The question is "what is the Japanese system"? It is a system of
regulation (of which the state is only one actor). Regulation in the end
is a social and political institutional process and product. Thus life
time employment is a corporate form of regulation, of stabilizing the
labor market, and ensuring internal labor markets through long on the job (OTJ)
training, loyalty, and not-performance based tenure. The government has
little to do with it. OTOH the reference to inept government is partly
right (the Japanese government is known to muddle through) and hence
Charles' closer reading is on the mark. But the problem is once you
set the terms of the debate in binary terms such as market versus government
then such a conclusion is inevitable at the cost of missing out
on other institutional explanations.
cheers, a
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anthony P. D'Costa, Professor
Comparative International Development
Abe Fellow (2005-06)
University of Washington
1900 Commerce Street
Tacoma, WA 98402, USA
Phone: (253) 692-4462
Fax : (253) 692-5718
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, Charles Brown wrote:
I agree with Walt. Charles you are misreading the piece. But yes, I
remember how the NYT was gloating at Japan's recession throughout the 1990s,
with a I-told-you-so attitude.
cheers, a
^^^^
CB: Maybe. Here's the paragraph. It seems to say the economic stagnation
"had more to do" with "inept government responses" rather than to do with
what ? Inherent flaws. Inherent flaws in what ? Inherent flaws in a free
enterprise system without government interference, seems to be what is
suggested.
Or do you think they mean "if only the government responses had been
_skillful_ intervention , there would not have been stagnation ?
"The prolonged economic stagnation had less to do with inherent flaws in the
Japanese system than with inept governmental responses to the 1989
stock-market crash and subsequent banking crisis. "
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Walt Byars wrote:
That seems to be the opposite of what the article was saying. Especially
because a few paragraphs down it defined the japanese "system" as being
more interventionist than others.
^^^^
CB; Oh sure, the market system would have given continuous, flawless
economic wonderfulness, if only there had been no outside interference.
It
wasn't a flaw of the free enterprise system that the stock-market
crashed.
