Economic Development of Japan The Flexible Structure of Meiji Politics Okubo Toshimichi (Satsuma Han) Saigo Takamori (Satsuma Han) Kido Takayoshi (Choshu Han) Itagaki Taisuke (Tosa Han) State-led Industrialization Foreign CampaignWestern Style Constitution Western Style Parliament

Meiji revolution was driven by samurais in dynamic Hans in Western Japan. These hans had 1/ Trade profits 2/ Imported military systems & technology 3/ Negotiating & networking skills

Meiji Restoration was a Samurai-led Revolution A revolution because of power change (end of bakufu, ) and systemic change (end of class/feudal system, 1871); both achieved by military power of Satsuma, Choshu, Tosa and a few other hans. The samurai class consistently supplied leaders. Distinction between leaders and supporting elites was unclear. Non-samurais had limited political roles in late Edo to early Meiji: rich farmers (1877-early 1880s only); rich merchants, academics such as Fukuzawa; bakufu elites and scholars.

Political leaders and elites (mid 19th century) - Leaders and elites analyzed or mentioned in Banno & Ohno (2010) - Samurai class dominates (95%) han lord (daimyo, 5) han samurai (45) bakufu samurai (2) noblemen (2)  merchant (1)

Han as the Critical Unit and Incubator for Producing Meiji Leaders and Policy Coalitions In successful hans, daimyo (han lord) and samurais worked closely for reform and influence (especially Satsuma). Under daimyo’s direction, han samurais worked to: –Absorb new knowledge, contact foreigners, and acquire negotiation skills –Cooperate with other hans & bakufu officials for political reform –Engage in foreign trade to strengthen han’s budget and purchase Western weapons  Vision, knowledge, experience, networking

Why Could Meiji Japan Cope with Globalization Effectively and Industrialize Quickly? Historical background—Umesao Theory: long evolutionary development (lecture 1) Society and economy—Edo period conditions (lecture 2) Political unity & stability, agricultural development, transportation & unified market, commerce & finance, manufacturing, industrial promotion, education Politics—“Flexible Structure” for attaining multiple development goals (this lecture) References: Banno, Junji (2006), Political History of Modern Japan, Iwanami (Japanese). Banno, Junji (2007), Unfinished Meiji Restoration, Chikuma Shinsho (Japanese). Banno, Junji (2008), History of Japanese Constitutional Politics, Univ. of Tokyo Press (Japanese). Banno, Junji & Kenichi Ohno (2010), “The Flexible Structure of Politics in Meiji Japan,” Leadership Program Research Paper no.1 (Apr.2010). Banno, Junji & Kenichi Ohno (2010), Meiji Restoration , Kodansha Gendai Shinsho (Japanese)

Late Edo & Early Meiji Socio-political Conditions Cumulative socio-economic evolution under political stability (Umesao Theory) Bakufu: loss of political legitimacy National unity & nationalism Avoidance of civil war & colonization Rise of rich & intellectuals Demand for knowledge & participation Socio-economy vs. old system Contradiction & need for new policy regime Political competition Possibility of new leader and social order Military, diplomatic & economic failure Balance between fierce political competition (dynamism) and ultimate national unity (stability)

Tokutomi Soho ( ) journalist in the Meiji period “The French people always shift from one extreme to the other as the Japanese people do. But on a closer inspection, we must but notice a significant difference between the two peoples. Although both go from one extreme to the other, our people do so within certain bounds while the French do so outside these bounds” (Companion of the People, vol.50, Minyusha, May 11, 1889, p.2) Cf. Deaths in internal wars: - Meiji Japan, toppling the Tokugawa rule: about 10,000 - French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars: about five million - Post WW2 internal conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Nigeria, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Mozambique, Sudan: over 1 million each

Initial Shock, Transition, Implementation 1853 to 1858 Initial shock and panic 1858 to 1881 Transition Period (deciding what to do) –From Edo to Meiji (1968): little change in players or political pattern (only Bakufu drops out) –National goals and roadmaps are debated and contested. 1880s to 1890s Implementation Period (executing the plan) –Constitution under strong emperor (1889), first election and parliament (1890). –Repeated “company booms” (creation of joint stock companies, late 1880s-); industrial revolution (1890s) –Japan overtakes UK in cotton textile industry (early 20c) –Japan wins over China ( ) and Russia ( )

Transition Period: from 1858 to (Late Edo – 5 years after Black Ship arrival) Signing of commercial treaties with the West (effective from the following year, international trade begins) Emergence of political and economic strategies to cope with the West: kogi yoron (government by public deliberation) & fukoku kyohei (rich country, strong military) 1881 (14th year of Meiji) Emperor promises drafting the constitution within 9 years. Policy shift from SOEs to privatization. Stopping inflation and establishment of BOJ (early 1880s) Period for restructuring the political regime, redefining national goals, and agreeing on their concrete contents, priorities, roadmaps, and implementers.

Three Dimensions of “Flexible Structure of Meiji Politics” (Banno & Ohno Theory) (1) Evolution of goals –Late Edo: 2 goals of Fukoku Kyohei (rich & strong han) & Kogi Yoron (feudal assembly) –Early Meiji: 4 goals of Fukoku (industrialization), Kyohei (foreign campaign), Constitution, and Parliament (2) Flexibility in coalition building –Groups continued to form and re-form coalitions as situations changed. No group monopolized power for long. (3) Flexibility of leaders and leader groups –Policy priority of each leader evolved and solidified over time. –Leading group was able to embrace multiple goals and adjust policy

Flexibility of Goals Kogi Yoron （公議輿論 – government by public deliberation ） Deliberation among 4 or 5 wise daimyos Feudal assembly by 303 hans and bakufu Upper House by daimyos & Lower House by lower samurais Western style Constitution VS Western style Parliament British style multiple party democracy VS German style constitutional monarchy Fukoku Kyohei （富国強兵 - enrich country, strengthen military ） Each han: Trading house (export traditional products for profit) Import weapons Buy cannons, guns, battleships from West EdoMeiji - Mercantilism - Bargaining power against other hans and bakufu EdoMeiji State-led industrialization with Western machines and technology (Okubo) VS Military expedition to rest of Asia (unhappy samurai) -Developmentali sm -Budget conflict between 2 goals

Flexibility in Coalition Building Industrialization Constitution Parliament Foreign expedition Okubo (Satsuma) Kido (Choshu) Saigo (Satsuma) Itagaki (Tosa) Fukoku Kyohei (rich country, strong military) Kogi Yoron (democratization) Source: Banno (2007), edited by presenter. Naichi Yusen (internal reforms first) Seikanron (Korean expedition plan)

Features of flexible coalition forming No single group dominated; each had to form coalition with 1 or 2 other groups to pursue policy. As situations changed, coalitions were re-formed every few years. No coalition lasted for very long. Trust and goodwill existed among leaders up to final confrontation (Saigo’s rebellion, ousting of Okuma, Itagaki’s attack on government).  Despite rivalry and friction, political flexibility permitted attainment of multiple goals in the long run without extreme swings.

Influential hans: trading house, planning for feudal assembly; inter-han agreements Iwakura Mission to US/Europe; Meanwhile, rusu (home) gov’t insists on fiscal austerity Industrialization (Okubo) vs. Military expedition (Saigo backed by discontented army) 1875 Osaka Conference: coalition against Military: {(Constitution + Parliament) +Industrialization} Breakup of C+P coalition; I dominates but gradually faces fiscal constraint Re-emergence of C&M; ousting of Okuma; Decisions on SOE privatization and C&P by 1890 Chronology of Transition Politics

C I P C I Kido Okubo Iwakura Mission Saigo Itagaki I C P Split I I Seikanron 1873 Osaka Conferen ce 1875 Rise of Industria lizer 1876 Budget crisis 1880 M C I Saigo Rebellion 1877 P Okubo assassinated Okuma Radical Conservative Ousting of Okuma 1881 Itagaki Outside Gov’t Ito, Inoue SOEs! Privatization Kuroda C: constitution P: parliament I: industrialization M: military Meiji 1868 Yamagata M

Comparison of Influential Hans Saga (Hizen) leaders (Okuma, Eto, Oki, Soejima)—they lacked han- based training for coalition building; could not participate in the flexible politics of early Meiji. Fukui (Echizen) leaders—split sharply between fukoku kyohei (Nakane, Yuri) vs. austerity (Shungaku); could not build military capability and left out in Meiji Revolution. Ability to pursue multiple goals Coalition building capability Stability and flexibility of leaders Satsuma High Choshu LowModerateHigh Tosa ModerateHighModerate Saga Low Moderate Fukui ModerateHighLow Source: Banno & Ohno (2009). Note: “Stability and flexibility of leaders” means the ability of the same leader group to manage internal disputes and embrace new policies as circumstances changed, rather than creating extreme policy swings between two split groups.

Winning Han and Losing Han All han experienced internal disputes between sonno joi (respect emperor, expel foreigners) and kaikoku (open country and trade). The keys for success were (i) how quickly to adopt kaikoku policy; and (ii) strong teamwork of han leader and samurai for promoting fukoku kyohei (enrich han, strengthen military). Satsuma Choshu Tosa Saga Fukui Commercial treaties signed End of Bakufu Problem: no cooperation with other han (Colors show dominant policy of each han) Perfect teamwork after 1862 New leaders emerged Too late Alliance 1866 Alliance 1867 Policy shift embraced

Sakamoto Ryoma ( ) Independent Thinker, Mover, and Match Maker Low-ranking samurai from Tosa. Leave Tosa without han lord’s permission to join political movement as an individual; travel extensively in Japan. Learn Western navigation; establish Japan’s first trading company (Kameyama Shachu) in Nagasaki. The principal matchmaker for Satsuma-Choshu coalition (1866) and Satsuma-Tosa coalition (1867) to set up a new government. Propose a new political regime of public deliberation through Goto Shojiro and Lord Yamanouchi Yodo of Tosa. Assassinated in Kyoto in Nov. 1867, just before Meiji Restoration.

Additional Remarks Why frequent re-groupings did not cause chaos, extreme swings, and foreign intervention? –Previous experience of han-based networking –Rise of intellectuals & rich class as stabilizer –Private-sector nationalism and “Respect for Emperor” Impact of Okubo’s industrial policy? –SOEs were not commercially viable; they later had to be privatized. –But his other measures were effective in preparing private dynamism in 1880s and 90s: infrastructure, foreign advisers, technology contracts, engineering education, research centers, trade exhibitions, monetary and financial reform, etc.

Authoritarian Developmental States in East Asia

Gov’t װ Capitalists Farmers Suppress Farmers Gov’t װ Capitalists Middle Mass Workers, urban dwellers, professionals, students Demand for democracy years of sustained growth The Rise and Fall of Post WW2 East Asian Authoritarian Developmentalism Government-capitalist coalition (undemocratic) Workers, urban dwellers Features: - Crisis as a catalyst - Strong leader - Elite technocrat group - Developmental ideology (delay in democratization) - Legitimacy through economic results (not election) - Social change after 2-3 decades of success

Meiji Revolution: Not Like Post WW2 Authoritarian Developmentalism Common Feature Crisis as a catalyst (Western impact, Communism, internal chaos…) BUT No single leader who stayed in power for a long time. No technocrat group to support the supreme leader (no separation of supreme leader & supporting elites). Simultaneous pursuit of industrialization and political reform (no sacrifice of democratization for economic growth). Multiple legitimacy: establishment of constitutional politics, industrialization, and external expansion  The popular view of Meiji as developmental dictatorship (first case in East Asia) is wrong.