate hoists. They also collected the ore at selected mine locations transporting it throughgalleries using rail (Yoshishiro 1979). The main activities of the mine; the digging and refiningof ore, were still conducted using traditional methods. Furthermore, the organisation of minelabour remained intact. Tokugawa mining technology had already reached a fairly high standard,
and Japan already had a body of skilled miners. With the addition of a new mine design, steam
engine power and dynamite, the existing mine now could be called a Western-style mine.
The construction of railways, ports, flood controls and hydroelectric power plants all made useof traditional civil engineering technology. We have seen how the blueprints for theirconstruction were designed first by foreign engineers hired under the oyatoigaikokujin system
and later by Japanese university graduates. However, the plans were transformed into st ructuresby craftsmen’s guilds (kumi) of masons and construction workers, who employed traditional
techniques that had been in existence since the Tokugawa period. The care and attention to detailthat we observe in the water channels and port structures built by Meiji craftsmen that remain
today is truly impressive. From the facades of these structures, we notice that the construction
practices used were no different to those employed by the craftsmen who built the sluices andcastles of the Tokugawa period (Iizuka 1982: 115-130, Iizuka 1988: 104-110). In a report
produced on his return home, William Potter, a English engineer who worked in railway
construction commended ‘Japanese workers as quick witted and hard working’, noting that
railway construction in Japan used masons and traditional methods for boring holes (Harada
1979: 57-63, Potter 1878-79: 6).

32

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

Now let us turn our attention to silk reeling. The government-run Tomioka Silk Mill and thehan-operated Maebashi Silk Mill appear even in high school textbooks as typical examples ofenterprises that introduced Western technology through the hiring foreign experts. Yet, thesilk-reeling technology introduced from France and Italy was not as transformative as shift fromhandlooms to mechanised ones in the cotton textile industry. That is to say, the actual reelingprocess, which consisted of a series of steps: shaken (boiling the cocoons), sakucho (picking up
filament ends from the basin), seccho (feeding the ends), yorikake (twisting several filaments
into thread), and rakkô (reeling onto a spool), still relied on the dexterity of an individual reeler,
as it had done with the earlier techniques of hand reeling (tebiki) and or sedentary reeling(zaguri). As such, a single reeler could still only extract one or two ends of filament from thecocoon for a reel. The same basis is used for silk reeling technology even today and it had
already been established by the Tokugawa period (Okonogi 1989: 62). The Western technology
introduced to Western-style silk mills made the following changes: It allowed for steam to be
distributed to individual basins from a boiler via pipes and the spooling of silk to be powered by
the steam engines or watermills. No doubt silk reelers could easily recognize the machinesimported as a mechanised version of the hand-held or sedentary devices that they used earlier
for crossing and twining several silk filaments. The transfer of Western technology to thesilk-reeling industry was essentially the improvement of a traditional industry. Th us, themechanised-reeling technique quickly spread nationwide, through silk reelers seeking
employment at government-owned silk mills. The core information transferred in this instance
was the concept of a factory as a system, rather than any hard technology (Kiyokawa 1986: 241).
In Shinshu, imported silk-reeling machines were simplified to an extent that allowed local
blacksmiths and carpenters to produce them and a Japanese-style waterwheel to propel them. In
this way an adaptive technology was born. In more rural Joshu, sedentary reeling remained thenorm, but the re-reeling process was motorised within a co-operative, bringing about arevolution in industrial organisation. It is interesting to note that these kinds of adaptations ofWestern technology by traditional industry were absent in Chinese society, which imported
mechanised reeling technologies at around the same time (Yoshida 1985: 58-61).
Furthermore, while the silk reeling technology of France and Italy remained unchanged at the
beginning of the Meiji period, in 1903 Naosaburo Minorikawa invented the first multiple -spool
machinery that allowed a single operator to extract more than 10 filaments of silk (Minami and
Makino 1987: 57, Kiyokawa 1977: 340-342). Through Minorikawa’s invention, Japan became
the world leader in silk reeling technology.
The weaving industry, including the dying industry, was the largest traditional industry in Japan.
After Japan opened its ports, cotton imports increased dramatically, but this was just for a brief
period and in the end the traditional weaving industry revived. One reason its comeback was thatthe kind of cotton cloth imported did not match the types demanded by the Japanese market

33

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer(Kawakatsu 1977: 184). The West could not supply dyed-yarn, narrow-width cotton fabrics intraditional patterns such as shima (stripes) and kasuri (Japanese ikat) used for traditional
Japanese clothing. Another reason was that Japan’s indigenous weaving industry identified
useful elements of Western technology and quickly assimilated them.
It is well known that the flying shuttle (system attachment) and the Jacquard (control
mechanism) are two Western technologies that were adopted widely throughout the weaving
industry in the early Meiji period. These two inventions, which were brought to Japan by adelegation of weavers from Kyoto who visited Lyon in 1872 and could be copied by blacksmiths
and carpenters of any weaving districts within a decade, spread through the country as
attachment devices for handlooms. There were significant differences between flying shuttle and
the Jacquard. The flying shuttle was a device that doubled productivity because it enabled theweaver to work faster, by using just one hand and completing a pick in fewer movements. It
could be used for the production of any type of cloth. The Jacquard, on the other hand, was aspecial device used only in the production of high quality, patterned textiles. It also raised
productivity by automating the role of the assistant, whose job had been to lift the warp threads
to make the pattern, and enabling operation by just one person.
While the adoption of these two technologies was rapid, that of the power loom was slow. It iseasy to understand why. In the case of cotton thread production, the shift from manual t omechanised production raised productivity between fifty to one hundred fold, but the shift frommanual production to motorised production (without automation) only raised productivity two tofour fold. Furthermore, because power looms were expensive, they could not offer the same
economic efficiencies that the flying shuttle could. An additional consideration was the design;
the imported power looms had a broad warp beam and could not be used to produce thenarrow-width fabrics that were in demand domestically. Therefore, the adoption of power looms
in Japanese weaving industry was not just simply slow, but delayed until inventors from various
weaving districts, like Sakichi Toyoda, had developed an affordable narrow-width power loomthat could mass produce fabrics like calico (shiromomen) and Habutae silk (Ishii 1986:
107-127).
Technological advances in the weaving industry not only contributed to process innovation that
improved labour productivity, but also, and more importantly, to product innovation, which
created new fabrics and fashions. The weaving industry created new types of casual wear madefrom printed flannels, Meisen silks and muslin by using Western technologies and inventions
such as chemical dying, silk spinning and worsted yarn, thus improving the quality and choice ofclothing available (Uchida 1988: 167-169).
As the above examples show, traditional Japanese industries did not introduce Western
technologies wholesale, but adopted them through a judicious and selective process. And, by34

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

combining indigenous technologies with new, they developed new home-growth technologies.
To consider the Meiji period as a time of blind imitation of Western technologies, is a view that
could only be applied to a portion of its industries. For traditional Japanese industries, it was atime when the spirit of innovation was continually given new impetus through the stimulus it
received from Western technology. Between the enactment of the 1885 Patent Monopoly Act andthe end of the Meiji period (1912), close to 23,000 patents and 26,000 utility models (patent
protections), mostly related to native industries, had been registered (Kiyokawa 1988: 355). The
majority of inventors were connected to traditional industries, and they were grassroots
inventors who worked as craftsmen or employees of small and medium-sized commercial andmanufacturing enterprises, rather than engineers who had exposure to Western technology
through formal university or technical college education. If looked at closely, many of theinventions were relatively simple but contained practical ideas, and it is possible to argue thatthey were an extension of Tokugawa innovations such as the Hacchô, a device to twist thread(Kameda 1972: 3-20) and a spring device for cutting tobacco leaves (Okuda 1989: 5-16). Still,
we can also recognize the influence Western technology had on the innovations of the Meiji
period. For example, the wheels of imported bicycles added to rickshaws that were invented
before the 1885 Patent Monopoly Act and refinements to the throstle spinning frame or garabô(Ishida 1989: 105-113, Tamagawa 1986: 1-19), whose divided branches and rotating spools were
influenced by imported cotton spinning machines. Kenzô Takabayashi, who invented a tea
processor (Shintani 1987: 33), and obtained one of first few patents to be granted, had lived in
Yokohama. We could speculate that the extrusion mechanism on Terusato Mazaki’s
noodle-making machine, which was patented in 1888, was inspired by imported inventions likethe metal rolling mill, printing press and fabric printing machines and was not just anotherapplication of the native Japanese cotton gin (Uchida 1982: 60-63).
As mentioned above, the inventions based on the power loom in Japan began in the 1890s, andpatent registrations for them peaked in 1910 (Ôtsuka 1987: 123). Of course, these spin offs were
not fundamentally different from the transfer of technology embodied in the imported powerlooms, even if there were some differences in the detail of the mechanism. However, if we
believe accounts by Sakichi Toyada which describe his visits to factories in Tokyo and the
Yokosuka Shipyard as well as daily visits to the Third National Industrial Exposition in order tosee imported machines (Tanaka 1933: 66-84), Western technology must have had an indirect
influence on the small improvements he made to various looms.
Viewed in this way, the transfer of the Western technology to traditional Japanese industry canbe understood not only as type H (the transfer of the technology embodied in imported
machinery or devices) but also type K (the in-house development of technology) in response tomarket conditions. None of the examples used imported machinery as was, nor did they involve
copy production.

35

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

From the 1890s engineering graduates of technical high schools began to play the role ofmediator, transferring Western technology to traditional industries in districts all around thecountry. Technical high schools possessed specialist departments in textiles, ceramics andbrewing that corresponded to major traditional industries, and which were absent from thefaculty of engineering of universities. The sons of those men who ran these traditional industries
attended these high schools, and after graduation, many of them applied the Western
technologies they had learned to their businesses at home. Others became engineers who worked
at the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce or at testing centres in various prefectures training
dyers, weavers and ceramics manufacturers. Yet others became teachers at technical highschools located in industrial areas, advising the successors to traditional industries on the basicsof Western engineering and the handling of imported equipment (Uchida 1982: 58 -60, Imazu
1987: 247-252, Kobayashi 1981: 198-207).
The transfer of the Western technology to Japan during the Meiji period gave the country theopportunity to modernise its economy and evolve into a fully-fledged capitalist system. Whether
the transition from Tokugawa to modern Japan took place gradually or in leaps is a major issue
in Japanese economic history. We accept that there was at least a disconnect between traditional
technology from Tokugawa period and Western technology because they derived from different
techno-cultural complexes. However, as we have discussed in this paper the process oftechnology transfer that began at the end of the Tokugawa Shogunate developed gradually froma model that procured management expertise through hiring of foreign experts to one thatdemanded a higher degree of independence on the part of the receiver. Here, the training ofdomestic engineers was key. We can also clearly recognise the continuous series of changes in
traditional industries or innovations in indigenous technology achieved through absorbing
selected elements of Western technology. Furthermore, by the end of the Meiji period, businesscollaboration and foreign investment from the West enabled the transfer of the latest technology.
Taken from this perspective, the transfer of technology from the West to Japan proceeded
gradually over half a century from the end of the Tokugawa Shogunate to the end of the Meiji
period, and the change it brought to the Japanese economy was continuous.

36

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

References

Arai, Masaji, Uchida Hoshimi, and Toba, Kinichirô (eds.) (1981), Sangyô Kakumei no Gijyutsu[Technologies of the Industrial Revolution], Tokyo: Yûhikaku.
Buchanan, R.A. (1986), “The Diaspora of British Engineering,” Technology and Culture, Vol.27,
No.3.
Cipolla, C. (1965), Guns, Sails and Empires: Technological Innovation and the Early Phase ofEuropean Expansion 1400-1700, New York: Pantheon Books.
Elliot, D. F. (1923), “Twenty-five Years of Successful Co-operation in Japan,” ElectricalCommunication, Vol.2, No.1.
Furushima, Toshio (1966), Sangyô Shi III [A History of Industry III], Tokyo: Yamakawa
Shuppansha.
Gerschenkron, A. (1962), Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective, Cambridge Mass:
Harvard University Press.
Harada, Katsumasa (1979), Tetsudô Gijyutsu no Jiritsu Katei ni okeru Senmon Kanryô [TheRole of Technocrats in the Processes of Railway Technology Development],” Rekishi Hyôron,No.350.
Harris, J. R. (1974), “The Rise of Coal Technology,” Scientific American (Uchida, Hoshimi[trans.] [1974], “Sangyôkakumei o Sasaeta Sekitan Gijyutsu,” Saiensu, Vol.4, No.10).
Hayashi, Takeshi (1986), Gijyutsu to Shakai: Nihon no Keiken [Technology and Society: The
Experience of Japan], Tokyo: Kokusai Rengô Daigaku.
(1984), “Gijyutsu no Iten / Henyô / Kaihatsu: Nihon no Keiken [Technology Transfer,
Adaptation and Development: Japan’s Experience],” Nagai, Michio (ed.), Hiseiyô Sahakai ni
okeru Kaihatsu, [Development in Non-Western World], Tokyo: Kokusai Rengô Daigaku.
Henderson, W. O. (1954), Britain and Industrial Europe 1750-1870, Liverpool: Liverpool
University Press.
Hidemura, Senzô (1968), “Meiji Shonen Zôheiryô ni okeru Oyatoi Gaikokujin no Kaiko Mondai[The Problem of Dismissing Hired Foreign Experts from the Imperial Mint at the Beginningof the Meiji Period],” Miyamoto, Mataji (ed.), Osaka no Kenkyû [Research on Osaka], Vol.2,
Osaka: Seibundô.
Hikone, Shôzô (ed.) (1881), Kaisei Kanin Roku [The Revision of the Directory of Government
Officials].
Iida, Kenichi (1973), Nihon Tekkô Gijyutsu Shi Ron [A History of Japan’s Steel Technology],
Tokyo: San’ichi Shobô.
Iizuka, Kazuo (1982), Gijyutsu Bunka no Hakubutsu Shi [A Natural History of Technological
Culture], Tokyo: Kashiwa Shobô.
(1988), Gijyutsu Bunka no Saihakken [The Rediscovery of Technological Culture],
Tokyo: Banrisâchi Shuppankyoku.
Imazu, Kenji (1966), “Nagasaki Zôsenjyo Sôritsu no Gijyutsuteki Haikei [The Technical37

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

Background to the Establishment of the Nagasaki Shipyard],” Shakai Keizai Shigaku, Vol.32,
No.2.
(1987), “Kôgyôka ni Hatashita Kangyô Seisaku no Yakuwari: Nôshômushô Shôkôkei
Gishi o Megutte [The Role of Industrial Policy in Modernisation: On the Commercial andIndustrial Engineers of the Ministries of Agriculture and Commerce],” Minami, Ryôshin, andKiyokawa, Yukihiko (eds.), Nihon no Kôgyôka to Gijyutsu Hatten [Japan’s Industrialisation
and Technology Development], Tokyo: Tôyô Keizai Shinpôsha.
Ishida, Shôji (1989), “Gara Bôsekiki no Kikô to Sono Dokusôsei [The Throstle Mechanism andits Originality],” “Edo no mekanizumu [Mechanisms of the Edo Period],” Kenkyû Kiyô, No.3,
Tobacco and Salt Museum.
Ishii, Kanji (1984), Kindai Nihon to Igirisu Shihon [British Capital in Modern Japan], Tokyo:
Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai.
Ishii, Tadashi (1986), “Sen’i Kikai Gijyutsu no Hatten Katei [The Development of Textile
Machine Technology],” Nakaoka, Tesurô, Ishii, Tadashi, and Uchida, Hoshimi (eds.), Kindai
Nihon no Gijyutsu to Gijyutsu Seisaku [The Technology and Technology Policy of Modern
Japan], Tokyo: Kokusai Rengô Daigaku.
Itô, Shôji (1986), “Gijyutsu Iten [Technology Transfer],” Ajia Keizai, No.300.
Izawa, Michio (1938), Kaitaku Tetsudô Ron [A Theory on the Development of Railways], chû,Tokyo: Shunjyusha.
Jeremy, D. J. (1981), Transatlantic Industrial Revolution: The Diffusion of Textile Technologies
between Britain and America 1790-1830s, Cambridge Mass.: M.I.T. Press.
(ed.) (1991), International Technology Transfer: Europe, Japan and the USA,
1700-1914, Aldershot: Elgar.
Kagoshima-shi (1935),

Satsuma no Bunka [The Culture of Satsuma], Kagoshima:

Kagoshima-shi Kyôikukai.
Kameda, Mitsuzô (1972), Kiryû Chihô ni okeru Suisha Hacchô Nenshiki to Tsumugiya [TheWater Mill Driven Hacchô Thread Twisting Device and Spinners],” Kiryûshien, No.11.
Kashima Shuppankai (1968-1973), Oyatoi Gakikokujin [Hired Foreign Experts], all 17 volumes,
Tokyo: Kashima Shuppankai.
Katsu, Kaishû (1973), Kaigun Rekishi I [The History of the Navy I], Katsu Kaishû Zenshû, Vol.8,
Tokyo: Kôdansha.
Kattendîke [Kattendijke] (1964), Nagasaki Kaigun Denshûjo no Hibi [Memories of Nagasaki
Naval Training Centre], Tokyo: Heibonsha.
Kawakatsu, Heita (1977), Meiji Zenki ni okeru Naigai Men Kankeihin no Hinshitsu [The Qualityof Domestic and Foreign Cotton Goods in Early Meiji Japan],” Waseda Seijikeizaigaku Zasshi,
Vol.250/251.
Kita, Masami (1984), Kokusai Nihon o Hiraita Hitobito: Nihon to Sukottorando no Kizuna [TheMen Who Opened Japan to the World: The Bonds between Japan and Scotland], Tokyo:
Dôbunkan.
Kiyokawa, Yukihiko (1977), “Seishi Gijyutsu no Denpa ni tsuite [On the Diffusion of38

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

Silk-Reeling Techniques],” Keizai Kenkyû, Vol.28, No.4.
(1986), “Seiyô Seishi Gijyutsu no Dônyû to Kôjyô Seido no Fukyû / Teichaku [TheIntroduction of Western Silk-Reeling Techniques and the Establishment and Spread of Factory
Systems],” Keizai Kenkyû, Vol.37, No.3.
(1988), “Shokusan Kôgyô Seisaku to shite no Hakurankai / Kyôshinkai no Igi” [TheRole of Exhibitions and Local Industrial Expositions in the Japanese Government’s Industrial
Promotion Program],” Keizai Kenkyû, Vol.39, No.4.
Kobayashi, Tatsuya (1981), Gijyutsu Iten: Rekishi kara no Kôsatsu / Amerika to Nihon[Technology Transfer from a Historical Perspective: America and Japan], Tokyo: Bunshindô.
Komota, Fumio (1982), “Gijyutsu Iten no Riron to Kokusai Gijyutsu Iten [A Theory ofTechnology Transfer and International Technology Transfer],” Yamaguchi Keizaigaku Zasshi,
Vol.32, No.1&2.
Kranzberg, M. (ed.) (1986), Technological Education-Technological Change, San Francisco:
San Francisco Press.
Kroker, W. (1971), Wege zur Verbreitung Technologischer Kenntnisse Zwischen England undDeutschland in der Zweite Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts, [The Means to Diffuse Technological
Know-How Between England and Germany in the Latter Half of the 18 th Century], Berlin:
Duncker & Humbolt.
L’Acquisition des Techniques par les Pays Noninitiateurs (1973), [The Acquisition ofTechnology by Other Countries] Paris: Éditions du CNRS.
Maeda, Takeshirô (1914), Den’ei Yoroku [Reflections on Moving Pictures], Tokyo: Kôgyô
Zasshisha.
Matsuda, Shirô, Arita, Tomiko, and Satô, Masahiro (1987), “Kôjyô Seido no Teichaku to Hatten:
Meiji Makki no Kôjyô Seisan no Jittai [The Establishment and Development of Factory
Systems],” Minami, Ryôshin, and Kiyokawa, Yukihiko (eds.), Nihon no Kôgyôka to Gijyutsu
Hatten [Japan’s Industrialisation and Technology Development], Tokyo: Tôyô Keizai
Shinpôsha.
Matsumoto, Miwao (1989), “Gijyutsu Iten to Kagaku / Gijyutsu Kyôiku [Technology Transfer
and Science / Technology Education],” Itô, Shuntarô, and Murakami, Yôichirô (eds.), Shakai
kara Yomu Kagaku Shi [A History of Science Read from Our World], Tokyo: Baifûkan.
(1986), “Sangyô Shakai ni okeru Gijyutsu Iten no Kôzô [The Structure of Technology
Transfer in Industrial Society],” Dai Gojyû-kyûkai Nihon Shakai Gakkai Taikai Hôkoku Shû.
Minami, Ryôshin (1987), “Nihon no Gijyutsu Hatten: Senzen-ki no Gaikan [The Technological
Development of Japan: A General Review of the Pre-Pacific War Period],” Minami, Ryôshin,
and Kiyokawa, Yukihiko (eds.), Nihon no Kôgyôka to Gijyutsu Hatten [Japan’s
Industrialisation and Technology Development], Tokyo: Tôyô Keizai Shinpôsha.
and Makino, Fumio (1987), “Seishi Gyô ni okeru Gijyutsu Sentaku [Technological
Selection in the Silk-Reeling Industry],” Minami, Ryôshin, and Kiyokawa, Yukihiko (eds.),
Nihon no Kôgyôka to Gijyutsu Hatten [Japan’s Industrialisation and Technology
Development], Tokyo: Tôyô Keizai Shinpôsha.

39

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

Mitsubishi Kôgyô Semento Kabushikigaisha (1989), Takashima Tankô Shi [The History of
Takashima Colliery], Tokyo: Mitsubishi Kôgyô Semento Kabushikigaisha.
Mitsui Bunko (ed.) (1971), “Mitsubishi Shôten Rijikai Gijiroku [Mitsubishi Shôten Board
Meeting Minutes],” Mitsui Jigyô Shi Shiryô Hen [The History of Mitsui: Reference Materials],Vol.4, jyô, Tokyo: Mitsui Bunko.
Miyoshi, Nobuhiro (1983), Meiji no Enjinia Kyôiku [Engineering Education during the Meiji
Period], Chûô Kôronsha.
Nakagawa, Keiichirô (1981), Hikaku Keiei-shi Jyosetsu [An Introduction to Comparative
Business Management History], Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai.
Nakamura, Takafusa (1985), Meiji Taishô Ki no Keizai [The Economy of the Meiji and Taishô
Periods], Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai.
Needham, J. (1970), Clerks and Craftsmen in China and West, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press (Yamada, Keiji [trans.] [1974], Higashi to Nishi no Gakusha to Kôshô,Tokyo: Kawade Shobô Shinsha).
Nihon Denki Kabushikigaisha (1962), Nihon Denki Shichijyûnen Shi [A Seventy-year History ofNEC], Tokyo: Nihon Denki Kabushikigaisha.
Nihon Kôgyô Ginkô Gaikokubu (1948), Gaikokugaisha no Honpô Tôshi: Kako ni okeru Jirei no
Kenkyû [The Investment of Overseas Companies in Japan].
Okamoto, Shûkichi (ed.) (1965), Iwadare Kunihiko, Privately Printed.
Okamoto, Yukio (1973), “Wagakuni Bôseki Kigyô Sôsetsuki ni okeru Gijyutsu Mondai Ippan[Technological Issues in Establishing Spinning Companies in Japan],” Kônan Keizai Ron Shû,Vol.14, No.1.
Okonogi, Etsuko (1989), “Kuru Waza: Jyôshû Zaguri no Gijyutsu Shi [Hand Turning
Techniques: A History of the Technique of Jyôshû Sedentary Silk Reeling],” “Edo no
Mekanizumu [Mechanisms of the Edo Period],” Kenkyû Kiyô, No.3, Tobacco and Salt
Museum.
Okuda, Masami (1989), “Zenmai Kizamiki Gaisetsu [An Outline of a Spring-loaded Device for
Carving],” “Edo no Mekanizumu [Mechanisms of the Edo Period],” Kenkyû Kiyô, No.3,
Tobacco and Salt Museum.
Ôkurashô (ed.) (1931), “Kôbushô Enkaku Hôkoku [A Report on the Development of the Ministryof Public Works],” Meiji Zenki Zaisei Keizai Shiryô Shûsei, Vol.17, Tokyo: Kaizôsha.
Ôtaguro, jyûgorô (1910), “Shibaura / GE Teikei no Shinsô [The Truth of Tie-up of Shibaura andGE],” Jitsugyô no Nihon, Vol.13, No.2.
Ôtsuka, Keijirô (1987), “Menkôgyô no Hatten to Gijyutsu Kakushin [Development andInnovation in the Cotton Industry],” Minami, Ryôshin, and Kiyokawa, Yukihiko (eds.), Nihonno Kôgyôka to Gijyutsu Hatten [Japan’s Industrialisation and Technology Development],
Tokyo: Tôyô Keizai Shinpôsha.
Perrin, N. (1979), Giving Up the Gun, Boulder: Shambhala Publications (Kawakatsu, Heita[trans.] [1984], Teppô o Suteta Nihonjin, Tokyo: Kinokuniya Shoten).
Potter, W. F. (1878-79), “Railway Work in Japan,” Minutes of Proceedings of the Institute of40

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

Civil Engineers, Vol. LVI.
Saigusa, Hiroto (1940), Gijyutsu Shi [A History of Technology], Gendai Nihon Bunmei Shi [AHistory of Modern Japanese Civilisation], Vol.14, Tokyo: Tôyô Keizai Shinpôsha.
(ed.) (1942), Nihon Kagaku Koten Zensho [A Complete Book of Japanese Science
and Classics], Vol.9, Part 3, Industrial Technology, Mining & Metallurgy, No.1, Tokyo: Asahi
Shinbunsha.
, Nozaki, Shigeru, and Sasaki, Shun (1960), Kindai Nihon Sangyô Gijyutsu no Seiôka[The Westernisation of Modern Japan’s Industrial Technology], Tokyo: Tôyô Keizai
Shinpôsha.
Shintani, Masahiko (1987), “Seichagyô ni okeru Gijyutsu Sentaku [Technology Selection in the
Tea Industry],” Minami, Ryôshin, and Kiyokawa, Yukihiko (eds.), Nihon no Kôgyôka to
Gijyutsu Hatten [Japan’s Industrialisation and Technology Development], Tokyo: Tôyô Keizai
Shinpôsha.
Sonoda, Hidehiro (1985), “Kyokutô no Shûen: Kurobune Zenshi [The End of Far East: A Front
History of Kurobune],” Yoshida, Mitsukuni (ed.), Jyûkyû Seiki Nihon no Jyôhô to Shakai
Hendô [Information and Social Change in 19th Century Japan], Kyoto: Kyoto Daigaku Jinbun
Kagaku Kenkyûjyo.
Sugiyama, Sinya (1981), “Gurabâ Shôkai [Glover & Co.],” Nenpô Kindai Nihon Kenkyû, Vol.3,
Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha.
Tamagawa, Kanji (1986), “Gara Seibôki no Gijyutsuteki Hyôka [A Technical Evaluation ofThrostles],” Gijyutsu to Bunmei, Vol.3, No.1.
Tanaka, Chûji (ed.) (1933), Toyoda Sakichi Den [A Biography of Toyoda Sakichi], Not for sale.
Tokyo Denki Kabushikigaisha (1940), Tokyo Denki Kabushikigaisha Gojyû Nen Shi [AFifty-year History of Tokyo Electric Company], Tokyo: Tokyo Denki Kabushikigaisha.
Tsunoyama, Sakae (1972), “Jyû-kyû Seiki Igirisu no Shihon Yushutsu to Kakkoku ni okeru
Tetsudô Kensetsu [Overseas Railway Construction and Capital Exports of 19th Century
Britain],” Keizai Riron, No.127-131.
Uchida, Hoshimi (1972), “Taishô Shôwa Shoki no Kagaku Kôgyô ni okeru Gijyutsu Dônyû to
Jiko Kaihatsu [Technology Transfer and Self-development in the Chemical Industry of Japan
during the Taishô and the Early Shôwa Periods],” Keiei Shigaku, Vol.7, No.1.
(1980), “Western Big Business and Adoption of New Technology in Japan: The
Electrical Equipment and Chemical Industries 1890-1920,” A. Okochi, and Uchida, Hoshimi(eds.), Development and Diffusion of Technology, The International Conference BusinessHistory 6, Tokyo: Tokyo University Press.
(1982), “Edo Jidai no Shigen Jikyû Sisutemu [Resource Self-Support System at theTokugawa Period],” Jinbun Shizen Kagaku Ronshû, No.61, Tokyo Keizai Daigaku.
(1982), “Seimen Kikaika no Raibaru: Mazaki Terusato to Ôkuma Ei’ichi [Rivals in
the Mechanization of the Noodle-Making: Mazaki Terusato and Ôkuma Ei’ichi],” Hatsumei,
Vol.179, No.7.
(1982), “Kyôdo ni Kindai Kôjyô o Okoshita: Maebara Yûichirô [Bringing Home

41

Hoshimi Uchida: Technology Transfer

Modern Factory Production: The Story of Maebara Yûichirô],” Hatsumei, Vol.79, No.4.
(1985), “Shoki Ryûgaku Gijyutsusha to Ôbei no Kôgaku Kyôiku Kikan [The FirstJapanese Overseas Engineering Students and Western Engineering and Technical Education
Institutions],” Jinbun Shizen Kagaku Ron Shû, No.71, Tokyo Keizai Daigaku.
(1986), “Gijyutsu Seisaku no Rekishi [A History of Technology Policy],” Nakaoka,
Tesurô, Ishii, Tadashi, and Uchida, Hoshimi (eds.), Kindai Nihon no Gijyutsu to Gijyutsu
Seisaku [Technology and Technology Policy of Modern Japan], Tokyo: Kokusai Rengô
Daigaku.
(1988), “Gijyutsusha no Zôka: Bunpu to Nihon no Kôgyôka [The Increase in
Engineers: Their Distribution and Japan’s Industrialisation],” Keizai Kenkyû, Vol.39, No.4.
(1988), “Narrow Cotton Stripes and Their Substitutes,” Textile History, Vol.19, No.2.
(1989), “Edo no Mekanizumu [Mechanisms of the Edo Period],” Kenkyû Kiyô, No.3,
Tobacco and Salt Museum.
(1989), “Denki Gijyutsu no Dônyû to Teichaku [The Introduction and Establishmentof Electrical Technology],” Nihon Kagaku Gijyutsu Shinkô Zaidan (ed.), Sangyô Gijyutsu no
Hatten to Shakaiteki Jyuyô Hôsaku ni Kansuru Chôsa Kenkyû [A Survey of the Developmentof Industrial Technology and Social Acceptance Strategy], Tokyo: Nihon Kagaku Gijyutsu
Shinkô Zaidan.
Umetani, Noboru (1974), “Nihon ni okeru Kôgyôka to Kyôiku tono Kankei [The Relation
between Industrialisation and Education in Japan],” Shakai Keizai Shigaku, Vol.40, No.5.
and Yamanaka, Yasushi (1976-78), “Henri-Daieru ‘Gijyutsusha no Kyôiku’ [Henry
Dyer’s ‘Engineer Education’],” 1-8, Seisan to Gijyutsu, Vol.28, No.4-Vol.30, No.3.
Watanabe, Minoru (1977), Kindai Nihon Kaigai Ryûgaku Shi [A History of Overseas Studies inModern Japan], Vol.1, jyô, Tokyo: Kôdansha.
White, Lynm Jr. (1962), Medieval Technology and Social Change, Oxford: Oxford University
Press (Uchida, Hoshimi [trans.] [1985], Chûsei no Gijyutsu to Shakai Hendô, Tokyo:
Shisakusha).
Yamauchi, Masuji (1914), Kaiko Roku [Memo of Retrospection].
Yoshida, Kazuko (1985), “Koshi o Meguru Nômin to Chin [Farmers and Market Towns forYarn],” Tokyo Daigaku Kyôyô Gakubu Kyôyô Gakka Kiyô, Vol.17.
Yoshida, Rokurô (1935), Chichi o Omou [Longing for My Father], privately printed.
Yoshida, Tomokichi (1910), “Nihon de Dekiru Kikai to Dekinai Kikai narabini Kikairui noYunyûshô [Machinery Which Can Be Made in Japan, Machinery Which Cannot Be Made inJapan, and the Importers of Machinery],” Taiheiyô, Vol.9, No.17.
Yoshishiro, Fumio (1979), “Kindai Gijyutsu Dônyû to Kôzangyô no Kindaika [Intoroduction ofModern Technology and Modernisation of the Mining Industry],” Gijyutsu no Iten / Henyô /Kaihatsu: Nihon no Keiken Purojekuto [Transfer, Transformation, and Development ofTechnology: A Project Looking at Japan’s Experience], Tokyo: Kokusai Rengô Daigaku.
Yuzawa, Takeshi (1988), Igirisu Tetsudô Keiei Shi [A Management History of British Railways],
Tokyo: Nihon Hyôron Shinsha.

42