Social Science Japan Journal Advance Access originally published online on October 9, 2007
Social Science Japan Journal 2007 10(2):243-264; doi:10.1093/ssjj/jym042
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Social Science Japan Journal 10:243-264 (2007)
© 2007 Oxford University Press
How Godzilla Ate Pittsburgh: The Long Rise of the Japanese Iron and Steel Industry, 1900–1973
Bernard ELBAUM is an Associate Professor specializing in economic history at the Economics Department of the University of California, Santa Cruz. His previous publications on the steel industry of Britain and the US include: ‘The Steel Industry before W.W.I.’ in Bernard Elbaum and William Lazonick, eds., The Decline of the British Economy (Oxford University Press, 1986); ‘The Making and Shaping of Job and Pay Structure in the Iron and Steel Industry,’ in Paul Osterman, ed., Internal Labor Markets (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1984); and co-author with Frank Wilkinson of ‘Industrial Relations and Uneven Development: A Comparative Study of the British and American Steel Industries,’ Cambridge Journal of Economics (September 1979), pp. 275–304. His previous papers bearing on trade specialization and industrial policy more generally include: ‘Cumulative or Comparative Advantage? British Competitiveness in the Early Twentieth Century,’ World Development (September 1990), pp. 1255–1272; and co-author with William Lazonick of ‘The Decline of the British Economy: An Institutional Perspective,’ Journal of Economic History (June 1984), pp. 567–584. He can be reached by e-mail at lbaum{at}ucsc.edu
From the 1890s to as late as 1960, industrial policy provided vital aid to the development of the Japanese iron and steel industry. Japanese industrial policy proved successful in steel even though public support was much prolonged, subject to political influence, and based on limited forecasting power ex ante, particularly with regard to recurrent raw material problems. Policy success in steel within different time periods suggests that specific targeting mechanisms were less important than the prevalence of market failures within a context of underdevelopment, broad support for industry, and dedicated and capable governmental bureaucracy. By implication, industrial policy in recent years faced greater difficulties insofar as it attempted narrower targeting and operated in a more mature economy.
* I would like to acknowledge the valuable comments I received on earlier drafts from William Lazonick, Tetsuji Okazaki, the editors of Social Science Japan Journal and three anonymous referees. I also benefited from comments at an All-University of California economic history conference, particularly by my discussant Linda Cohen, and at a Business History Conference, particularly by my discussants Robert Forrant and David Kirsch. I should further acknowledge research assistance by Yuki Sakasai and translation services by Takeshi X. Shimatani. Any remaining errors are unfortunately my own responsibility.