平成年度

29

日米フォーラム（米国）

平成２９年度 日米フォーラム（米国）

報告書

US-Japan Forum

２０１７年６月２日（金）“Economic Policy Challenges in the US and Japan”

報 告 書2017 年 6 月 2 日（金）（米国 スタンフォード大学 開催）

一般財団法人 国際経済交流財団

一般財団法人
国際経済交流財団

平成２９年度日米フォーラム（米国） ２０１７年６月２日（金）（於：スタンフォード大学）

開会の辞 スタンフォード大学
APARC 日本プログラム・ディレクター 星教授

セッション 1

スピーカー

伊藤教授

セッション 1 スピーカー

Bloom 氏、伊藤教授、小林教授、Shaw 氏

セッション 2 スピーカー

岡田氏

開会の辞

セッション 1JEF 日下会長

スピーカー

セッション 2 モデレーター

小林教授

JEF 原岡専務理事

セッション 2 スピーカー
岡田氏、Fukuyama 氏、Delong 氏

平成２９年度日米フォーラム（米国） ２０１７年６月２日（金）（於：スタンフォード大学）

セッション 3 モデレーター

Singleton 氏

セッション 3 スピーカー
Bernstein 氏、Kushida 氏、田中氏、柳原氏

ディスカッションの様子

会場の様子

セッション 3 スピーカー

会場の様子

会場の様子

閉会の辞

田中氏

目

次

１． 開

催

趣

旨 ·················································································· 1

２． 開

催

概

要 ·················································································· 2

３． 詳

細

日

程 ·················································································· 4

４． 出者 ·················································································· 7

席

歴 ·················································································· 8

５． 略
６． 議

事

要

旨

日本語 ··················································································· 19
英

７．

発

８．

成

９．

参

表

資

語 ··················································································· 28

料 ··············································································· 37
果 ················································································ 84

考資

料 ················································································ 87

１０．共 催 団 体 紹 介 ··············································································· 90
１１．事

務局 ············································································· 91

１．開催趣旨

国際経済交流財団は、我が国と諸外国との経済交流を促進するため、各年における経済問
題等を取り上げ、日米の有識者間でこれらの問題解決等について議論を重ねてきた。
日米フォーラム事業は、政界、官界、学界、産業界など政策提言に影響力をもつ日米両国を中心とする有識者が一堂に会して、両国の共有する課題などにつき忌憚のない意見交換を行い、我が国の政策立案に資すると共に、日米協力の一層の強化を図りその成果を広く普及させることを目的としている。
今年度は、2017年6月2日（金）に、米国スタンフォード大学に於いてアジア‐太平洋研究センター（APARC）との共催でフォーラムを実施した。
今回のメインテーマ「日米の経済政策課題（Economic Policy Challenges in the US and Japan）」の下、日米が現在抱えている共通の以下の3つの課題に関し解決策、対応策が議論された。
－Session 1「日米の成長戦略」「Growth Strategies of the US and Japan」－Session 2「グローバル化と不平等」「Globalization and Inequality」－Session 3「テクノロジーは解決策となるか？」「Is Technology the Answer? (or Will Silicon Valley Save the World?)」

－1－

. 開催

１. 開催日2017年6月2日（金） 10:00 – 17:15

. 開催

米国

スタンフォード大学

会議

Bechtel Conference Center, Encina Hall, Stanford University
616 Serra St. Stanford, CA 94305-6055
催 者

.
日
米

一
国

財団

国際経済交流財団

スタンフォード大学

Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)

アジア太平洋ーセンター

Stanford University, Asia Pacific Research Center (APARC). テ ー マ“Economic Policy Challenges in the US and Japan”（日米の経済政策課題）
Session 1 – Growth Strategies of the US and Japan（日米の成長戦略）
Session 2 - Globalization and Inequality（グローバル化と不平等）
Session 3 - Is Technology the Answer? (or Will Silicon Valley Save the World?)（テクノロジーは解決策となるか？）

.

者

日

日米

り

（

6
ロン
一

日下 一

資
一

ア大学国際関

共政策大学

開

取

長

国際経済交流財団

会長

財団

一
中

15

会

の

略）

大学 経済学
PwCインター一

財団

ル

アグローバルアドバイ

国際経済交流財団

－2－

事

ー

米国

（

9

のアルフ

Shai Bernstein, Stanford Univeristy
Nick Bloom, Stanford Univeristy
Brad DeLong, University of California, Berkeley
Francis Fukuyama, Stanford University
Takeo Hoshi, Stanford Univeristy
Kenji Kushida, Stanford University
Kathryn Shaw, Stanford University
Ken Singleton, Stanford Univeristy
Tsunehiko Yanagihara, Mitsubishi Corporation

ラ

.
.

ンドテー

ル

ス

言

－3－

ン

略）

．

日

Economic Policy Challenges in the US and Japan
Japan Economic Foundation (JEF) – Asia Pacific Research Center (APARC)
Forum
Bechtel Conference Center, Encina Hall, Stanford University, June 2, 2017
Abenomics in Japan has entered its fifth year. Although it has not succeeded in getting
Japan completely out of the stagnation of two decades, it seems to have stopped
deflation (for now), closed the output gap, and started several structural reforms to
restore the economic growth. In the U.S., the recovery from the global financial crisisof 2007-2009 has been painfully slow, although compared to many European countries,
the U.S. economy has been doing much better. The gap between the rich and the poor,
which was already a serious problem before the crisis, did not close and if anything
grew wider after the crisis. Many blame globalization as the culprit for job losses,
decline of middle-income class, and enhanced income inequality in the U.S., and there
are signs of increasing domestic orientation in various aspects of the U.S. policy making.
In the Presidential Election of 2016, the U.S. voters wished a change and elected
Donald Trump. President Trump plans to restore the economic growth in the U.S.
through new economic policy initiatives including economic deregulation, infrastructure
investment, tougher trade negotiations with trade partners, tax policy to discourage
imports and the US direct investment abroad, and policies to protect incumbent US
companies and existing jobs for US citizens.
This US-Japan dialogue organized jointly by the Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)
and the Japan Program of Asia Pacific Research Center at Stanford University examines
important economic policy challenges that the US and Japan face. By the time of the
dialogue, Donald Trump will have been the President for more than 150 days, and wewill have a better idea about the economic policies of the Trump administration. Will
those raise the US growth rate successfully? Will Abenomics eventually work? Or is
it already dead as some critics claim? How much will the anti-globalization sentiment(continue to) influence the economic policies of advanced countries and how should the
US and Japan respond? These are the questions that we will be asking in the dialogue.
The dialogue will take place at the center of Silicon Valley, which seems to lead theworld economy by rapid pace of technological innovations. How much will these (and－4－future) new technology help growth of the advanced economies? Are we witnessing
the new industrial revolution that is comparable to the one that happened 100 years ago?
Or, as the techno-pessimists argue, are these new technologies mostly unrelated toeconomic growth? We will be asking these questions as well.
Each discussion starts with brief presentation (10 minutes) to set the stage for the discussion.

9:30-10:00

Registration and Coffee

10:00-10:15 Welcome Remarks
Kazumasa Kusaka (Japan Economic Foundation)
Takeo Hoshi (Stanford University)

10:15-12:00 Session 1: Growth Strategies of the US and Japan
Moderator:

Takeo Hoshi (Stanford University)

Presenters:

Nick Bloom (Stanford University)
Takatoshi Ito (Columbia University)
Keiichiro Kobayashi (Keio University)
Kathryn Shaw (Stanford University)

12:00-13:00 Lunch

13:00-14:45 Session 2: Globalization and Inequality
Moderator:

Naoyuki Haraoka (Japan Economic Foundation)

Presenters:

Brad DeLong (UC, Berkeley)Francis Fukuyama (Stanford University)
Hideichi Okada (Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., Ltd)

14:45-15:15 Break－5－

15:15-17:00 Session 3: Is Technology the Answer? (or Will Silicon Valley Save the World?)
Moderator:

Ken Singleton (Stanford University)

Presenters:

Shai Bernstein (Stanford University)
Kenji Kushida (Stanford University)
Masaaki Tanaka (PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited)
Tsunehiko Yanagihara (Mitsubishi Corporation)

17:00-17:15 Closing Remarks
Kazumasa Kusaka (Japan Economic Foundation)
Takeo Hoshi (Stanford University)

17:15-18:00 Cocktail Reception

－6－

．

者
者
（

Michael Armacost, Stanford University
Shai Bernstein, Stanford Univeristy
Nicholas Bloom, Stanford Univeristy
Richard Dasher, Stanford University
Brad DeLong, University of California, Berkeley
Karl Eikenberry, Stanford University
Francis Fukuyama, Stanford University
Naoyuki Haraoka, Japan Economic Foundation
Robert Hodrick, Stanford University
Takeo Hoshi, Stanford Univeristy
Gen Isayama, WiL
Takeshi Isayama
Takatoshi Ito, Columbia University
Shinnosuke Kameyama, NEDO
Eita Kitani, SV Branch
Keiichiro Kobayashi, Keio University
Kazumasa Kusaka, Japan Economic Foundation
Kenji Kushida, Stanford University
Yong Lee, Stanford University
Phillip Lipscy, Stanford University
Prashant Loyalka, Stanford University
Hideichi Okada, Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., Ltd
Kathryn Shaw, Stanford University
Hirokazu Shimoda, JETRO San Francisco
Ken Singleton, Stanford Univeristy
Daniel Sneider, Stanford University
Kathleen Stephens, Stanford University
Masaaki Tanaka, Pricewaterhouse Coopers International
Ryoichi Togashi, Komatsu
Yoshiaki Tojo, JETRO San Francisco
Tsunehiko Yanagihara, Mitsubishi Corporation
Yu Jin Woo, Stanford University

－7－

のアルフ

め

32
）

．略
（アルフ

略）

Michael Armacost is the Shorenstein Distinguished Fellow at the Walter H.
Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (Shorenstein APARC), Stanford
University. In the interval between 1995 and 2002, Ambassador Armacost
served as president of the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC. During
a twenty-four-year government career, Ambassador Armacost served as
Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs and as the U.S. Ambassador to
Japan and the Philippines. Armacost graduated from Carleton College and earned his
master’s and doctorate in public law and government from Columbia University. He hasreceived the President’s Distinguished Service Award, the Defense Department’s
Distinguished Civilian Service Award, the Secretary of State’s Distinguished Services Award,
and the Japanese government’s Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun. His recent
book, Ballots, Bullets, and Bargains: American Foreign Policy and Presidential Elections,
was published by Columbia University Press.
Shai Bernstein is an Associate Professor of Finance at the Stanford
Graduate School of Business. He is also a Faculty Fellow at the National
Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and at the Stanford Institute for
Economic Policy Research (SIEPR). His research interests lie at theintersection of corporate finance, entrepreneurship and innovation. He has a
PhD from Harvard University, MA from Hebrew university and a BA from
Ben Gurion University.
Nicholas (Nick) Bloom is the William Eberle Professor of Economics at
Stanford University, a Senior Fellow of SIEPR, and the Co-Director of the
Productivity, Innovation and Entrepreneurship program at the National
Bureau of Economic Research. His research focuses on management
practices and uncertainty. He previously worked at the UK Treasury and
McKinsey & Company.
He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the recipient of the Alfred
Sloan Fellowship, the Bernacer Prize, the European Investment Bank Prize, the FrischMedal, the Kauffman Medal and a National Science Foundation Career Award. He has a BA
from Cambridge, an MPhil from Oxford, and a PhD from University College London.

－8－

Richard Dasher has directed the US-Asia Technology Management Centerin Stanford’s School of Engineering since 1994. He concurrently served as
Executive Director of Stanford’s industry-funded Center for Integrated
Systems from 1998 – 2015. He is on the International Advisory Committee
for the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) and the Program
Committee of the World Premier International Research Center initiative
under MEXT.

Dr. Dasher was the first-ever non-Japanese person asked to join thegovernance of a Japanese national university, serving on the board of directors and then the
management council of Tohoku University, 2004 – 2010. He is also active as a consultant
and advisor to business accelerators, startup companies, and VC firms in the U.S., China,
Japan, and S. Korea. He travels to Japan several times each year and speaks and reads
Japanese fluently.
Brad DeLong is a professor of economics at U.C. Berkeley, a research
associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, a weblogger atthe Washington Center for Equitable Growth, and a fellow of the Institutefor New Economic Thinking. He received his B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard
University in 1982 and 1987. He joined UC Berkeley as an associate
professor in 1993 and became a full professor in 1997.
Professor DeLong also served in the U.S. government as Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy from 1993 to 1995. He worked on the Clinton
Administration's 1993 budget, on the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade, on the North American Free Trade Agreement, on macroeconomic policy, and on
the unsuccessful health care reform effort.
Before joining the Treasury Department, Professor DeLong was Danziger Associate
Professor in the Department of Economics at Harvard University. He has also been a John M.
Olin Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research, an Assistant Professor of
Economics at Boston University, and a Lecturer in the Department of Economics at M.I.T.
Karl Eikenberry is the Oksenberg-Rohlen Distinguished Fellow and
Director of the U.S.-Asia Security Initiative at Shorenstein APARC,
Stanford University. He is also an affiliate at the Freeman Spogli Institute’s
Center for Democracy, Development, and Rule of Law; the Center forInternational Security Cooperation; and the Europe Center. Prior to his
arrival at Stanford, he served as the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan fromMay 2009 until July 2011, where he led the civilian surge directed by President Obama toreverse insurgent momentum and set the conditions for transition to full Afghan sovereignty.

－9－Ambassador Eikenberry also enjoyed a thirty-five-year career in the U. S. Army, retiring in
April 2009 with the rank of Lieutenant General. He served as the Commander of theAmerican-led Coalition forces in Afghanistan from 2005 to 2007. His other military
operational posts included assignments as commander or staff officer with mechanized, light,
airborne, and ranger infantry units in the continental United States, and also in Hawaii,
Korea, Italy, and Afghanistan. Ambassador Eikenberry is a graduate of the U.S. Military
Academy, holds MAs in East Asian studies from Harvard University and in political sciencefrom Stanford University, and was a National Security Fellow at the Harvard’s John F.
Kennedy School of Government.
Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman
Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) and the Mosbacher Directorof FSI's Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law(CDDRL). He is also a professor by courtesy in the Department of Political
Science. He was previously at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced
International Studies (SAIS) of Johns Hopkins University, where he was
the Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy and director of SAIS'International Development program.

Dr. Fukuyama has written widely on issues relating

to questions concerning democratization and international political economy. His book, The

End of History and the Last Man, was published by Free Press in 1992 and has appeared inover twenty foreign editions. His most recent book is Political Order and Political Decay:

From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. Francis Fukuyama
received his B.A. from Cornell University in classics, and his Ph.D. from Harvard in Political
Science. He was a member of the Political Science Department of the RAND Corporation,
and a twice a member of the Policy Planning Staff of the US Department of State.
Naoyuki Haraoka is Executive Managing Director of Japan Economic
Foundation. After graduating the University of Tokyo in 1978 (Bachelor of
Economics), he joined MITI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry)of Japanese government. After having acquired MPA at Princeton, herejoined MITI in 1984 as an economist. Since then he had been posted as
Deputy Director and Director of a number of MITI divisions including
Research Division of International Trade Policy Bureau. He was also posted in Paris twice,firstly, Principal Economist of Trade Bureau of OECD (Organization of Economic
Cooperation and Development) from 1988 to 92 and secondly Counselor to Japanese
Delegation of OECD from 1996 to 99. After coming back to MITI from his second stay inParis, he joined the efforts to found METI research institute, Research Institute of Economy
Trade and Industry as its Director of Administration. He became Chief Executive Director of－ 10 －JETRO San Francisco. He was Director-General of METI Training Institute from 2006 until
July, 2007 when he left METI permanently and joined JEF as Executive Managing Director.
Robert Hodrick is Nomura Professor of International Finance at Graduate
School of Business at Colmbia University.

His research examines

theoretical, empirical, and econometric issues in asset pricing as related toequities, bonds, and currencies. He teaches international finance at the
MBA and PhD levels and is the author (with Geert Bekaert) of a leading
textbook, International Financial Management.

He received his Ph.D. in

Economics from the University of Chicago in 1976, having received his A.B. in International
Affairs from Princeton University in 1972.

He previously taught at Carnegie-Mellon

University from 1976-1983 and at the Kellogg Graduate School of Management ofNorthwestern University from 1983-1996.

Professor Hodrick joined Columbia Business

School in July 1996. From 1997 to 2002 he was the Academic Director of the School’s
Chazen Institute for International Business.

From 2002 to 2004, Professor Hodrick served

as the Senior Vice Dean of the Columbia Business School.

He has been a Research

Associate of the National Bureau of Economics since 1982.
Takeo Hoshi is Henri and Tomoye Takahashi Senior Fellow at the Freeman
Spogli Institute for International Studies, Professor of Finance (by courtesy)
at the Graduate School of Business, and Director of the Japan Program at
the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, all at Stanford
University. He received 2006 Enjoji Jiro Memorial Prize of Nihon Keizai
Shimbun-sha, and 2005 Japan Economic Association Nakahara Prize. His
book Corporate Financing and Governance in Japan: The Road to the Future co-authoredwith Anil Kashyap received the Nikkei Award for the Best Economics Books in 2002. B.A.,
University of Tokyo (1983). Ph.D. (Economics), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1988).
Gen Isayama has extensive experience in venture capital, finance, and entrepreneurship. He
founded his first company, a web design consultancy, as a third year student at Tokyo
University. Before he co-founded WiL, Gen was a partner at venture capital firm DCM,
specializing in Internet media, mobile, and consumer services. Then, at the Industrial Bank ofJapan, he led efforts across multiple disciplines, including corporate finance and market risk
management. In addition to his work at WiL, Gen authors columns for the Techology section of
the Nikkei Newspaper’s digital edition and the Toyo Keizai Online, and monthly article on
Nikkei Sangyo Shinbun. Furthermore, he is an active member of various METI, MEXT
committees.

He is also a popular speaker on venture and innovation. Gen holds a BA fromthe University of Tokyo’s Faculty of Law and an MBA from Stanford Business School.

－ 11 －

Takatoshi Ito is Professor at School of International and Public Affairs andAssociate Director of Research at the Center on Japanese Economy andBusiness at Columbia University. He has taught extensively both in the
United States and Japan since finishing his Ph.D. in economics at Harvard
University in 1979. He taught as Assistant and tenured Associate Professor(1979-88) at the University of Minnesota, as Associate and full Professor at

Hitotsubashi University (1988-2002), as Professor at the Graduate School of Economics at
University of Tokyo (2004-2014) before assuming his current position in 2014. He served asa member of the Prime Minister’s Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy (2006-2008). His
research interest includes capital flows and currency crises, microstructures of the foreignexchange rates, and inflation targeting. He was awarded the National Medal with Purple
Ribbon in June 2011 for his excellent academic achievement
Keiichiro Kobayashi is Professor at Faculty of Economics, Keio University,
Research Director at Canon Institute for Global Studies (CIGS), andFaculty Fellow at Research Institute of Economy (RIETI).

He received

Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago in 1998. He researches
macroeconomic theory. He currently works on theoretical models offinancial crisis and monetary theory. He joined the Ministry ofInternational Trade and Industry of Japan in 1991 after graduation from the University ofTokyo.

From 2001, he was a fellow at RIETI and from 2010 to 2013 he had been a professor

at Hitotsubashi University. He has joined Keio University in April 2013. He also has been
Research Director at CIGS from 2009.
Kazumasa Kusaka has been Chairman and CEO of the Japan Economic
Foundation (JEF) since April 1, 2013, and is also a Professor at Universityof Tokyo Graduate School of Public Policy. He previously served for 36 years
in Japan’s Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), rising tobecome vice-minister for international affairs in the reorganized Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) in 2004. During his long career inpublic service, Kusaka was seconded to the International Energy Agency (IEA)/OECD and
was Japan’s senior official for Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). He played acentral role in Asia’s economic integration, promoting FTAs in the region as well as serving
as a senior official negotiating the Doha development agenda of the WTO. He was head ofJapan’s Energy Agency and held director-general positions in technology and environmental
policy in addition to trade and investment-related areas within METI. He was also
instrumental in finalizing the Kyoto Protocol, and developing Japan’s energy andenvironment policies. Among many other posts Kusaka has held are Special Adviser to the－ 12 －

Prime Minister on Global Warming, senior vice president of Mitsubishi Electric, executive
adviser to Dentsu Inc., and president of the Japan Cooperation Center for the Middle East.
Kenji Kushida is the Japan Program Research Associate at the Walter H.
Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center and an affiliated researcher at
the Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy. Kushida’s researchinterests are in the fields of comparative politics, political economy, andinformation technology. He has four streams of academic research andpublication: political economy issues surrounding information technology
such as Cloud Computing; institutional and governance structures of Japan’s Fukushima
nuclear disaster; political strategies of foreign multinational corporations in Japan; andJapan’s political economic transformation since the 1990s.

Kushida has written two generalaudience books in Japanese, entitled Biculturalism and the Japanese: Beyond English

Linguistic

Capabilities (Chuko

Shinsho,and International

2006)

Schools,anIntroduction (Fusosha, 2008). Kushida holds a PhD in political science from the Universityof California, Berkeley. His received his MA in East Asian studies and BAs in economics andEast Asian studies, all from Stanford University.
Yong Suk Lee is the SK Center Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute forInternational Studies (FSI) and duputy director of the Korea Program at the
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC) at Stanford
University. Lee's research intersects the fields of labor, international, andurban

economics

with focusesonentrepreneurship

and

firm

growth, globalization and inequality, and economic sanctions. For example,
his research examines the effect of university entrepreneurship initiatives on innovation, andthe impact of entrepreneurship on urban economic growth. His research relating to
globalization examines how inequality in South Korea evolved after the Asian Financial
Crisis, how China’s competition affects firm dynamics in Korea, and how economic sanctions
effect the regional distribution of economic activity in North Korea. Prior to joining Stanford,
Lee was an assistant professor of economics at Williams College in Massachusetts. He
received his bachelor's degree and master's degree in architecture from Seoul National
University, a master of public policy from Duke University, and a doctorate in economics from
Brown University.

－ 13 －

Phillip Lipscy is Assistant Professor of Political Science and Thomas Rohlen
Center Fellow at the Shorenstein Asia Pacific Research Center at Stanford
University.

His fields of research include international and comparative

political economy, international security, and the politics of East Asia,
particularly Japan.

Lipscy is author of Renegotiating the World Order:

Institutional Change in International Relations (Cambridge University
Press), which examines how countries seek greater international influence by reforming or
creating international organizations.
energy and climate change.

His second book project examines the politics of

His research addresses a wide range of substantive topics suchas international cooperation, the politics of energy, the politics of financial crises, the use of
secrecy in international policy making, and Japanese politics.

Lipscy obtained his PhD inpolitical science at Harvard University. He received his MA in international policy studies
and BA in economics and political science at Stanford University.
Prashant Loyalka is a Center Research Fellow at the Freeman Spogli
Institute for International Studies and a Faculty Member of the Rural
Education Action Program at Stanford University. His research focuses on
examining/addressing inequalities in the education of youth and onunderstanding/improving the quality of education received by youth inlarge developing economies, including China, Russia and India. In thecourse of addressing educational inequalities, Prashant examines the consequences oftracking, financial and informational constraints, and psychological factors of both students
and teachers in highly competitive education systems. His work on understanding
educational quality is built around research that assesses and compares student learning inhigher education, high school and (the later stages of) compulsory schooling. He also
evaluates programs/policies that seek to improve student outcomes. Prashant’s research
agenda is based on long-established and close collaborations with researchers at a number ofuniversities in China, Russia's National University Higher School of Economics and Apple
University. Before coming to Stanford, Prashant worked as an Assistant Professor in Peking
University.
Hideichi Okada is President & CEO of Japan Petroleum Exploration Co.,
Ltd. Okada was Senior Executive Vice President in NEC Corporation
responsible for its global business strategy (2014-2016). Prior to join private
business, he served as Vice Minister for International Affairs, Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Government of Japan (2010-2012). In
that capacity, he promoted international trade and investment, including
negotiations of major free trade agreements. He also worked for Prime Minister Junichiro－ 14 －

Koizumi as his Executive Assistant, where he dealt with policies on economy, industry,
energy, science and technology, and environment, and with public relations (2001-2006). He
was a Pacific Leadership Fellow at UC San Diego (March 2014) and the Sasakawa Peace
Fellow at the Asia-Pacific Research Center, Stanford University (2013-2014). He was a
Visiting Scholar at Harvard Law School (2007) and the School of International Relations andPacific Studies, UC San Diego (2007) and Professor at National Graduate Institute for Policy
Studies (GRIPS) (2006-2007). Okada was born in Tokyo in 1951. He received a LL.M. degreefrom Harvard Law School (1981), and graduated from the University of Tokyo with LL.Bs.
(1975, 1976).
Kathryn Shaw is Ernest C. Arbuckle Professor of Economics at theGraduate School of Business, Stanford University.
currently

studiesmanaging

talentinProfessor Shaw

high-performancefirms,

entrepreneurship, and the value that good bosses confer on their firms andworkers.

She particularly focuses on how firms attract and build star

talent.

In addition, she on how the firm’s choice of its human resource

management practices can produce performance gains.

She is identified as the co-developerof the field of “insider econometrics,” a research field within economics in which researchers
go within companies and use insider knowledge to empirically identify the performance gains
from management practices.

Her research has been extensively funded by the NSF, theSloan Foundation, and the Russell Sage and Rockefeller Foundations.

Previously, Shaw

was a Member of President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers (1999-2001) and was theFord Distinguished Research Chair and Professor of Economics at the business school atCarnegie Mellon University.
in 1981.

She completed her Ph.D. in economics at Harvard University

In 2008, she was elected a Fellow of the Society of Labor Economists; in 2001 Shaw

received the Columbia University award for the best paper on international business.

At

Stanford, she teaches Organizational Strategy and Contemporary Economic Policy, and has
won teaching awards.
Hirokazu Shimoda is an Executive Director at Japan External Trade
Organization (JETRO) in San Francisco. He joined MITI (Ministry ofInternational Trade and Industry) of Japanese Government in 1999. Since
MITI was reorganized to METI (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry)in 2001, he had been posted in IT industrial policy section to promote big
data businesses, IT device platforms, and cyber security measures forseveral years. He had also managed aircrafts and equipment of Japan Maritime Self-defense
Force in Japan Defense Agency from 2004 to 2006. When the nuclear power plant accident
occurred in Fukushima in 2011, he attended the Office of Corresponding to Nuclear Power－ 15 －

Plant Accident at Cabinet Secretariat. He made the standards of compensation for theaccident suffers. Since he came back to METI, he made industrial frameworks to promoteprecision medicine and regenerative medicine. He had also been responsible for ensuring
budget, planning new projects and managing human resources of the Commerce,
Distribution and Industrial Safety Policy Group, and the Commerce and Information Policy
Bureau at METI from 2014 to 2016.
Kenneth Singleton is the Adams Distinguished Professor of Management at
the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University. He has publishedwidely on financial risks and their impacts on economic decision-making,including books on credit risk and dynamic asset pricing. His professional
awards include the Smith-Breeden Prize (Journal of Finance), Frisch Medal(Econometrica), and the Stephen A. Ross Prize in Financial Economics(Foundation for the Advancement of Research in Financial Economics), and he is a Fellow of
the Econometric Society, the Journal of Econometrics, and the Society for Financial
Econometrics. He is currently a scientific advisor to Credit Sesame, a startup helping
individuals build wealth through informed management of their liabilities and credit; was aspecial advisor to the chief economist at the IMF during the crisis in 2009; and co-led theFixed Income Research group of Goldman Sachs, Asia while on leave from Stanford in theearly 1990’s. He is President of the Board of the 501(c)3 nonprofit 1 Grain to 1000 Grainsthat leads programs for low-income communities through which families discover intuitive
and actionable plans for more healthful eating and financial bandwidth.

Ken holds a BA in

Mathematics from Reed College and a PhD in Economics from the University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
Daniel Sneider is the associate director for research at Shorenstein APARC
at Stanford University. He currently directs the center’s project on
Nationalism and Regionalism and the Divided Memories and Reconciliation
project, a comparative study of the formation of historical memory in East
Asia. His own research focuses on current U.S. foreign and national security
policy in Asia and on the foreign policy of Japan and Korea. Sneider wasnamed a National Asia Research Fellow by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars and the National Bureau of Asian Research in 2010. Prior to coming to Stanford,
Sneider was a long-time foreign correspondent. He also wrote widely on defense issues,
including as a contributor and correspondent for Defense News, the national defense weekly.
Sneider has a BA in East Asian history from Columbia University and an MPA from the John
F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

－ 16 －

Kathleen Stephens (USFS, retired) is an American diplomat.
Ambassador to the Republic of Korea 2008-2011.

She was U.S.

She also was posted

abroad in diplomatic assignments including U.S. Charge ‘d Affaires to India(2014), and in China, Korea Yugoslavia, the United Kingdom, Portugal, andTrinidad and Tobago.

Her Washington assignments included Acting

Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (2012),
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs (2005-2007),
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs (2003-2005), andNational Security Council Director for European Affairs at the Clinton White House.
Stephens is currently the William J. Perry Fellow for Korea at Stanford University’s
Shorenstein Asia Pacific Research Center.
Masaaki (Masa) Tanaka is Senior Global Advisor of PwC International andVice Chair of the Board of Councilors of the U.S.-Japan Council. He has
been serving on several Governmental Panels in Japan, including theCouncil of Experts on the Stewardship Code. On February 1st, 2017, He
was appointed Advisor to the Financial Services Agency of Japan.

Until

June 2015, he was Director and Deputy President of Mitsubishi UFJ
Financial Group, Inc. between 2011 and 2015, he served on the Board of Morgan Stanley.
Mr. Tanaka joined the Mitsubishi Bank in 1977 and held a variety of positions such as
Executive Officer and General Manager of the Corporate Planning Division, President andCEO of Union Bank, and Senior Managing Executive Officer and CEO for the Americas.

Mr.

Tanaka holds a law degree from the University of Tokyo and a Master of Laws Degree fromthe University of Michigan Law School.
Ryoichi (Ricky) Togashi is General Manager at Technology Innovation &Planning Agency, Officeof the CTO, Komatsu Ltd. After joining Komatsu in
1993, 15+ years’ experience in design anddevelopment of heavy equipmentof mobile crushers and hybrid excavators. From 2012, engaged inopen
innovation promotion work, and after 2014, strengthen the activities due tothe establishmentof office of CTO. Spent about half of the year in Silicon
Valley and gathering information onadvanced technologies. As an outside committee activity,
he serves as chairperson of “Research anddevelopment management committee” of Japan
Research Industries and Industrial TechnologyAssociation. Togashi holds a Master ofEngineering.

－ 17 －

Tsunehiko Yanagihara is Executive Vice President at Mitsubishi Corporation(Americas) in Silicon Valley, running a cross-industrial, cross-company
innovation hub called M-Lab.

He has extensive international businessexperience, having spent more than 25 years in business management
positions within the company. Mr. Yanagihara began his career with
Mitsubishi Corporation in 1984 in the Machinery Group. In 1993, he moved
to the Chemicals Group and became Managing Director of European Precision Molding B.V. in
the Netherlands. He returned to Japan in 1999 and served as General Manager at the Life
Sciences Business Unit and Bio-Fine Chemicals Unit. From 2010 to 2015, he worked in the
Washington D.C. office as Senior Vice President and General Manager of Government Affairs.
Most recently he served as General Manager at the Chemicals Group CEO Office of
Mitsubishi Corporation. Mr. Yanagihara holds a MBA from Harvard Business School and a
BA from Amherst College.
Yu Jin Woo is a Japan Program Research Scholar at the Shorenstein
Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC). Woo’s research interests are in thefields of international and comparative political economy, particularly
migration policies and citizenship laws.

Woo holds a doctorate in politicalscience from the University of Virginia. She received her first master’s
degree in international cooperation at Seoul National University and her
second master’s degree in political economy at New York University. She obtained her
Bachelor of Arts in East Asian Studies at Smith College.

－ 18 －

．議事

（日

旨

）

以下の マ ーは、共催団 APARC で 成した

マ ーを 財団でしたもので る。

平成 29 年度 日米フォーラム
日米の経済政策課題
平成 29 年度の日米フォーラムは、2017 年 6 月 2 日、スタンフォード大学で開催された。
にスタンフォード大学アジア太平洋研究センター（APARC）日の、いて国際経済交流財団（JEF）会長でた。 フォーラムでは

3 つのテーマについて議論した。

セン1

日米の成長戦略している。日
業

は 2.8

年1

つ

の 2017 年 1
してきたが、
の

しかし、日
の

日

の財政

3月

となり、

れたのは、

日

経済の現

的

業

が

とな

金も 2
大が

者の

1 に、インフ

的金

界とな

ている

は 240

にもの

ら

、実

金は

上

の課題

の対応として、

すな

産
が
る。
度の

化に

に上が

金上

された。

1 に、日

なのは、
で

る。

的な

ノ

のための成長戦略が提
は

と

に

者の

お

IT の

2 に、資

を

－ 19 －

、

経済は

に

とな

た。 産年

は

を

している。
どとな
は

に

目さ

たことで

る。

として

が

で、 目
の一

問題が

クス」の「3

2 に、
金の上

とな

の

」の 3

を

てい

上なら
は資

目、

するいくつ

者の国際

化するために、日

く、

げられる。

された。
り、

ロに

されている。

ている。一

力不の経済政策「ア

上お
に

の

を

た。

ていないことが、国

る、日

れ開会の

在成長力を上回となり、米国のそれを上回る（QQE）策が

の実

で

る。

の

解

は 2.2

た。 目

された。日

経済には課題もいくつか

3 に、

が

では、経済成長

上

る。

る

が

は大きく、対 GDP

にもかか

かの重

についての

と

がそれ

クター

ム、グローバル化、 会的といン 1 では、日る日下一に、1）成長戦略、2）

3）

セ

ログラム

に

力を

め

り

な
に

り

業

お

年金

金

を

しなけれ

めに、日

は国

を

大開

する

が

が

する。

に、

も

で

テーマに

的な

を

は、資産バ

ルとい

い、日

に日

をと

け、 メ

の

が

した。
ータと

を

り

間

のバ

問題が解決し
的に

した

が

を下

ー

的な

となる
の

も

、

は

を

ン

き

、官

の

業

事業

めて以

的に

に
が

すな

る。つ

が

ス

関を

する

が

る。

クス」の「3

の

」の 3

目は

産

ームに
る。 1 にテス）でが提されている。

り 2002 年から 3 年
者は、18 の経

ング、

進

ルが策

され、日

意が

る。1990 年

の日

の

るとい

で、目

にと

ては、 行の資

の
は

すな

業業

アは

にしない「

平で

ーン

の

を

強、不
も

的な

的に財政

金を

を実

ても、見

り

を実施し、

しているが、その

以上の

の

たな

業を対

に 30

成の

には、3 つの重
した。

産

が

には、業

は、

行、インド
できる回

が

（World Management Survey）の

は、2
を策

き

に、

、

ラン

者

の 45

ーに応

すくするため」 のインタ

ーとして

行、 界

行などの
」をと

を

るために「

重

ている。

、インタ

ーされるマ

ージ

らかにな

を事

に

も

ジメン

ラクテ

スが経済

に及

す影響が

の中でマ

ジメン

ラクテ

スが

広く普及していることがらされない。

果から、マ
業

る。 界経

は、ドイ

ている。 3 に、この

て、 くの

上を目

についての

は対

にこの

い

る。そこで、政2 に、 業がインタ

は財

に

り

する。

に、この

す

で、 的

とに実施されている。

り的開策となる。とはいえ、財政れる。これらのにされることを事

が

目が

き取り

インタ

る。

度などの

間の

められた。 な

なので

ラクテ

から重

に

たな

るとい

すな

立財政

ータセ

するのは

の実 （

経済は不

るため、今日の政策立案者は意

する

ジメン

の

問題

大し、2010

り、これには、財政

り、現

、日

となり

を

ノ

らかにな

が

経済的
を

この

こす

資で

、日

の

は

たは

たがる

の日

された。

が有

が

がいかに

、 度成長

ル経済

しし

果が

お

こす

施しない

き

る。 に、 業

者の

を

ター

進するた

業などの
するための

た

ルには経済成長のためのいくつかの政策的

「ア

を

を

された。1980 年た。1990 年

に

この

問題
ルが提

に不

米経済

の

こすかとい

された。2000 年

がマ

る。とり

3 に、国際取

る。

とい

年

を下げ

ならない。

国

た。さらに、マ

ジメン

の

は、 産

－ 20 －

、

、 産

の

大、

た。
、

業

たり研究開

1

している。 果関
ジメン
日

の有

ラクテ

ではマ

するために、

スは

産

ラクテ

にも政策的
ラクテ

経

業

る会

などの

の 31.4 に

スは

産

国有

意が

業はマ
を

る。

、 国

業はその

ジメン

資

が

さ

なことが

の

も有

となり

とマ

ジメン

る。 に、 国

は米国が

す

き

くの問題の中で、 に
ラジ

テ

しく

下すると

で

ー

は成長を

で

り、

ると

された。

で

する

が

界

が

めくくられた。
成長戦略が重

が

る

は、

る。たとえ

すると、 が経済的に

える

しく
、

を

力は

業
い

はいくつか
で

りし

度は

国は

業の大

は

いの

で
れたマ

な立

された。にも
で

すことで

る。

進国の

者の

れをとるの

でなく、

と

ジメン

ラクテ

はもは

ていない。

資しており、スに成長し、めくくられた。

の 3 つの見通しが的な見通し、2）テクノロジーが

についてで

産

にいる。

識の普及とい的な見通しでる。 年層がる。おそらく、 年層がえられていないからとをインけている。 界る。1 つには、

る。

のものとい
の関

で

の

ることが強

ているため、今日、成長のをきな見通し、そして、3）たりで見ると、中国

国で力、テクノロジーに

の
は

、1

は実のとこ

で、日

できるため有ン 1 は、会をで問題の解決に資するためでされた。

ない。その上、日米の大

を

ての

に

い上げているで、アジア諸国は資の産するためには不

し、 産

会は

る。

している。

国の成長が日米を業を上げることでには有といさせているのは

と

ジ

は日

の

は、

れたマ

と

はその研究で、経済成長が、 進国にれた。1）す

り

に

業の

る

な

は

の

るため、

かか

セ

る。 に、

が

として日米が

をすでに

きで

関関

をつけて、

事

される

3 に、 等ジメ

下には

お界各国の成長を

を

れたマ

スの

ドなどの経済大国に大

進国の

国に

ラクテ

ン 1 は、
日米成長戦略の

して

た。しかし

ら

たため、経

者ともにその産

してマ、 の OECD

らかにな

者と経

の

実に関

にかか

れは

をもたらすと見られるため、 経

ら

らかにな

の 8.82 にす

る。

に、

り

することが

となり

に、

と
を実施し、平進することが有セの者はスをもたらすため、 外

有、経

と

平

業業

い。

この
ン

たり

1

を

ジメン

に

メン

、 業

れる。

－ 21 －

者

る。

い国の
り

に、 ラン

力が
政

に

が、そ

となるとい
目されたの
ではない国

かで、大

の政策

さ

業では
ージについ

ての議論が
で

た。 ラン

る。しかし
など、

ラン

くの重

応

政

大

は、 資、

の政

ー

ーは、 金

に

る。

が

に、大

する

化し

とする」

が Wikipedia を

が

事が
事

で

が

で、

経

ー
的

に
に

者に

的な見

が強

てい

業の業

に

り、

で

上を

ンス（

り、これは問題で事を、えている。この

から

関

もこの

るもので

る。

たが、現在は

れも

しい

が

に

するもので

）

にも

が

されていない。

界

いてきたが、それは、中国とイない。
についても議論が進められた。米国でのえられる。米国ではテクノロジー進
者

の財政

る

られない

化はいかなる経済者の対から 8.7

策に

は 30
り、12

り、 米

から 12

から 9 に協 （NAFTA）のとテクノロジーが不平等の

に見
に

で
に

業
た

した。さらに
した。

り 8.7

に「中

から 8.6のでり、グローバル化はス

会的、政

的

意について議論された。

ない。
い、グローバル化お

、日米と
は、

が

政

した。つ

日米間お
国の

業

と

き

はかつて 2,000 ドルでにおける不平等の上のーー

されてきたかを

るため、中

のことと

しているためににはいくつかの

で

ー

た。 のス

力として

している

することが

ンバージ

者の

に

問

が議論された。経済学者は、不平

けてしかる

えられる

できる。このれを解グローバル化の

り9

り

から見ると

間に

での

」に

は、ス

たかを

とい

ロー

問題では、1976 年以

国

問

重

い

は

から不平等の

タ

ン政

についての
力がいかに

な

的、 間的に不平等をー上させるかとい

なもの

、さ

が

は

をいかに

グローバル化と不平等

応な

ンドがそれ

に

された。

は、不平等とは、ンス、そしてンの影響についても議論された。テクノの 1 つでるいは、 不
たとえ

バ

の

メー

をそ

の

る。

ー

業は

業

ド

る議論も進められた。
産

的ア

と見る。一

に不

された。 たン 2 では

等とは、

でいかに

ら

ン2

セ

い

るにもかか

が

セ

が

にかか

ことが重

ロジーの進

で

と

、

、グ

産

の「

した。さらに
してもら

資

り日

、

、 の
の

、日

度がこれ

は、

に実行していない。

者は日米での題について議論した。たとえ
は、日

課題の中

課題について政策を

には、

の1

の政

お

の OECD
政に不平等の国間の、2 つのついている。たとえ－ 22 －

について言及が、のた。1 つは、米
は

バマ

アの

大の

層で

らには、
のは、

るが、 らのけが不平等の促進層のではなく、2 つ目は、米国の不平等は
は上

に

的

的マイノ

となる

けではない。現

た

の

を

な

ている。米国の

で

た、 下

テ

に

にも

から
業

成

を

た。さ

とも不

を

ている

目の下層

は 4.4

で

が、

る。

の

していない。

上の問題は、いくつかの

な

影響を

間、
的

の

意が

共

果をもたらす。 会的には、

の

の 10

の大

が

ーと

の

は

し、

は

は、

には

者

の有

える。現在、者る。

に取られてしえ、不平ている。そして、などの問題に対する有
で

り

なる

に

な

の
な

り

ムはそれ

問題がないためでに、アジアの

ー

ムの

ー

ライ

H&M などのフ

協

ス

に

からさらに

の

が提

に影響する。たと対的ではなく、 した。

ムはていないと論られた。

しているからでる。

がン

ランド、Uber、のとな、グローバル化ーイング 787

ーンに広く普及し、 くルドなどのフス

Airbnb などの IT

フード
ー

ーン、

ス

ロバイ

についても言及された。2016 年 12 月現在施行

がの FTA は 18目されたのは、 太平洋戦略的経済

く 11 か国は、米国が化させる、iPhone 6

ライ

日

している。

協力の現
済

られた。

された。たとえフールの大きさを

平国

を不

い

に

ていない。1 つには、

ーが政

に、マクド

する

を

、交

中は 79

、

は

協 （TPP）から米国が

した

協

に

けた

した
を開

し

る。

に、グローバル化と不平等の関者をすることで、 進国

者には

ンジ

者を

ーが行

ど問題とはなテされた。

（FTA）お

る。 に

ンテ

に

されている FTA は 286

経

テ

すのは

から、グローバル化が現在のーもグローバル化のス

が、米国を

ス

ーマ

していることが

たことで

10 年

化にはさらなる政る。2 つ目には、中国の

ーはアイ

で

お

で

ンテ

しもグローバル化の問題とはな

グローバル化については、産業
の

のアイ

に

りとしていたが、現在はムについての議論もをとるため、

アジアには大の者を下はらしている。

している。この度に影響を及なにアジアでは、2 つの

らない

者の

ングルマ

の

る。

に、 界中のさ

22

し、

アと

について

ルー

がもたらされた。たとえ

ラー

された。
者の

が

、iPhone の者にもたらされたが、中国の－ 23 －

業者の取り

業では開

上国の

金

れた

も

るが、

者

の大

は米国の

フ

ア

は

と

た。

に、

なか

ー

ス

でもグローバル化の業は、業者から事業

果には

会を

が

る。

に

が

るが、 しい

ている

している大
ジ

国

ス

ルと事業

ももたらしている。
この議論では、論をめないの 2 つのランスなどでのムグローバル化はしていくのか、とい決策はアン成させるかがい論セ

問で問のテーマとな
は、
と
が

す

す

セ

者の大

クと

見る

る

の

た。

の産
から

者の経済

が

れていると論しにくいといたく

大の影響力が

る

の

を

意が

ー

ーの 1

解されていない
団

に

る
の対

げた。

者の

（residual location）の
に

した。

に

の産

果が提

された。

を

を

化では、 一

と
業

の

界が

る

す力）についされた。現在の

き、

では

できる。つ

として今

も

資産

こと。研究者は、

り、影響は

は

大すると

た。1 つは、者

クの影響をどの

に

者の

取

と、不

ータセ

を

することでこの

からイン

ンターの

有とその

ード

ルの

（variation）をした戦略と、産

のさ

な

ンクする

化し、 にジ

的を的課題について言及が

化する上で

業

産 （

こと。2 つ目は

産

下を、等と政策対応のがいくとおりにも解研究の 2 つの経問題を解決した。さらに、研究者は不の的な成長」の意

業は

とその

との関

らかではないとい取グローバル化の解化しているとも言及された。問題

の

を

研究者は、

り、今

た。

アジアなどの国際的な

取

めに、

では

が

者の
に

は

化するかが

ースター

ーは、米国政がドイ

力にの問題について議論した。ス

、現在の

き、

きが

者は

た。

、

て議論された。議論では
ないと論

もの

国、フ

テクノロジーは解決策となるか

ン 3 では資産ー大しているとン3

る、といではないのに、スー

のス

1

としては、

セ

ン

しい現

ていた。も

で

的

た。2 つ目は、アン的な成長を実現させるための

た。セ

は

に現れた政

ると提案されているが、
「

に不

ンでは、

げられた。1 つ目は、米国、グローバル化の的な成長（inclusive growth）で

それをど

問が

での

（variation）にかか

者間、そして大などのさした。 に研究者は、 スク－ 24 －

な

の
を

いて

に

る問題を解
者間を

産

る

するた

した。
ク

（the risk preferences channel）とは

の

し、

が上

したことは

し

が

下すると、

、

それに

関して、

るために、
ムア

」

は

意

論を

スク回

とは関

論について

者の

者の

者の

は

す

力ではなく意くなる。ここから、

くな

し、 業

ていることがでロジ

クがないことをのらかにした。

の

を

下が

し、

を

された。さらに、

を

する

こり、

を

け

者は「
ていることがされた。
に、いくつかの研究成果が
り、

の資産

が

かにな

た。

で、

か

された。たとえ

たりする
が上

者は、

、 外の
の下

することは、

者の

ンが

れていた

に

ではないことがら

産力に影響していなかた。
テクノロジーが、実が提の解決策となるのかとい

金の

的な上

など、どのテクノロジーが解決策となりされた。テクノロジーのに大きくすることが強

」とい

え

間の行

をアル

ムで

えるとい

ムで

共有経済、アグテなど、これらす
なものを

な資

たり、

を

と
的な

に、

、その行

を

ク、フ

ンテ

ク、ロ

てがこの

テ

ーに

と

な

ーグル

ー

の

化も実現した。この会に普及すれ
ンの

し

IA の
を

ル

ー

問

、テクノロジーの

ーテ

された。こ

目されたのは、 間の行、 大できるといことでクス、 ノのインター

る。アル

ム

資

について

はその

ム

る。

（IoT）
、

は、

れている。

は、

の大

を

な資

ング テクノロジーに見られる

（AI）の

を 40

な、

大とな

けながら

たの

力を 15

スク

になるかが
度の

事をする
が

を
ン

、グ

でなく、グーグ

するなど
ー

スなどの

で一

。

間の

度な

が議論された。たとえの上し、なテクノロジーが

、影響力は

ことを

テ

ログラムは、 界有てならないこととして、日米では
者から

るか、とい

として

る。 に

となると言

ン

）となるため、
を

たる促進

、 換、

として

りには、AI はaugmentation

下、

する。

マインドの

ータセンターの

セ

ド

力の実

ル

会、経済、政力を有してきたが、アル

のクラ
現を意

の

もので

換することで
する

界

力の

が、

すれ

し

換する

の

の

された。

ム

をアル

に

開と普及は、に、「アルれは問に関しては、経済成長、 産者は議された。AI は IA（intelligence
に取り

になるとい

られるのではなく、

意見が

た。

に

れ

なることも言及された。米国ではテクノロジーがしているが、日はテクノロジーを－ 25 －

して

力不

を

こ

とを

でいる。

事業に対する、テクノロジーの強とした国際的
年で

の

事業を

を

えた日
下

55

が、日

の

ジメン

は 20 年

なか

の

た、

ジタルス

なか

た。その上、 ジタル関がイノ金た。2 つ目は、金れ、その 56 が

かか

関

を

を

し

クとの提

界平

では

ンス、 スクマ

ンド関

の

の金

界平

、

の不

実

ンテ

では 15

が、日
が、日

スの

大に

ンテ

ンテ

クは
を

、 バイル、 ー
に、日

の金

を

なフ

クの

関はフ

け

れる

関に
は6

化

に

た。3 つ目は、金3 年から 5 年の
金

ンド

り

で

ク関

事業

資

の、対年

ない。 た、フ

ンテ

ク

の年間

度は

ジ

アを問
ンテ

クの

している。それから、テクノロジーの進

界の

ンテ
に

ない。日
の回

の金

関の大

の金

関は

） ジタル

を

－ 26 －

者が

と

クの
セ

の

で
テ

に（インタ

することにはていかに事業をー

では 58 がフ

との対
な

る

関はフ

ンテ
は

、に

の金

しているのに対し、日

に対するさ
に

ンテ

ルの

く6

的に、日

に、

業とフ

している。その上、 界ではフしているが、日

ンテ

め

ス

るフ

に資すると

している。
ルメ

は今

もしている。 界では 60

クは
とも

ジメン

ははるかに

に資すると
の

ているとい

た。4 つ目は、大、マ、金について、 なる

ことをも

業、資産

す

でおり、その 82でいることで

では 20

りフ

れて

果

行業、

えていることでている。たとえ界平クのグローバル

に

クのメ

いる。

く、実際、 界

ンテ

らの戦略の

ンテ

ー

る

の CEO はをすることも学
を見

テ

らかにな

ー

が

が、日

の

クを

ライバ

ら

えた米国の CEO は 71

関は

関がフ

アを

り

スク、 バ

を

に、日

は

に

えた CEO は

ーターに

た。

は

の 38

行業、

していることで

間

ているかも

問では、

た。1 つは、決済

る課題に

ことが

5

た。

業の 88

業は、セ

は今

から事業の

れをと

ルに長けていると

ていると

が

ク

についての

た。これは、 界平

な

ンテ

は、

がいかに

なか

された。いくつかの重

フ

的

に

に実施した、フ

関は提が、テクノロジーの進

えている。

成長

に、71 か国の 1,300

けり

12 か月の、た。

、CEO を対ている。その業界がテクノロジーにしながら、日の対応策をすでに

に

とな

果を強

は 29 にていることでもンドのの CEO ので業などのをるなど、テクノロジーのの CEO は 14

でも

が

させると

する CEO のかにされた。今47された。米国 CEO の 86

されると
では、日

る影響についても議論された。

果がえる 5 つのグローバルメ

り

と

りつつ

れて

について

進するかとい

問

が

された。
の

は業界の一

は、 識、

力、行
れる事業

と

に

ンセ

ンバ

の事業

開は、

している。その
に、M-ラ
ンセ

を

ン

ーで

とも

された。日

ーの

タイ

進に

に

る、 かな

を

ンバ

ク

ンバ

ーで開

ことで

ーから

戦略を

している。そ

とフ

ージ

テ

かつ

に

えを

一

ジタル

ールを

と

、 に、日

と

ンバ

の問題に

していると

ーは

の

、 にフ

ンテ

クなどの

での

業

に

的で
て、

る。日

の

す

が
が

とが重

アには

を

そ

が重

業は各

どの

的になるためには、でンバの事業では、

も日

ーの

ンバ
な

の

がテーマとな
た。 のス
とな

が

な

を果たすとい

に

的な
と

するなどの

る。

－ 27 －

を

るが、日

意的な

の

も米国とは

ていると
間とい
は
なる。

することで解決策を見

についての
に

ー

についても言及された。たとえ

とする

者の
を

ているこ

化がないとも言及された。資金とている進のために、日

る。これは

れる

的に

ー）
」とい

に、

ーの

業は言

フォル

す

る。

は、日

、

ている。

えられている。その実現には、各国のさな間のバランスをとルしている。

ーに強い関心を
アを学

ス

関

ーの 1

な

ジ

させているかをー重クにステムの 1 つとな

しいアイ

のさ

け

に

る、 平

ンバ

で

を

に、

事の「M-

された

が

には

が、

として、

した「AKXY」は、い協力関えた。 た日

え

る。

た。ス
言い

した

の一

と

業がテクノロジー
もできると

となるの

れた。その 1 つが「AKXY（アク

化成が開

に

論では、

る。

ーの

し、 業

業の

ンバ

り

一

り、提案を重ねて、

は

ロジ

する

間の

業は

ステム
間での

業

が

ンでは、日

し、経

ステムを

る。化学

なことは、
を

ル

セ

力に

き行

提

するもので、のけではなく、

に

業がいかに

広く

した。

いていることで果、M-ラのため、いくつかの

ロ

を

フォームに

業の
は

の解

ラ

は

な

いている。M-ラ
を

する。

ーの

された。M-ラの問題

えられる。 識とはテクノロジーのノ

された

業が

」が

と

ルをも意

策は、

に
ラ

の3

に
ついて学

を取り上げて、上化をにつながる。
にするこ（）English Summary drafted by Asia Pacific Research Center (APARC)
Summary

US-Japan Forum 2017
Economic Policy Challenges in the US and JapanOn June 2, 2017, the 2017 US-Japan Forum was held at Stanford University. The forum started with
opening remarks from Takeo Hoshi, Director of the Japan Program at Stanford’s Asia Pacific ResearchCenter (APARC), and Kazumasa Kusaka, Chairman and CEO of the Japan Economic Foundation (JEF).
The forum discussed three main topics: growth strategy; populism, globalization, and social equity; andtechnology innovation.

Session One: Growth Strategies of the US and JapanThe first session provided an overview of the current status of the Japanese economy. The real side of
the Japanese economy is doing well: the economy expanded by 2.2% in the first quarter of 2017, above
the expected growth potential; with an unemployment rate of 2.8%, Japan is close to full employment;
nominal wages also increased by 2%; and although the working age population has been declining by
1% each year, it has been made up by increasing labor force participation of the female and elderly. In
particular, female labor force participation rate has reached a historical high, even surpassing that of theUS.
Yet the Japanese economy is also facing challenges. First of all, the inflation rate is still near zero,suggesting that Japan’s QQE policy might be reaching its limit. Secondly, the Japanese government has
high fiscal deficits, with a debt-to-GDP ratio as high as 240%. Meanwhile, despite the increase innominal wages, real wages are not rising enough, which can lead to weak domestic consumption.
Finally, Japan continues to face a severe labor shortage problem due to its demographic transition.
To address the above challenges, the third arrow of Abenomics, namely the growth strategies to increase
productivity and wages, was proposed. Several key areas were pointed out that need structural reforms.
First of all, Japan needs to improve the global competiveness of its workers through education and labor
reforms, in particular, by increasing the workers’ English proficiency and IT skills, as well as byintroducing a more flexible hiring and firing system. Secondly, to optimize capital allocation, Japanneeds a capital market reform to improve its corporate governance and pension fund management.

－ 28 －

Thirdly, Japan needs to further open up its domestic market, especially its agriculture sector such as therice and dairy product industries, to promote international trade. Finally, the medical and healthcare
industry also needs a reform to lower Japanese people’s medical expenditure but not lower the quality.
Following the topic of debt, a model of how excessive debt in the private and public sector can lead topersistent stagnation was proposed after a review of Japan’s debt problem in history. During the highgrowth era in the 1980s, Japan’s debt problem took the form of asset bubbles. After the bubble economy
collapsed in the early 1990s, the Japanese economy was then plagued by non-performing loans. And as
the non-performing loans problem began to be resolved in the early 2000s, Japan’s public debt has been
rising since then and is exploding in the 2010s. A new model was then developed in which excessive
debt can depress the economy persistently and simulation results were shown in comparison to the US
and Japanese economic data.
This model then has several policy implications for economic growth. Since private-sector debt may
cause persistent stagnation, like the case of Japan in the 1990s, debt reduction may be the direction to gofor. In particular, for corporate or household debt, bank recapitalization and write-off of non-performing
loans as well as debt forgiveness and restructuring of the borrowers could be helpful. On the other hand,for public debt which may also cause persistent stagnation, fiscal consolidation is the way out.
Nevertheless, the current policymakers may not have the incentive to implement fiscal consolidation
since it is an inter-generational investment by nature: while the current generation pays the cost, i.e.,higher tax, it is the future generation that enjoys the return, i.e., economic stability. Therefore, it isnecessary to have a political reform to create an independent fiscal agency that represents the interestsof the future generation.
Management practice is another area that speaks to the third arrow of Abenomics aimed to increase
productivity. The World Management Survey (WMS) dataset provides valuable information. Thissurvey is carried out by a 30-person survey team every three years and has covered more than 20,000
firms since 2002. There are three key components of the survey methodology. First, researchersdeveloped scorecard for 18 management practices, covering such topics as track of performance,
targeting, and the promotion system. This information is then collected through a 45-minute phoneinterview with the plant managers. Second, to get firms into the interview, this survey is introduced as a“lean-manufacturing” interview without any financial details. Meanwhile, this study has received
official endorsement, such as from the Deutsche Bundesbank, the Reserve Bank of India, the World
Bank, etc. Third, this survey uses a “double-blind” method to obtain unbiased comparable responses:
interviewers do not know in advance the company’s performance and managers are not informed inadvance that they are scored.
The survey results reveal the impacts of management practices on economic performance. Overall, a－ 29 －

huge spread is found in management practices across firms and countries. Furthermore, the managementscores are positively correlated with measures of firm performance such as productivity, profit, output
growth, export, R&D per employee, and patents per employee. To examine whether a causal
relationship exists, the researchers then conduct a randomized control trial and find that on averagemanagement practices account for 31.4% of total factor productivity. For Japan, however, this number isonly 8.82%, far below other OECD countries.
This project also has policy implications. First, foreign direct investment should be encouraged, because
multinational firms tend to bring good management practices to wherever they are located. Second,since family-run and government firms are found to have poorer management, promoting professional
ownership can be helpful. Third, raise the education level of both non-managers and managers, as
higher education seems linked to better management. Finally, deregulation may also help, as moreregulations are correlated with less effective management practices. In particular, it is suggested that
attracting multinationals and minimizing regulations are more relevant for Japan, while the U.S. should
consider improving education and also minimizing regulations.
The first session concluded with a comparative analysis on growth strategies in the US and Japan. The
reason why growth is important is that it helps solve the problems of debt, income inequality, among
many others. As an example, the work of Raj Chetty shows that while growth is slow, the ability ofchildren to surpass their parents drops significantly.
Then a comparative overview of growth around the world was provided. First, it is emphasized that the
US and Japan are still the richest countries in per capita terms, well ahead of other large economies suchas China and India. Nevertheless, the contribution of developed countries to gross world product has
indeed been diminishing. The decrease mainly comes from Europe and the share of Japan has remained
almost the same.
There are several reasons why other countries have been catching up. On the one hand, the quality andquantity of labor in developed countries are not sufficient to sustain growth – they are not only fallingbehind in education, but also their people work less on average. Besides, the room for growth is muchsmaller today since most US and Japanese large firms have already adopted the good management
practices that greatly increase productivity. On the other hand, Asia is developing rapidly because they
are investing a lot in capital, labor, and technology. They are at an advantageous position as they canleverage the existing ideas in developed countries.
The first secession concluded by speaking to the future. Three different views of innovation werementioned: the pessimistic view that all innovations are past, the positive view that technology is thekey, and the classical knowledge diffusion view. In particular, attention was paid to the relationship－ 30 －

between demographics and entrepreneurship. It seems that younger countries have higher levels ofentrepreneurship, probably because younger people are more creative and they are not given enoughopportunities in large companies. Finally, the policy package of the Trump administration was discussed.
Among all the measures, tax cuts, deficit reduction, and deregulation in certain areas are on the agenda
of Trump. Yet he is not doing enough on many key issues such as investment, trade, rule of law, good
governance, and especially immigration.
In the Q&A session, participants discussed the key issue of how to increase the productivity of labor,
capital, etc., in the US and Japan. For example, when answering the question why structural reform has
been slow in Japan, one speaker mentioned how the political system had been unfavorable for reforms,
and another speaker pointed out how the low interest rate had suppressed people’s inventive to change.
Much discussion also went around demographics and innovation. It is considered important to get older
workers back into labor force. Participants also talked about the impact of automation. There isincreasing skepticism as labor productivity seems to remain low despite technology improvement.
Finally, it is mentioned that large companies may be one of the factors of declining entrepreneurship andtherefore it is important to help small- and medium-sized firms do better.

Session Two: Globalization and Inequality
The second session started with a discussion on the definition of inequality from different perspectives.
While economists view inequality as a problem because of the welfare loss from a utilitarian approach,common people perceive inequality as when they do not get things they deserve or someone get things
they do not deserve. It is from this point that tension arises and why it is difficult to measure inequality
both temporally and geographically. For example, it used to cost $2,000 to buy the Encyclopedia
Britannica, but now everyone has free access to Wikipedia – and this change is not entering any
economic statistics. Also, although there has been a trend of convergence among global population since
1976, it is only due to the catch-up of China and India.
Discussions also went around the causes of inequality in the era of globalization. The causes of thedecline in manufacturing employment in the U.S. can be decomposed into several parts – manufacturing
employment dropped from 30% to 12% because the U.S. failed to improve its education along withtechnology. The rate further dropped from 12% to 9% because of the fiscal policy mistakes during theReagan and Bush administrations. The China shock then explains the decrease from 9% to 8.7% and the
NAFTA accounts for the rest from 8.7% to 8.6%. That is to say, technology and education are the realcauses of inequality, and globalization is just a scapegoat.
After an empirical description, the social and political implications of globalization and inequality were

－ 31 －

discussed. Two differences between the US and Japan as well as other OECD countries were pointed out.
Firstly, poverty in the US is associated with ethnicity and political parties. For instance, although whitemales in the South are the largest beneficiaries of Obamacare, they voted against their own interests infavor of racial and ethnic minorities. Moreover, poverty is not the pure driver of inequality. Instead of
the poorest population, it is the second-to-bottom class who lose their positions are most unsatisfied
with the current situation. Secondly, inequality in the US is related to gender division. The official
unemployment rate is 4.4%, yet male labor force participation has not risen.
The above issues have several consequences. Socially, the drop in male labor force participation has
huge negative effects on families. Now there are a majority of white teenagers living with single
mothers. Also, drug abuse has been rising and life expectancy decreasing in the past decade for theworking class males. This change has further political implications. The Democrats used to rely on theworking class voters, but now they are losing supporters to the Republicans. And identity could be thechannel – it is the perceived unfairness rather than absolute poverty that affects voters’ attitudes towards
issues such as immigration.
Finally, discussion was also held about the varieties of populism around the world. It is argued that
populism has not become a globalization problem because it takes different forms in different regions.
In particular, two factors render populism less an issue in Asia. It is partly because there is no large-scale
immigration in Asia, and partly because Asian country leaders, such as Xi of China and Abe of Japan,
are good at mobilizing nationalism in a way such that identity is not a destabilizing factor.
More insights on globalization was then offered from an industry perspective. First, an overview about
the manufacturing and service sectors in a globalized era was provided. For instance, the supplier mapof an iPhone 6 or a Boeing 787 well demonstrates that globalization has been widely spread and deeply
rooted in today’s supply chains. Similarly, fast food chains such as McDonald’s, fast fashion brands
such as H&M, and IT service providers such as Uber and Airbnb also speak to the magnitude ofglobalization.
The current landscape of free trade agreements (FTAs) and regional cooperation is also mentioned. As
of December 2016, there are 286 FTAs that are in effect, with additional 18 agreed but not ratified, 79 in
negotiation, and 22 in preparation. In particular, although the US abandoned the Trans-PacificPartnership (TPP), the remaining 11 nations are working together ahead while leaving the door open for
the US.
Finally, the relationship between globalization and inequality was addressed. In the manufacturingindustry, the utilization of cheap labors in developing countries might have deprived developed
countries of blue-collar workers, but has also created profits for designers and managers. For example,－ 32 －

the bulk of value-added of iPhones goes to the software engineers and designers in the US, while
manufacturers in China receive a much smaller proportion. Similarly, the effect of globalization is also
two-sided in the service industry. Although large multinational companies entering local markets might
deprive local merchants of business opportunities, they are also bringing new business models andvalues.
This discussion raised two open-ended questions for discussion: first, whether globalization will slow
down due to the political pressure as embodied in the rise of nationalism and anti-globalism in the US,
Britain, France, etc.; second, it is proposed that inclusive growth is the solution to anti-globalism, but it
is still unclear what inclusive growth stands for and how to achieve that.
In the open discussion session, questions focused on the implications of income equality and policy
measures to achieve inclusive growth. Participants talked about the issue of the overclass. One speaker
thought that superstar firms are not understood well, even though the overclass is not a newphenomenon. Another speaker said that American politics is increasingly dominated by the mostpowerful interest groups. It is also mentioned that the role of unions has been declining. As for how toaddress the problem, most of them referred to international examples such as Germany and East Asia.

Session Three: Is Technology the Answer?
The last session started with a discussion on employees’ economic security and their innovation
productivity. The discussion started by pointing out the limitation of the current conceptual framework,in which the relationship between household wealth shocks and employee innovation is ambiguous:
some argue there is no effect, some argue for a decrease in innovation, yet still others argue there will be
an increase in innovation. Then two empirical challenges of the study were mentioned: first, it isdifficult to measure employee innovation output; second, it is unclear how to identify the effect of
housing wealth shocks. The researchers overcome the difficulties by constructing a unique dataset thatlinks employees’ patent output with their housing transactions from deed records. Moreover, they
identify home ownership of inventors and their precise residual location using deed records and thenexploit zip-code level variation in housing prices.
Then the identification strategy and main results with different measures of innovation output were
presented. The identification compares employees within the same firm and metropolitan areas toalleviate the concerns regarding variation across firms and geographical locations. The researchers firstobserve a decrease in innovation following housing price shocks using different metrics, such as numberof patent, citation of patent, etc. They then find that inconsistent with the risk preferences channel,
increases in housing prices are not correlated with employees’ risk aversion. Instead, consistent with thedecreased willingness rather than ability to innovate theory, decreases in housing prices lead to lower－ 33 －

probability of employees’ departure from the firm. It suggests that employees are less willing toinnovate due to desire to maintain job security and avoid fault. It further suggests that employees haveautonomy within firms to select projects, in support of the “bottom-up” innovation theory.
Finally, there are several additional results of the study. For example, it is found that employees with
better outside option or more equity in the house are less sensitive to house price declines. On the other
hand, increase in housing prices does not affect employees’ innovation productivity.
As for the question if technology is the answer, several questions to which technology may be theanswer, such as economic growth, productivity slowdown, income inequality, and sustained rises in real
wages, were proposed. It is then emphasized that technological deployment and diffusion depends
largely on specific social, economic, political, or technological context.
The idea of the “Algorithmic Revolution” was then introduced as the core driver behind innovation. It
refers to the transformation of human activities with algorithms. In particular, once human activities arealgorithms, they can be split apart, transformed, recombined, and magnified. Sharing economy, Agritech,
Fintech, robotics, Internet of things, Artificial Intelligence, etc., all fall into this category. It is said thatthe algorithmic revolution is enabled by the transformation of computing resources from scare toabundant resource. Although human beings have the ability to store and process information throughout
most of the history, it is the advent of computing power, such as the global-scale cloud computing
technology, that transforms information into abundant resource.
Finally, artificial intelligence (AI) was discussed in details as an example to demonstrate the power ofabundant computing. For example, Google’s Deep Mind not only beat the world’s best Go players, butalso optimized the cooling of Google’s datacenters such that energy efficiency is increased by 40% andelectricity consumption decreased by 15%. If such technology becomes available to the general public,
such as in the form of a subscription service, the impact would be enormous.
In the end, the discussion addressed the debate whether AI could replace humans. One answer was that
AI could be turned into IA, intelligence augmentation, so that low skilled workers would not be replacedby machines but rather provide high skilled work with the help of IA. Last not but least, it is alsomentioned that the US and Japanese contexts are different: while the US is worried of technology
robbing workers of jobs, Japan hopes to leverage technology to fill its labor shortage.
Technology’s growing influence on business was also discussed. First, the results of an international
survey of CEOs were introduced. Technological breakthrough is the top of the five global megatrends
that are fundamentally disrupting business, with 86% of US CEOs saying that technological advances
will transform their business over the next five years. The proportion of CEOs who expect their－ 34 －

industries to be reshaped by technology becomes larger than 20 years ago.
The survey also showed how Japan is lagging behind by highlighting the results of Japanese CEOs.
When asked about their confidence in their company’s growth prospect over the next 12 months, only
14% of Japanese CEOs are very confident, lower than the 38% global average and actually ranking
among the lowest. Also, only 29% of Japanese CEOs said they have strong digital skills, as compared to
the global average of 55%. Besides, while 71% of US CEOs are already addressing the risks arounddigital, governance, and risk management, only 47% of their Japanese counterparts are doing so.
Then the results of another survey on the global trends of Fintech with over 1300 respondents from 71
countries were shared. There are several key insights: first, 88% of existing financial businesses, such as
payments, banking, insurance, and wealth management, are increasingly concerned they are losing
revenue to innovators; second, financial institutions are embracing the disruptive nature of Fintech, with
56% of them having put disruption at the heart of their strategy; third, financial institutions are also
learning to partner and integrate, with 82% of them expecting to increase Fintech partnerships in thenext three to five years; fourth, incumbents and Fintech companies are facing challenges around security,
regulatory uncertainty, and differences in their management, culture, business models.
Finally, it is revealed that financial institutions in Japan are embracing Fintech at a slower pace than the
global trend. For example, Japanese financial institutions only invest 6% of their annual revenue in
Fintech-related matters, as compared to the global average of 15%. Also, only 6% of their expectedannual return on investment is related to Fintech, much lower than the global average of 20%. Japanesefinancial institutions also have different expectations on the benefits of Fintech: while globally 60% of
respondents expect Fintech to help grow revenue by expanding products and services, in Japan 58%
expect Fintech to help reduce headcount costs. Besides, while globally respondents worry most aboutloss of market share with the advent of Fintech, the majority of Japanese respondents worry about
information security and privacy threat. Overall, Japanese financial institutions are slower in adopting
digital channels, whether it is web-based, mobile, or social media, to interact with customers. Finally,
Japanese financial institutions also report different regulatory barriers to innovation in Fintech. From
there, a question was asked of how to promote business along with the development of technology.
The last presentation answered to the above question by providing an industry example. Three points are
considered fundamental to innovation: knowledge, creativity, and action. Knowledge not only refers totechnology knowhow, but also creative business models. Creativity then requires that the connectedideas are based on diversity and a well-designed innovation platform. Finally, the best way to learn
about innovation is through action of concepts and accumulation of experiences.
Then the M-Lab of Mitsubishi Corporation was introduced as an example of how business can tap into

－ 35 －

the Silicon Valley ecosystem. M-Lab adopts a horizontal integration strategy by promoting collaboration
across different industries. Its business development is based on solid research and feasibility checkwith industry experts from various member companies. Through much prototyping and presenting,
M-Lab then creates business models with speed and flexibility. Eventually, M-Lab also becomes part of
the Silicon Valley ecosystem.
In particular, several sample projects were used to demonstrate how the member companies of M-Lab
are collaborating with each other and connecting ideas from different industries. One of them is aconcept car called AKXY. It is developed by the chemical company Asahi-Kasei to showcase a widearray of automotive-related materials and technologies. The concept car utilizes the digital tools
developed in the Silicon Valley.
The final session also showed the strong interests of Japanese companies in technology and the Silicon
Valley. It is believed that while Japanese firms learn new ideas there, they can also contribute to thewhole Silicon Valley ecosystem. For that to work, there needs a better alignment among different
regulatory agencies across countries.
The last discussion session focused on various factors of innovation, and especially the difference
between Japan and the Silicon Valley. One speaker mentioned that Japanese companies face language
obstacles, and another speaker added that regulatory barriers, especially in emerging fields such as
Fintech, also constrain Japanese firms. It is further mentioned that the Japanese miss a culture of
accepting failures. The discussion also mentioned the uniqueness of the Silicon Valley that there is abalance between key factors such as money and people. For example, California has a customer basethat is very willing to try new products, while Japanese consumers are quite conservative. Japan also
differs from the US in that organizations play a critical role in business. Therefore, to promote
innovation, Japanese companies have to come up with solutions by having innovative people in eachorganization. This point speaks to the presentation around employees’ job security and innovation. It istherefore important to establish a favorable culture, such as tolerance of failures, in organizations forthem to be innovative.

－ 36 －

.

資

Session 1 日米 成
Growth Strategies of the US and Japan
Nicholas Bloom (Stanford University)（
一

Session 2

ロンア大学国際関

（

共政策大学

大学経済学

ー

）

）

平

Globalization and Inequality
一

Session 3

（

資

開

会

取

長）

ー
Is Technology the Answer? (or Will Silicon Valley Save the World?)（PwC ンターー－ 37 －

ドー）Session1 Nicolas Bloom

Management and the Wealth of Nations
Nick Bloom (Stanford)
based on work with Renata Lemos (World Bank),
Raffaella Sadun (Harvard), Daniela Scur (Oxford)& John Van Reenen (LSE/MIT)
Stanford June 2nd 2017Management research has a bad reputationof being airport books and case studies…
No potential driving factor
of productivity has seen ahigher ratio of speculation
to empirical study－ 38 －

art of a research group looking scientificall atmanagement, and summari e 1ears research

World Management Surve has covered morethan 20,000 firms since 2002

－ 39 －

arried out b surve teams of about 0
people about ever three ears (London 200 )Surve methodolog (Bloom & Van Reenen, 2007,
1) Developing management uestions

2)

etting firms to participate in the interview－ 40 －JE)

Surve methodolog (Bloom & Van Reenen, 2007,

JE)

1) Developing management uestions

2)

etting firms to participate in the interview) Obtaining unbiased comparable responses, Double blind－ 41 －Example monitoring uestion, scored based on a number ofuestions starting with How is performance tracked?”
Score (1) Measures
tracked do notindicate directl
if overallbusiness
ob ectives arebeing met Man
processes aren t
tracked at all( ) Most ke
performanceindicators
are tracked
formall
Tracking isoverseen bseniormanagement( ) erformance iscontinuousl
tracked andcommunicated,both formall andinformall , to all
staff using a rangeof visualmanagement tools

Note

Examples of performance metrics－ 42 －ar lant

Example incentives uestion, scored based on uestions
starting with How does t e promotion s stem work?”
Score (1) eople arepromotedprimaril upon
the basis oftenure,irrespective ofperformance(abilit & effort)( ) eople( ) We activel
are promoted identif , develop
primariland promote ourupon thetop performers
basis ofperformance

Note

Wide spread of management in manufacturingnited StatesJapan－ 43 －

Management also varies heavil within countries

raction of irms

Total

irm level average management scores, 1 (worst practice) to(best practice)

So we find a huge spread in management
practices across firms and countries…

… but does this matter－ 44 －

These management scores are positivel corre atedwith firm performance

Of course this correlation ma not be causal
So I ve also been working with the World Bankon management randomi ed control trial－ 45 －

ulling all our data together we estimate
management accounts 1/ cross countr T

Source) Drivers and polic

how can we raise growth－ 46 －gaps

ROMOTE DI M LTIN TION LS
HIEVE OOD
M N
EMENT R TI ES WHEREVER THE LO

TE

ROMOTE RO ESSION L OWNERSHIMIL R N NDOVERNMENT IRMS O TEN H VE OOR M N
EMENT－ 47 －

R ISE ED
TION OR NON M N
E R LIN ED TO BETTER M N
Non managers

ERS ND M N
EMENT

ERS

Managers

ercentage of emplo ees with a college degree ( )Management practices

MINIMI E RE
L TIONS THESE RE ORREL TED WITH
LESS E E TIVE M N
EMENT R TI ES

World Bank Doing Business Rank (1 easiest)
Note－ 48 －

onclusions

More research, polic briefs & media available here
www worldmanagementsurve com－ 49 －

Session1 伊藤隆敏

Growth Strategy of Japan 2017:
The Invisible Third Arrow Needs a New Bow

Takatoshi Ito
Professor, School of International and Public Affairs,
Columbia University
JEF-APARC conference at Stanford
June 2, 2017

Takeaways• Japanese economy as of March (Q1), 2017,• The real side of the economy is doing well
• But, the inflation rate is far below the 2% target• Challenges• Fiscal. High fiscal deficits and debt-to-GDP ratio (240%)• Real wages. w are not rising even at π<3%  C is weak
• Demography  Adverse, aggregate supply and demand• Need higher productivity & potential growth (3rd arrow)• 3rd Arrow (Need Higher productivity and compensations)• Need globally competitive workers English proficiency & IT skills
 Education reform  Labor reform• Need better allocation of Capital  Corporate gov reform &pension fund reform• Need more FTAs  agricultural reform  Introduce market
mechanism• Need medical and health care Medical reform

2017/06/02(c) Takatoshi Ito -- Columbia U－ 50 －

2

Japanese E c onom y
The real side is doing well
• Japanese economy as of March (Q1), 2017,• Growing at or above potential (g(2017Q1)= 2.2%)• Full employment (u= 2.8 %)• ut in lation rate is still near % (π＝0.2%)• Nominal wage increase is around 2% or above (⊿w= 2%)• W orking age pop declining 1% a year (⊿L＝－1%）• W omen and elderly participation rates increasing• W omen participation rate (all ages): now Japan> US

2017/06/02(c) Takatoshi Ito -- Columbia U

3Japanese E c onom y
C hallenges• QQE is reaching at its limit and no inflationary sign
• Ex it problem• High fiscal deficits and debt-to-GDP ratio (240%)•(
3 trillion yen• New
issues (udget 3 . trillion ( . %• General Gov liability (2015 ): 1,29 6 trillion (241%)• Real wages are not rising even at π<3%  C is weak
• Demographic transition  I is weak
• Need higher productivity & potential growth (3rd arrow)

2017/06/02(c) Takatoshi Ito -- Columbia U－ 51 －

4

Need Growth Strategy:
H igher produ c tivity & wages• Need globally competitive workers•  English proficiency & IT skills•  Education reform•  Labor reform• Need better allocation of Capital•  Corporate gov reform & pension fund reform• Need more FTAs

•  agricultural reform•  Introduce market mechanism• Need better medical & health care•  medical reform

2017/06/02(c) Takatoshi Ito -- Columbia U

5

R eform s:
W hy, H ow and C onseq u enc es• Human capital with English proficiency• IT-skilled workers• Education reform for ex perts• Labor reform• Flex ible hiring and firing• Capital allocation• Corporate gov reform & pension fund reform• FTAs and Agriculture• Introduce market mechanism• Medical & health care
2017/06/02(c) Takatoshi Ito -- Columbia U－ 52 －

6

Session1 小林

慶一郎

Debt and Economic Growth
Keiichiro Kobayashi
Keio University, CIGS, RIETI, Tokyo Foundation

June 2, 2017 @ JEF-APRC, Stanford 2017

1 / 14

Japan• 1980s

High economic growth (Boom):

Asset bubbles• 1990s

Low economic growth (Stagnation): Nonperforming loans• 2000s

Low economic growth (Stagnation): Public debt

2 / 14－ 53 －

“Secular stagnation” in Japan
Real and potential GDPϱϬϬƚƌŝůůŝŽŶǇĞŶϲϬWŽƚĞŶƚŝĂů'W
ϰϬ

ϰϱϬ

ϮϬ

ϰϬϬ

Ϭ

ϯϱϬ

ͲϮϬ

ϱϱϬ

ƚƌŝůůŝŽŶ ǇĞŶ'WŐĂƉ;ƌŝŐŚƚƐĐĂůĞͿZĞĂů'WϯϬϬͲϰϬ;YƵĂƌƚĞƌůǇͿ
ͲϲϬ






































ϮϱϬ

Sources: Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, “Annual Report on National Accounts”

3 / 14

Asset prices: land and stocks


1980=100/DQGYDOXH 61$
1LNNHLVWRFNSULFH







                 
Sources: Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, “Annual Report on National Accounts”, The Nikkei.

4 / 14－ 54 －

Nonperforming loans-to-GDP ratio

%

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

2014

2012

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

(Fiscal Year)

Sources: Financial Services Agency,Status of Non-Performing Loans; Cabinet Office, Government of Japan,Annual Report on
National Accounts.

5 / 14

Public debt














































Source: OECD, Economic Outlook No.100

6 / 14－ 55 －

Does excessive debt depress the economy persistently?
• Debt in private sector• Borrowing constraints on inter-temporal debt b and intra-temporaldebt σ, which finances the working capital• b ≤ θS
Kiyotaki-Moore 1997

Temporary effect• σ ≤ θ max {S − b, 0}
Jermann-Quadrini 2012

Temporary effect• σ ≤ φy (σ) + max {θS − b, 0}
Kobayashi-Shirai 2017

Permanent effect
7 / 14

Why does excessive debt have a permanent effect?
• Borrowing constraints : σ ≤ φy (σ) + max {θS − b, 0}• Define σz by σz = φy (σz )• Define bz by bz =y (σz ) − σzr

• Suppose bz > θS
• If b0 = bz , then for all t,
bt = bz ,σ t = σz
8 / 14－ 56 －

Debt in private sector can cause secular stagnation: simulation
Kobayashi and Shirai (2017)

growth rate
10

1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Data
Simulation

0.8
0.6
1980

1990

%, GDP growth rateJapan

GDP per worker (1992 = 1)

LV

2000

0

-10

-20
1980

2000

5

1.6
1.4
1.2
1
Data
Prediction
Simulation

0.8
0.6
2000

1990

Year

2010

2020

%, GDP growth rate

US

GDP per worker (2009 = 1)

Year

0
-5
-10
-15
2000

2010

Year

2020

9 / 14Year

Policy implication for excessive debt in private sector• Private-sector debt may cause persistent stagnation• Japan 1990s• United States 2010s?

• Debt reduction may enhance economic growth• Corporate or household debt

• Bank recapitalization and write-off of nonperforming loans• Debt forgiveness and restructuring of the borrowers

10 / 14－ 57 －

Tail risk of public debt
• Nonperforming loans disappeared in 2000s in Japan• Public debt is exploding in 2010s• Tail risk depresses the economy persistently• Gourio (2013)• Kozlowsky-Veldkamp-Venkateswaran (2015)• Tail risk for Japan = Debt crisis = Hyperinflation• Persistent stagnation today may be caused by future risk of tail event• Tail risk is “growing”⇒ Not only level but also growth rate of GDP is depressed
11 / 14

Simulation and data (Japan)• Kobayashi and Ueda (work in progress)
bG /y

y
0.2

3
2.5

Model
Data

0.15
0.1

2
0.05
1.5
0
1
-0.05
0.5
0
1980

-0.1

2000

2020

2040

-0.15
1980

2000

2020

2040

12 / 14－ 58 －

Inter-generational conflict on public debt
• Public-sector debt may cause persistent stagnation• Japan 2010?

• Fiscal consolidation = Inter-generational investment• Current generation pays the cost of investment, i.e., higher tax• Future generation enjoys the return, i.e., economic stability• Non-existence of democratic implementation of fiscal consolidation• Future generation cannot commit to pay reward of fiscal consolidation

to Current generation• Current generation has no incentive to implement fiscal consolidation• Need political system reform• To create political actors that represent future generation– Independent fiscal agency

13 / 14

Reference• Kobayashi and Shirai (2017) “Debt-ridden borrowers and economic

slowdown”• Kobayashi (2017) “Persistent economic slowdown and debt-ridden

borrowers” VOX column

http://voxeu.org/article/persistent-economic-slowdown-and-debt-riddenborrowers

14 / 14－ 59 －

Session2 岡田

秀一

Globalization and Inequality
June 2017
Hideichi Okada

Location and Number ofiPhone 6 Suppliers per Country
Numberofsuppliers

Country

Numberofsuppliers

Country

Numberofsuppliers

Country

349

China

11

Vietnam2

Brazil

139

Japan

7

Mexico2

Costa Rica

60

USA

6

Indonesia

2Austria

42

Taiwan6Israel2

Netherlands

32South Korea

5

France1

Canada21

Malaysia

5

Czech Republic

1

Portugal

24

Philippines

3

Belgium

1

Spain

21

Thailand

3

Italy

1

Morocco17

Singapore3

Ireland1

Puerto Rico

13

Germany

3

UK

1

Malta

1

Hungary－ 60 －

㻝㻌Boeing 787 Suppliers per Country

Source: Boeing㻞㻌Boeing 787 Suppliers per Country
Forward Fuselage㻌Forward Fuselage
㻌Center Fuselage㻌
Aft Fuselage
㻌
Wings
㻌
Leading Edge of Wings
㻌
Fixed Trailing Edge of Wings
㻌Movable Trailing Edge of Wings
Wing Tips
㻌
Vertical Tail Fin
㻌
Rudder㻌
Horizontal Stabilizer
㻌
Fairing Landing Gear Doors㻌
Cargo/Access Doors㻌
Passenger Entry Doors㻌
Landing Gear
㻌Engines㻌
Engine Nacells
㻌USA㻌Japan㻌
Italy㻌
USA㻌
Japan㻌
USA㻌
Japan㻌
Australia㻌
Korea㻌
USA㻌
China㻌
Italy㻌
Canada㻌Sweden㻌France㻌UK㻌
USA/UK㻌
USA㻌
Source: Boeing－ 61 －

㻟㻌

Number of FTAs in the World(As of December 2016)
StatusNumberIn Effect286

Agreed but not Ratified

18

In Negotiation

79

In Preparation

22

Source: JETRO㻠㻌

TPP 11
CanadaViet NamJapan
MexicoVietnam

BruneiMalaysiaPeru

TPP 11

Singapore

Chile

NZ
Australia㻡㻌－ 62 －

Supply Chain in East Asia
䠄㻞㻜㻝㻜䠅

㻱㼍㼟㼠㻌㻭㼟㼕㼍䠄billion US Dollar䠅㻝㻠㻞㻚㻢㻝㻘㻥㻣㻝㻚㻡

Intermediate Goods

㻶㼍㼜㼍㼚 㻥㻠㻚㻝

70%䡚

㻞㻜㻤㻚㻠
㻝㻜㻠㻚㻥
㻢㻡㻚㻜

㻤㻜㻚㻡
㻝㻜㻜㻚㻥

㻯㼔㼕㼚㼍

60%䡚

㻝㻥㻟㻚㻤

㻭㻿㻱㻭㻺

50%䡚

㻞㻜㻤㻚㻢

40%䡚
㻝㻥㻣㻚㻞

㻤㻜㻚㻤

㻝㻠㻡㻚㻟

30%䡚

㻤㻠㻚㻞

䡚30%
㻝㻠㻜㻚㻡
㻟㻣㻞㻚㻥

㻥㻟㻚㻥

㻠㻞㻤㻚㻡

U.S.

㻝㻝㻡㻚㻥

㻱㼁
㻞㻘㻣㻥㻝㻚㻣

㻞㻣㻤㻚㻡

㻝㻝㻥㻚㻡

㻟㻤㻜㻚㻤

Canada㻺㻭㻲㼀㻭
MexicoSource: RIETI-TID 2011

㻤㻟㻥㻚㻝

㻢㻌

Southern Industrial Corridor in
Mekong8 㻣㻌㻌－ 63 －

NAFTA Super Corridor

Winnipeg

 State of Guanajuato≪Detroit in Mexico≫Kansas city Many auto
manufacturers
invested in Mexico

San Antonio

GM690,000
Ford
430,000
Fiat Chrysler 500,000
Nissan 820,000
Honda 200,000
Mazda 180,000
Toyota 100,000
VW
460,000
BMW (150,000)
Audi㻌 㻌 㻌 㻌 ―Auto Parts Suppliers 㻤㻌

Guanajuato
Mexico City

Fast Food

FoundedNumber ofStoresNumber of 㻌Countries

MacDonald’s

1940

120

36,900Starbucks

1971

46

23,800㻥㻌－ 64 －

Fast Fashion
CountryFoundedNumber ofCountries

Number ofStores

GAP

USA

1969

54

3,800

ZARA

Spain

1975

87

2,000

H&M

Sweden

1947

62

4,000

Forever 21

USA

1984

60

800

Uniqlo

Japan

1974

12

1,300
㻝㻜㻌

Uber and Airbnb
FoundedNumber ofCountries

Number of
Cities

Uber

2009

70

450

Airbnb

2008

192

3,300

㻝㻝㻌

－ 65 －

Globalization & Inequality
Manufacturing Industry
 Utilization of cheap labors in developing countries(e.g. Bangladesh)- Depriving developed countries of blue-collar worker's jobs
+ Creating profit for design and management

Service Industry
 Oligopolization of the service industry in indigenous/local
markets- Depriving indigenous/local merchants of business
opportunities+ Creating new business models and opportunities/value㻝㻞㻌Trade of iPhone in Value-Added
Terms
U.S. Imports of
One Unit of iPhone

ChineseChina Taipei Germany Korea
0
-6.5
-20
-16.0
-20.7
-40
-60
Import Value-80-100
Value-Added Terms
-120
-140
-160
-180 -164.6

iPhone 4
ROW

-41.2
-80.0

(Source) OECD and WTO (2012),"Trade in Value-Added: Concepts, Methodologies and Challenges"©2012 Apple. Inc.

㻝㻟㻌

－ 66 －

Rise of Nationalism andAnti-Globalism
 America First Brexit
 Marine Le Pen in France Joko Widodo in Indonesia㻌㻌㻌㻌 cf. One Belt One Road㻝㻠㻌

Future of Globalization

 Would globalization slow downbecause of the political pressure?

 Inclusive Growth㻝㻡㻌－ 67 －

Session3 田中正明

www.pwc.com
pwc.com

CNR Immersion

Innovation and Disruptionin Financial
Services
Redrawingthelines:

Technology’s growing influence on
business2017 Japan-US Forum
Masaaki Tanaka
2-June, 2017
July 2015

Agenda1. What’s happening

Five global megatrends and technological breakthrough2. Highlights from PwC’s 20th CEO Survey
3. PwC Global FinTech Survey 2017
4. Discussion points

How business leaders are grappling with technological disruptions

Appendix－ 68 －

What’s happening

1

4

5

Five global megatrends are fundamentally disrupting business…

Shift in global
economic power

Demographic
and social change

Technologicalbreakthrough68%

3.3 million$300

Companies that will
have at least one
global business unit
head based in Asia
by 2017Additional workers – The
65+ labour force in the
US almost doubled
between 1990 and 2010

Cost of today’s Sony
Playstation, which has
the computing power of a1997 military
supercomputer

Rapid
urbanisation

400 million people
The increase in
China’s population
since 1980

Climate change andresource scarcity

50%
Increase in the demandfor energy – by 2030

Sources: The Economist: 2013 Asia Business Outlook Survey; ILO ‘Key Indicators of the Labour Market; Michio Kaku, ‘Physics of the Future’ (2011), Corbin Bal l Associates (2012); PwC analysis basedon data from United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2013); ‘Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds’, National Intelligence Council, 2912.

－ 69 －

Most CEOs believe that technology will transform and disrupt theirbusiness.

86%of US CEOs say technological advances
will transform their business over the next
five years

Source：PwC 17th CEO Survey

Highlights from PwC’s
20th CEO Survey－ 70 －

r etOver the last 20 years, CEOs have witnessed tremendous upheavals asa result of globalization and technology… howeverInequality is on the rise
Mistrust in businessIn trade

4x trade flows
5x financial flows
BRIC economies

Growing social instability
Rise in populism

In technology

Exponential rise in global online traffic
Google, Wikipedia, Facebook, Alibaba
In society

Lifting 1 billion out of extreme poverty
New emerging middle class
20th CEO Survey

PwC

t

r e

Percentage of CEOs that were very confident about prospects for growth
The percentage of Indian CEOs that were very confident about near-term prospects for growth was the highest globally. In
contrast, Japan was among the lowest – only ranking slightly higher than Venezuela.

India

71%

US

39%

Global

38%

China

35%

ASEAN
Japan

32%
14%

Source：PwC 20th CEO Survey

PwC－ 71 －

Q: How confident
are you about
your company’s
prospects forrevenue growthover the next 12months?

tr e

Uncertainty has become a way of life38%

CEO short-term confidence has risen compared to last year.
Question: How confident are you about your company’s prospects for growth over the next 12 months?

Respondents with “Very Confident” (%)

are “very confident
lobal

Source：PwC 20th CEO Survey

PwC

t

r e

Waves of change
CEOs’ predictions of the impact oftechnology were pretty accurate 20 years
ago. Today, an even larger proportion
expect their industries to be reshaped by it.

27%
27%

33%
33%

20%
20%

59%
59%

Complete reshape industry
Significant impact

30%
30%

Moderate impact

20%
20%

No impact
8%

Source: PwC, 1st Annual Global CEO Survey and 20th CEO Survey. Base: All respondents (1998=377; 2017=1,379)

PwC－ 72 －

2017

1%

1998

EO

t

r e

CEOs’ digital literacy
Is digital literacy a requisite for business leaders to create and lead our future?

Global CEO

29%

55%

32%

55% of Global CEOs
PwC

t

43%

40%

Of Japanese CEOs
said that they havestrong digital skills
compared to

Source：PwC 20th CEO Survey

69%

Japanese CEO
46%

37%

31%

29%
21%
13%

Use robotics in my home

7%
Make most of my purchases
onlineActive on social media

Use home automation
systems

Have strong digital skills

Consume digital media morethan print media

Question: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about your personal use of technology?

r eDigital risks and trust in business
There is a striking contrast between Japanese and US CEOs on the approach to some of the risks
around digital, governance, and risk management.

72%
Negative
impact on
trust by IT
outages anddisruptions innext 5 years
Extent yourcompany isaddressing thisissue today

56%

Japan

India

48%

47%

ASEAN Global

36%

China

27%

US

25%
47%

54%

48%

71%
PwC

－ 73 －of Japanese CEOs
are addressing thisissue today while

71% of US CEOs

55%

Source：PwC 20th CEO Survey

47%
are alreadyaddressing it.

PwC Global FinTech
Survey 2017

Global FinTech Survey 2017
Respondents profile

More than 1,300 respondents, from 71 different countries around the world

Type of companies
VentureCapital /PrivateEquity firm
4%
[

]
[

]

Securities
broker /Investment
Fund 4%
advisorTransferandPayments
institution
3%

Origin of respondents[

Mobileoperator 2%

Oceania 3%
[

]
[

]

Asset
Management company
6%
Insurance /OtherReinsurance
12%company
14%

Type of respondents

]
[

North
America 9%
Latin
America
13%]

Asia 33%

HeadCOO
of 4%
Innovation
4%
CDO/Busine
ss
Developmen
t 5%
Head of
Strategy 4%

Head of
ProductsCRO/Risk
4%
manager 3%

CFO 6%CEO 21%

Director /Head of
Department
15%

Europe 39%
Other 26%

－ 74 －

Head of
IT/Digital/T
echnology
8%

FinTech is a driver of disruption in the market.

88% of incumbents are

Financial Institutions arelearning to partner andintegrateincreasingly concerned they arelosing revenue to innovators

82%

Financial Institutions areembracing the disruptive natureof FinTech

expect to increase FinTech
partnerships in the next
three to five years

56%
have put disruption at theheart of their strategy

More than 80% of respondents believe their business is at risk
Q: Do you believe that part of your business is at risk of being lost to standalone FinTech companies within next 5 years?

2017 surve201
2

Q: What financial activities do you believe your customers already conduct with FinTech companies?

0－ 75 －

Financial institutions are addressing customer retention in the faceof the disruptive nature of FinTech
Q: What do you think are the most important areas to address customer retention in the context of new FinTech competition?

1st

2nd

3rd

Payments

Banking

Insurance
Asset &
Wealthmgmt

Financial Institutions are learning to partner…
82% of companies expect to increase partnerships w/ FinTech in next 3-5 years

2

lobal

Japan

0

1

－ 76 －

And integrate… but facing challenges around security, regulatory
uncertainty, differences in management, culture, business models
Q: When working with Financial Institutions (or FinTech companies), what challenges do you face?

Incumbents

inTech
2

0
0

2
2
1

17

Investment in enabling technologies will help narrow the gap% of large Financial Institutions that identified
these emerging technologies as the most
relevant to invest in within the next 12 months(vs. Large FinTech companies)

Q: What are the most relevant technologies
for your business that you plan to invest inwithin the next 12 months?
7
1

1
0

2

0

0
21

20

20
1

－ 77 －

Blockchain is moving out of the lab
Q: Please describe the extent to which you are familiar with blockchain technology

20
2
2
21
1
1
12

Regulations trigger both disruption and innovation
Q: In which areas do you see regulatory barriers to innovation in FinTech?

54%

50%

48%

－ 78 －

40%

30%

Managing expectations will be key…
Q: In your opinion, what are the opportunities related to the rise of FinTech within your industry?

60%
46%

44%

38%
30%

29%

28%
19%

PwC FinTech
Survey 2017
~Japan results－ 79 －

FinTech moving at a slower pace for Japan’s Financial Institutions
The only way to get returns is to invest to learn.
hat percentage of your annual revenue do you allocate to in ech
matters investments into in ech
pro ects dedicated resources

15%

hat is your e pected annual eturn on nvestment
on your pro ects related to in ech

20

6%AnnualFinTechinvestment% revenue

GlobalJapan

GlobalJapan

Different expectations on potential impacts of FinTech
Q: In your opinion, what are the opportunities related to the rise of FinTech within your industry?

60%
46%

44%

Global38%
29%

Expandproducts& services

Japan

Leverageexisting data
and analytics

36%

Increasecustomerbase

Differentiate

Respond tocompetition
faster

24%

24%

30%

Reduceheadcount
costs

36%

45%

58%

－ 80 －

Threats imposed by FinTech
Information security is a larger concern for Japanese financial institutions compared to theircounterparts who worried more about market competitiveness.
n your opinion

hat are the threats related to the rise of in ech

72%

Global[ ]63%ithin your industry

Japan

57%

48%

45%

41%

39%

38%
33%

31%

31%

Renewed digital customer experience driven by customer centricity
Japanese financial institutions are slower in adopting digital channels to interact with customers
hat percentage of your clients do you interact ith through the follo ing channels

22

Japan

1

Global

2
2

11
1

1
10
1

－ 81 －

Regulatory barriers to innovation
Complexities of managing privacy, digital identity, and detailed customer data can be expensive hurdlesnhich areas do you see regulatory arriers to innovation in in ech

Global

54%

50%

1st

Japan

59%
48%

47%

38%

1st

2nd

2nd
3rd

3rd

Discussion points－ 82 －

Tough questions to ask for business leaders
1. What parts of your business model will benefit from further automation?
2. Is your HR function ready to adapt to managing man and machine? What’s
missing from its capabilities and how will you fix it fast?
Howaareyou goingperspective
to find the rarer skills like leadership, creativity and2.3.Takepartnership
adaptability required for your company to innovate and build brand
3. Integrate
to innovate
differentiation?

Have youconsideredhow
4.4.Createan IT
culture thatwillartificial
supportintelligenceinnovation and automation will help you
create competitive advantage in your key markets?

5. Concentrate on the customer’s voice and shift thinking to outside-in

5. Have you redesigned your business processes so that your employees are bestplaced to work seamlessly with automation to create new value?

Thank you

At PwC, our purpose is to build trust in society and solve important problems. We’re a network of firms in 157 countries with more than 208,000 people whoare committed to delivering quality in assurance, advisory and tax services. Find out more and tell us what matters to you by visiting us at www.pwc.com.
This publication has been prepared for general guidance on matters of interest only, and does not constitute professional advice. You should not act upon theinformation contained in this publication without obtaining specific professional advice. No representation or warranty (express or implied) is given as to theaccuracy or completeness of the information contained in this publication, and, to the extent permitted by law, PwC does not accept or assume any liability,
responsibility or duty of care for any consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this publicationor for any decision based on it.
.

© 2017 PwC. All rights reserved. PwC refers to the PwC network and/or one or more of its member firms, each of which is a separate legal
entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details.

－ 83 －

．成果
１． 日米フォーラム
１

年度の日米フォーラムは、 月

）に

年

界経済の

をとり

から
に

するとい

げ、それらの解決策の
の学

を

で行

てきており、今回開催の以しりの開催とな

、 産業の

で、それ

見と実行に
フォル

を

で

ア

る

ロアル

で

れが

り

大学

が

的な

げ、

ードしており、 た、米国の

での意

に

ン

ン

年の

ンフラン

ス

する
を

を

年、

アでは

的

的

経済など
年から

イ

り、 フォーラムが中心的な課題としている、

き

ンバ

ーは

界の

に対

する

でも

げる上での

その解決

る。

そして、

（日米の経済政策課題） の大

きなテーマのもとに、 の
ーに

ロアル （

れが抱えている課題、成長けて、政している。米国では、

た。開催

、

に

ア

）との共催にアジア 米国において、それ

的

交換、

策の

フォル

にて開催された。

財団は１

見日（金）米国るスタンフォード大学アジア太平洋研究センター（
の会議

いては

と成果

えて、現

ス

日

ンを行

関

つのセ
者

ンを

を

け、日

、米国

ータル

の

に

のメインス

りラ

ンドテー

ー

ル

た。
（日米の成長戦略）（グローバル化と不平等）（テクノロジーは解決策となるのか？）セン１（日米の成長戦略）では、問題意識は、 米国経済は
していない
政

で

は

つなが

経済は現
き、実

問題が
財政

く行

ているが、

として、

の

きな政策を

日

か？とい

では、ア
たもので

ノ

クスは上

る。これらをンテー

ン

な意見は以下の通り。
が

金が上がら

国

が

、

的な

的に

る。

か、そして

に

しているが、インフ

する

ラン
に

に

が

する
し、経済

的には

対応しない

に成

く

で実

対応は

の

な政策を立案、 行しているでか？

る。これらに対してア

が

て上

、どの

させるの

れ、議論がなされた。

日
が

日を

ているのか？課題はが行とる。これをグローバル化のから１

それは経済を

ーロ

る。そこで

ノ
に

クスに

の
る

たがる
の

－ 84 －

い、財政

力不

とい

た

で対応を進めている。

資で

を

化で

ロに

るため、今日の政策立案者は意

する

立の財政

関を政

に

的に
り

産

の

上については、マ

して、 界の
するマ

の国の

ジメン

するには、政いが政業に対して行

フォーラム

グ

ド

ラクテ

スの

が日

国

業の日

の

が

では

的な

ー

きなのか？とい

の

の

国の

産

業に

業から日

に関

て

い。

業が学

と

、

、

の

課題

資、

るが、
、 の

、

実行していない。

ンが

の

なのか？

グローバ

日米はこ

した

に影響するのか？

たものでる。これらをにセーンのきに対してどのンテー

ンが行

は、米国においてはテクノロジーの進上ができていないことで

の

協

の業
の

での

在と

ではなく、

り、グローバル化はス

ライに関けが不平等の促進

に

れ、議論

た

の

ー

ー

ーンに広く、 く

に

に見

た

ない。

しており、これらは、

している。

となる

などの問題に対する有けではない。現

を

者の

た、

下

度に影響を及

に

も不

を

から

目の下層

すのは

対的な

ているのは、でる。

ではなく、 し不る。

グローバル化の解決策は「的な成長」の意
ン

的な成長（

それをどの

に

）
」との意見が成するかは現在のとこ

にな

るが、
「

ていない。

（テクノロジーは解決策となるのか？）では、問題意識は、

フォーラムの開催

ードしているが、これらの
するで

か？

なのか？

い

果では、 業のきはない。 た、 くの重における不平等のグローバル化は産業えられる。これに関な意見は以下の通り。

グローバル化セは（グローバル化と不平等）では、でがをはかり、それらンがなされた。

平

るの業はンスなどについて政策を

進国の経済政策にどの

層の

スに

界経

バ

問題意識は、 グローバ
対応す

れたの政策については、その中

今

は

ラクテ

る。

ラン

セ

ジメン

たもので

で

は

現在

る

ンバ

進国の経済成長にこているのは

るいは、これらのる。これらをーは年

な

している、 るいは

に

こ

た産業

は経済成長には関

に

ンテー

で

ンが行

に

界経済を
に

たり

する

たな

するのか、しないのか？とれ、議論がなされた。 な意見は以下の通り。
ンバ
しては、
が上

ーでの
の

しても

業

を
意

し
には

米国ではテクノロジーが
を

して

力不

に

を

れ

として開

界から

くの

で

の

化がないことが者からことを業の事業とテクノロジーの関
が

、研究者の

れをと

を

意
を回

か

し

は、

の

の下

に際

として、 下する。一

た。

ことを

しているが、日ではテクノロジーとした国際的な

からは、日

でいる。

についての
ていることが－ 85 －

を対
か

た。
「フ

ンテ

ク」について、日

の

の金

関が

け

れる

度は

ンバ

ーでは、開
業は

ンバ

ステム

に

できる。

業が、イノ

ー

するなどイノンド

りでされたテクノロジーを日

いる。日
日

界の

ーから

ンを

ー

ンに

しいアイ

業が

アを学

進するには、
意的な

業

る。

化を

して

と

ジ

に、

に

的な

する

が

ス開

を行

ンバ

ーの

を

て

する、

を

る。

成果
以上の一日の会
１．

でのな成果としては以下が

日は、日

ス

つのセ

ンの

が

ーの

ジ
の

ー

の

ノ
、

せて資

いたス

を
には日

ー

で

通り

メン
が

上

でも、

から
セ

される。 た、米国
た。
、 財団のアン

から

い

ー （

の回 （

上

もので

、

など

く、 た、スムー

れの

ルも、も
り、

回開催の

のロジの

りを

し事

に論

が

意

としたい。
していた

たとの

されていれ

いたとこ

、

た。

は

度アン

ー

を行い、１

から回

（回

）を

している。
）

は、
い

度

中

をいた

いた。

ンの中では、

上

セ

（

た、
上

との関

でも、

）

、

以上

度が

か

、

通り

）
セ

と
ン（テ

た。
と

が

か

た（い

れ

）。

． これらの議論の マ ーは、 財団の ーム ージにした（ン（グローバル化と不平等）、

クノロジーは解決策となるのか？）の

に

、

にたが

た。

財団事

の

から
の

も

か

いた

、成長戦略、などについて日

たとこ

、
メン

経済の

と

も

としては、
「
、
「い

で取り

果は、

会議の

も

解が進

）
。

で

ね

で日

と経

通り

者に

果の

との関

が

している。
）

度を

せていた

、

者に対しても

た。（
な

の

た。
」との

の

． 米国

れ、

になるとこ

を

ンバ

で忌憚のない意見交換が行、に会議に関する

者、

）

者（

として

いき、対日

者１
関

ーには、これらの
協

が政策

ーの

た、日
が

ー

していた

た。
」が
．

と

していた

業関

長などの日

をスタンフォード大学

た（

とい

の

イン

た、事

的な

事

た。（議事の

た。

を

ス

い議論が

）に対して、回

回

、日

た。

度
）を

（

とな

メン

のス

ー

の会

え

． 日

ンフラン

クス、グローバル化、

立

ー

、

から

ア

ス

を行い、スタンフォード大学の関ロ

とめており、この日
． 日

、米国

で

スマン、ジ

）が議論に
に

ー

げられる。

に えて、今されており、実際にフォーラム

くの に見ていた くことに り、 及 果が

－ 86 －

される。

．

資

者アン

ー

果

Q uestionnaire R esult
1 5 responses out of 30 partic ipants, 50% of the response rate.
1 . Ov erall E v aluation of the F orum
Somewhat
Satisfactory

Satisfactory

27%

73%

Satisfactory2 .

Somewhat Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Somewhat
Satisfactory

Somewhat
Unsatisfactory

Unsatisfactoryout of

11

4

0

0

15

E v aluation of the Q uality of the F orum as c ompared w ith your ex pec tation
the samelevel
60%Higher than
expected
40%

Higher than expected

the same level

Higher than
expected

the same level

L ower than
expectedout of

6

9

0

15

－ 87 －

3. Session by Session E v aluation
Session 1 : Grow th Strateg ies of the US and J apan

Session 1

Somewhat

Somewhat
Unsatisfactory

Satisfactory

7%

33%

Satisfactory
60%

Satisfactory

Somewhat Satisfactory

Somewhat Unsatisfactory

Satisfactory

Somewhat
Satisfactory

Somewhat
Unsatisfactory

Unsatisfact
ory

out of

9

5

1

0

15

Session 2 : Globalization and Inequality

Session 2

Somewhat

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

73%

27%

Satisfactory

Somewhat Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Somewhat
Satisfactory

Somewhat
Unsatisfactory

Unsatisfactoryout of

11

4

0

0

15

－ 88 －

Session 3: Is T ec hnolog y the A nsw er? ( or W ill Silic on V alley Sav e the W orld? )Somewhat
Satisfactory
27%

Session 3

Satisfactory
73%
Satisfactory

Somewhat Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Somewhat
Satisfactory

Somewhat
Unsatisfactory

Unsatisfactoryout of

11

4

0

0

15

Researcher

University
teacherBusiness
personMedia

Government
officeOthersout of

2

5

4

0

3

1

15

4. Y ou are:

－ 89 －

１．共催団

Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)
The Japan Economic Foundation (JEF) was established in July 1981 to deepen
understanding between Japan and other countries through activities aimed atpromoting economic and technological exchange.
With this goal in mind, JEF engages in a broad range of activities such as providing
information about Japan and arranging venues for the exchange of ideas among
opinion leaders from many countries in such fields as industry, government,
academia and politics in order to build bridges for international communicationand to break down the barriers that make mutual understanding difficult.
URL: www.jef.or.jp

The Japan Program is an initiative of the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-PacificResearch Center, a unique Stanford University institution focused on theinterdisciplinary study of contemporary Asia. As an integral part of the Center, theProgram facilitates multidisciplinary, social science-oriented research on
contemporary Japan, emphasizing both academic scholarship and policy-relevant
research. The Program aims to become a central platform for Stanford students
and the broader community for understanding and engaging with Japan.

－ 90 －

１１．事

（日
一

）
財団

Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)

国際経済交流財団
104-0061

Tel

03-5565-4824

URL

http://www.jef.or.jp
業5-15-8

中

事通

ル 11

Fax: 03-5565-4828

長

業
上
業
会

JTB

ー

ン

105-8335
ーテ

（米国
共催団

ング

ン

イン

JTB Communication Design

3-23-1 セ

ステ

ン事業

ロ

ン

ン

ル
ース 2

）
Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC)
Stanford Japan Program
Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
Encina Hall, 616 Serra St.
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-6055

URL:

http://aparc.fsi.stanford/edu/japan
Meiko Kotani, Administrative Associate－ 91 －ング 13
り平成 29 年 9 月
一般財団法人 国際経済交流財団
JAPAN ECONOMIC FOUDATION（JEF）© JEF Printed in Japan 無断の複写転載はお断りします。