Talk:Japanese economic miracle

Cleanup tag

I removed the cleanup tag--although this article still needs work, it now conforms to wikipedia standards Savidan 05:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Background

One piece that is missing from the article is the mentioning of the toy manufacturing industry, which was a key component to the Japanese economy post-World War II. Japan used scrap metal left over from the war to build toys, that were then exported to the United States, in exchange for food. The toy industry was essential because it allowed the Japanese industry to enter the world economy once again after the war commenced.

Allison, Anne. Millennial Monsters, edited by Anne Allison, University of California Press, 2006. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/iun/detail.action?docID=257075 (Links to an external site.)

Nhyer (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Ikeda Administration started a chain of events

Japan's LDP leadership has in the past shown itself capable of actions sharply contrary to agricultural interests. In 1964, for example, the government liberalized lemon imports, although a substantial part of the country's production was concentrated in Prime Minister Ikeda Hayato's electoral district. Since 1976 the LDP has allowed the real price of rice to producers to fall over 15 per cent despite strong rural opposition. Thus, the frequent Japanese argument that liberalization of agricultural restrictions would cause political turmoil in Japan seems grossly exaggerated (Calder, Opening Japan)

Japan's success was not economic liberalization

This article needs improvement in parts, and does not correctly correlate to what Johnson has said concerning the Japanese Economic miracle. Further this miracle may be properly called the "Japanese Model or System" of economics. Consider the following:

• "State Industrial Policy- The so-called Japanese model as in the state industrial policy is characterized as the bureaucratic strong leadership based on the holy triangle. As will be more detailed in the later sections, one can not deny the role of industrial policy, or coordinate relationship between government and business, in having made possible the rapid industrialization after the Meiji Restoration of 1868 as well as the post-War Japan’s economic miracle. In the pre-War period until 1945, the coordinate relationship between government and business was specifically focused upon that with zaibatsu conglomerates. After the War, however, the coordination mechanism basically remained unaltered. Under the U.S.-Soviet cold war regime, or under the umbrella of U.S. nuclear great power, Japan could have devoted itself into the economic growth. The post-War holy triangle between politics, bureaucrats, and business, had put its raison d’être on this "growth-first ideology"(Okumura, 75). Furthermore, one more significant fact is that the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) had reigned for about 38 years since 1955 to 1993. In terms of state industrial policy, this so-called 1955-setup is important since it had enabled and nurtured the long-term relationship between LDP politicians and bureaucrats as well as the policy coordination based on the long-term plans. Under this circumstance, there occurred "[t]he transformation of Zoku LDP Diet members into De Facto Bureaucrats": in other words, "the LDP became more bureaucratized" (Noguchi, 1996: 85). [1]

Hence, industrial policy making was the key together with U.S. assistance in the early stages to the Japanese Economic Miracle of rapid economic growth and then sustainability in light of other nations loosing their competitive edge in industry due to opposite policies like USA. Consider the following also:

• State-Assisted Capitalism - In the early 1870s, shortly after the Meiji Restoration, Japan's new political leadership faced the problem of Western imperialism. Japan's oligarchs quickly decided to build both a strong economy and a strong military. Meiji leaders systematically studied various economic models and made the deliberate decision to adopt a Prussian-style government-directed capitalism where the government plays a significant role in determining what is produced and allocates capital through control of the financial system. Free trade is considered harmful much of the time. The legal framework is considered subservient to state interests and, most importantly, the economy is viewed as existing to serve the interests of the nation, not the individual. The Japanese rejected the Anglo-American laissez-faire model in which the market largely determines what products are produced, and banks and the stock market allocate capital. Free-trade is considered highly desirable. Business and government are viewed as separate entities, and the legal framework (or rules of the economic game) is considered important. Above all, the economy is viewed as serving the individual not the state. Through great state assistance to a few industries, Japan had become, even before World War II, a world leader in aluminum, ship building, and rayon. While Japan's defeat in World War II meant a radical de-emphasis of the military, the Japanese continued to pursue the goal of economic strength. After the war, the Japanese government continued its practice of promoting and protecting particular industries and discouraging foreign and even domestic competition. These policies were achieved first through tariffs and later through so-called informal trade barriers such as environmental or consumer production regulations written in a way that excluded foreign or even aspiring domestic firms from entering new markets.

This is why I changed the opening statement to economic interventionism which is more accurate than economic liberalization to describe the Japanese model or system. --Northmeister 02:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

But this article is not about the "Japanese model or system". It is about the Japanese economy in the period from 1962 to 1970. Your cites don't seem to focus on that period. -Will Beback 05:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Parsing words? Here is a quote on it:

• "THE JAPANESE ECONOMIC MIRACLE After World War II, East Asia was the only region of the world that experienced continual substantial economic growth and no other East Asian country enjoyed more economic success than Japan. The Japanese economic pie grew at an annual rate of ten percent from the mid-1950s until the Arab oil shocks of the early 70s. The Japanese then managed to maintain much more modest but steady growth rates until the early 1990s. Many factors contribute to economic growth, and although some reasons are more important than others, economists and economic historians agree that all of the following contributed to Japan's economic rise:"

- that proceeds the 'State Capitalism' quote above which among other things lead to this 'miracle' or 'system' of economics. The sources indicate this, you must not have read them. --Northmeister 14:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, that is, no neoliberal economic views. Holland85 (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Please don't change the topic and scope of the article without reaching a consensus. -Will Beback 18:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where Northmaster is wrong. --LordoftheFLIES 02:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Corrected factual errors

I've corrected several factual errors in this article. Added references to sources used and updated information. --LordoftheFLIES 02:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I support the changes made by the above user. Although I think the article needs further improvement in parts. Good job. --Northmeister 04:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You two are funny. -Will Beback 04:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

More harassment and wiki-stalking...I hope those concerned see this stuff. Look at the edit summary! --Northmeister 05:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The article contradicts itself... it attributes the "miracle" to both American intervention and the Japanese government, then states American intervention had no real effect. So which is right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.75.68 (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the reference as the source does not imply US investment was the dominant factor to the Japanese economic miracle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.179.66 (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

New templates Nov. 2011 and article cleanup

This article requires extensive inline citations and cleanup. I did not see a single inline citation at the time of creating this message, and the content smacks of someone having simply read a history textbook and written an essay about the Miracle before copypasting it and formatting it into WP standards.

Furthermore, the content seems to take a very strong bent towards specifically identifying the economic interventionism of the government as the source of the economic growth. While this may or may not be factually accurate, inline citations need to be developed to support it, because it is a non-neutral statement relative to the historical disputes over economic liberalization vs. interventionism having been the cause of Japan's growth; similarly, saying that companies' "abandonment of these principles" caused the lack of growth following the 1990s is also non-neutral.

I have culled some of the material that is explicitly non-neutral in the opening section, but if you restore or add any information to the article, please take the time to carefully add inline citations for it. In particular, online citations are very nice when it comes to neutrality disputes, because physical citations are difficult to cross-reference for other editors.

Thank you. 128.119.186.71 (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Mikiso Hane quote

"the greatest years of prosperity Japan had seen since the Sun Goddess shut herself up behind a stone door to protest her brother Susano-o's misbehavior."

The use of this quote confuses me and I'd like a little clarification. Is it saying that just as the gods worked to bring Amaterasu their beloved goddess and leader out of the cave by building treasures and hosting parties to brighten up everyone's lives; eventually ending in Amaterasu returning and Japan becoming better than ever after the violence of Susanoo the Japanese government (the gods being in this case a metaphor for the government and its people) worked to bring Japan (Amaterasu in metaphor in this case) out of the darkness caused by WWII and it's militaristic government (Susanoo being the metaphor here)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deus-Helios (talk • contribs) 07:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to take it that literally. The Japanese like to give economic booms names out of Shinto mythology. After the war there was the "Jinmu economic boom", named after the legendary first emperor, cited in expressions like "the best looking actor since Jinmu". In other words, since a long time ago. The next boom was even better, so they went back further and named it after Jinmu's mother, the Sun Goddess Amaterasu. And the next one was better still, so they went back further and named it after her father, Izanagi, who created Japan. These are all hyperbolic and don't mean much more than "since a very long time ago". --Margin1522 (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Need to clarify roles of political figures

This article seems to get some key political figures and names wrong. Ikeda Hayato for example, was neither the architect of the "income doubling plan" although he was the promoter of it (arguably the plan had wartime antecedents in Manchuria where Kishi Nobusuke was a top official and who then was developing the plan in the 1950s as prime minister). Second, it seems to imply that Ikeda Hayato was prime minister during the 1950s - he became prime minister in 1960.

Chinese?

Alright I don't know if this is just me, but when I look at the images on this article and then the various text that accompanies the images, the text is in Chinese. I don't know if this is a bug or if it's someone who edited the wrong wiki or what but somehow I don't think that Chinese text is supposed to be on the English Wikipedia (unless the article has something to do with China, which this does not). Just thought I'd bring it up. - Zabuza825 (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed :) W86985816 (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Not obvious

It is not immediately obvious why the bursting of the asset bubble should be caused by the collapse of Communism and by the Gulf War. Certainly, the three coincided with one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.10.231 (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Title - why add "post-war"?

My move of the page a few weeks back ago has just been reverted so I thought I'd explain myself on this -

As I understand it, there are no other events known as the "Japanese economic miracle" than the one this article deals with. The term "Japanese economic miracle" clearly has some use as a WP:COMMONNAME (see here for one example) and is presumably used in reference to the other "economic miracles" listed in Category:Post–World War II economic booms. In light of both of these, I really don't understand why the extra word "post-war" needs to be added to the title - that should, of course, be "short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable".—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no common name for this subject, so you need consensus to change the stable name of the article. Not all the articles have the same format, nor do all of them include the word 'economic' in them, such as Taiwan Miracle, Miracle of Chile, and Brazilian Miracle, and Japanese Miracle also has use as a WP:COMMONNAME. So you need consensus to change this. Vivexdino (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how any of your examples show that we need to add the extra qualifier "post-war". I'll open a move discussion below.—Brigade Piron (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It shows that "Japanese Miracle" is also a better name than "Japanese economic miracle" per your same argument. The article stays at the long-standing name, which is the status quo, until this has been properly discussed, rather than a unilateral move. Vivexdino (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 21 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per nom. No such user (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Japanese post-war economic miracle → Japanese economic miracle – Per my argument above. We have a duty to make all article titles as "short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable" as possible. The term "Japanese economic miracle" is short, has some use as a WP:COMMONNAME in academic writing (examples: 1, 2 and 3), and fits neatly with the majority of other articles listed in Category:Post–World War II economic booms. As a result, I believe we should cut the unnecessary extra word. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment from nominator: I'd also add that the term "Japanese economic miracle" produces 10,300 results as a Google Books search; "Japanese post-war economic miracle" produces just 176. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• Additional note: "Japanese Miracle" has also been proposed per discussion. Vivexdino (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's leave this for the moment - it complicates the discussion. Wait for this move nomination to close (whatever the result) and open a second formal move proposal and we can discuss it properly.—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support: a this make sense to me. I don't think post war should be necessary unless there was more than one Jalanese economic miracles.--174.91.187.80 (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Not all the economic miracles are part of the post-war period, and it can also be argued that the Meiji Restoration also significantly improved the economy. Vivexdino (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you actually cite an example of the Maji Restoration being referred to as an "Economic miracle" in academic writing? —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I said said it can be argued that it significantly improved the economy. The main point is not all the economic miracles are part of the post-war period. Vivexdino (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that's pretty dubious. The only reliable definition I can find (here) specifically cites post-WWII economic booms. In fact, I'm struggling to find a single example of the term "economic miracle" applied as anything more than a catchy neologism to an event before 1945. It's pretty uncontestable that the term is mostly used for the period 1945-present.—Brigade Piron (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no common name for the subject. See also WP:GHITS. "Japanese Miracle" also produces 28,500 results, more than twice the amount, so if anything I would better support a move to that. The articles in Category:Post–World War II economic booms and Economic miracle does not use any set format. Vivexdino (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your objection on the basis of your argument. We can certainly discuss whether "Japanese miracle" would be a better title (as you seem to suggest it should) - personally I think it becomes too ambiguous, economic miracle is after all a proper noun and fits in the historical contexts of the events. I'm also still unconvinced by the Google Books search - I get The Japanese miracle men (which presumably has no relevance to economics) as one of the results on the first page, together with at least one other book which uses both "Japanese Miracle" and "Japanese Economic Miracle" interchangeably. Either way, I can't see from your reasoning why you oppose eliminating "postwar" from the title. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

My stance is that the article stays at the long-standing stable name until a consensus has been reached. The vast majority of sources listed in the top searches for "Japanese Miracle" references the post-war economic miracle. There are also results for "Japanese economic miracle" on Google Books simply saying "Japanese Miracle". This also fits with other articles listed on "economic miracle" (which is not a proper noun). Meanwhile, "post-war economic miracle" is also accurate for the subject, which fits in the historical contexts of the events. Vivexdino (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

And yes, The Japanese miracle men is indeed listed under "Business & Economics / Industries / General Capitalists and financiers". Vivexdino (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support – There is only one Japanese economic miracle; the Meiji era was not called a miracle, rather an opening, modernization and "Westernization" of the country. And the new title would be consistent with other post-war economic miracles, none of which mentions "post-war" in their title. — JFG ^talk 08:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Impact of which bombings

The death and destruction caused by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were much less impactful to the Japanese nation as a whole than the rest of the air raids on Japan, particularly the incendiary bombing of all of the major Japanese cities besides Kyoto. For example, a single bombing raid of Tokyo, on the night of 9–10 March 1945, is still considered the single most destructive bombing raid in human history.(ref) Changed the wording on the article just a few minuites ago to better represent that. -- 155.95.90.240 (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd say both should be mentioned, considering the impact the events of the nuclear bombings had. Vivexdino (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Controversy

Some Americans were also concerned about alleged illegal and unfair Japanese trade practices, Japanese currency manipulation, Japan's state-sponsored industrial policy and the large trade deficit America had with Japan, which led to "Japan bashing".

reason for reversal: "Undoing unsourced and inaccurate changes. Anger at Japan was widespread among ordinary Americans, and if anything the Reagan administration was far more moderate. The linked article actually does refer to Japan-bashing twice."

Some Americans' is not the right word, it should be Reagan administration. source clearly says: "Yet the Reagan administration was in denial. There was little or no appreciation of the link between saving and trade imbalances. Instead, the blame was pinned on Japan, which accounted for 42% of US goods trade deficits in the first half of the 1980s. Japan bashing then took on a life of its own with a wide range of grievances over unfair and illegal trade practices. Leading the charge back then was a young Deputy US Trade Representative named Robert Lighthizer."

“When governments permit counterfeiting or copying of American products, it is stealing our future, and it is no longer free trade.” So said US President Ronald Reagan, commenting on Japan after the Plaza Accord was concluded in September 1985."

from the source, how does accusing someone of counterfeiting, copying and stealing indicate a moderate tone? It clearly says the Reagan admin resorted to so-called Japan Bashing, and shortly after appointed a trade representative.

References