The Study of International Cultural Relations of Postwar Japan

The paper examines policies and activities of cultural exchange carried out by Japanese national, local and private agents since the end of WWII. Methodologically, we distinctively use the notion culture as a tool and as an object of study, and to synthesize the two in full intention, based on the debate among IR students about so called Cultural Turn in IR theories. As case studies, the Japanese experiences are examined from two points. Firstly, it is compared with the German experiences in Europe, with special attention to the construction of national identity.In both countries, the peoples tried to make use of cultural exchange activities in the management of international relations. The actual developments of cultural relations by the two countries, however, were in striking contrast to each other. Secondly, our study focuses on the explosive expansion of private sector's international cultural exchange in the 1980s in association with so called "emerging civil society" phenomenon observed worldwide throughout 1970s and 1980s. By using our original approach mentioned in the Chapter 1, the paper tries to sketch out that the increase of the private organizations is largely the response of the Japanese society to outside influences, not something genuinely outgrown from within the society itself due to mainly domestic causes.

JETRO and Japan's Postwar Export Promotion System: Messages for Latin American Export Promotion Agencies

This paper tries to explain how the Japanese postwar export promotion system worked and what kind of roles JETRO played in this system. Two case studies of JETRO's successful export promotion activities were also introduced. The paper also points out the themes to be solved by the TPO (Trade Promotion Organizations). Finally the paper shows four advices for Latin American Export Promotion Agencies, based upon JETRO's postwar experiences.

A Comparative Study of Development Mechanisms in Korea and Taiwan: Introductory Analysis

This article is the introduction to a special issue of The Developing Economies which presented the results of a research project by the Institute of Developing Economies that examined the development mechanisms in Korea and Taiwan. Our conclusion in this article is that their development mechanisms, despite their similar development patterns of export-led industrialization, have been essentially different: a government-led mechanism in Korea as opposed to a market-led mechanism in Taiwan. We verified this difference through comparative studies of the two economies covering trade balances, the growth of total factor productivity, the scale of enterprises and business groups, and the development processes of individual manufacturing sectors. In our explanatory discussion we propose that the difference in the mechanisms is based on: 1) the amount of accumulation in the economy at the time postwar industrialization started, 2) the relationship between government and society, and 3) the mechanism of social network formation.

Analogous Cycles with Lagged Co-movement: U.S. and East Asian Business Cycles

In selected East Asian economies, the behavior of detrended macroeconomic variables was found to be similar to that observed in the postwar U.S. economy. Consumption and investment are highly procyclical while the balance of trade and the price level are counter-cyclical in most of them. Labor productivity is procyclical in general. The high coherence between U.S. GDP and that of the East Asian economies suggests that business cycles in terms of frequency are also similar between the United States and East Asia. However, the GDP and consumption of East Asian countries do not necessarily co-move well with current U.S. and Japanese GDP and consumption, while East Asian consumption tends to co-move more with lagged U.S. and Japanese consumption.

Re-thinking of "Chintanakan Mai" (new thinking) : new perspective for understanding Lao PDR

To date, many previous studies have viewed "Chintanakan Mai" (New Thinking), which was introduced in 1986, as one of the most important factors required for understanding present-day Laos. They tend to see the year 1986 as a watershed in Lao history and divide the history after 1975 into two periods before and after 1986: a period of socialism and a period of reform or market economy, respectively. Therefore, they are likely to see the current changes in Laos as the result or achievement of the reform started in 1986. The year 1986 is always a starting point for understanding Laos today. However, I suggest a different perspective and attempt to re-examine "Chintanakan Mai." "Chintanakan Mai" is not a watershed in Lao history, but rather a temporary slogan to advance postwar reconstruction. In this paper, I try to establish a new perspective for understanding Laos today.