A comparative analysis of corporate finance in the United States and Japan from 1880 to 1930

This study explained the diversity of corporate financial practices in two nations. Existing studies have emphasized the reliance on equity finance in U.S. firms and bank loans in Japanese firms. In fact, patterns of corporate finance were much more complex. Financial institutions, which were created by national economic policy and regulation, affected corporate financial practices, but corporate financial practices often differed from what policymakers expected. Differences in corporate financial practices between nations also reflected differences in the mixture of industries in each nation. Many factors such as the amount of fixed capital, the process of production, the level of risk, the degree of innovation, and the importance of the industry in the national economy affected corporate financial practices. In addition, corporate financial practices within each nation differed from firm to firm due to managers’ considerations about stock ownership, which would affect their control power; corporate finance was closely related to control over management through ownership. To explain these complexities of corporate financial practices, the study linked corporate finance with the development of financial institutions in the United States and in Japan. While financial institutions affected corporate financial practices, the response of the firms to financial institutions and opportunities were diverse. The study also attempted to grasp variations in corporate financial practices by dealing with companies in three sectors: railroads, public utilities, and manufacturing. Finally, the study examined the structure of firm ownership. Contradictory to the widely held belief that U.S. firms distributed securities more widely to the public than did Japanese firms, many large American firms remained closely held, while some Japanese counterparts built publicly-held corporations.

The effect of domestic credit in the economic *development process

A commonly held view is that creation of excessive domestic credit may lead to inflation problems, however, many economists uphold the possibility that, generous domestic credit under appropriate conditions will result in increases of output. This hypothesis is examined for Japan and Colombia for the period 1950-1993.^ Domestic credit theories are reviewed since the times of Thornton and Smith, until the recent times of Lewis, McKinnon, Stiglitz and of Japanese economists like K. Emi, Tachi R. and others. It is found that in Japan of the Post-War period, efficient financial markets and the decisive role of the government in orienting investment decisions seem to have influenced positively the effectiveness of domestic credit as an output-stimulating variable. On the contrary, in Colombia the absence of the above features seems to explain why domestic credit is not very effective as an output-stimulating variable.^ Multiple regression analyses show that domestic credit is a strong explanatory variable for output increases in Japan and a weak one for Colombia's case in the studied period. For Japan the correlation depicts a positive relationship between the two variables with a decreasing rate very similar to a typical production function. Moreover, the positive decreasing rate is confirmed if net domestic credit is used in the correlations. For Colombia a positive relationship is also found when accumulated domestic credit is used, but, if net domestic credit is the source of correlations, the positive decreasing rate is not obtained.^ Granger causality tests determined causality from domestic credit to output for Japan and no-causality for Colombia at the 1% significance level; the differences are explained by: (1) The low development level of the financial system in Colombia. (2) The nonexistence of consistent domestic credit policy to foster economic development. (3) The lack of an authoritative orientation in the allocation of financial resources and the nonexistence of long range industrialization programs in Colombia that could channel productively credit resources. For the system of equations relating domestic credit and exports, the Granger causality tests determined no-causality between domestic credit and exports for both Japan and Colombia also at the 1% significance level. ^

A Comparative Analysis of Corporate Finance in the United States and Japan From 1880 to 1930

This study explained the diversity of corporate financial practices in two nations. Existing studies have emphasized the reliance on equity finance in U.S. firms and bank loans in Japanese firms. In fact, patterns of corporate finance were much more complex. Financial institutions, which were created by national economic policy and regulation, affected corporate financial practices, but corporate financial practices often differed from what policymakers expected. Differences in corporate financial practices between nations also reflected differences in the mixture of industries in each nation. Many factors such as the amount of fixed capital, the process of production, the level of risk, the degree of innovation, and the importance of the industry in the national economy affected corporate financial practices. In addition, corporate financial practices within each nation differed from firm to firm due to managers’ considerations about stock ownership, which would affect their control power; corporate finance was closely related to control over management through ownership. To explain these complexities of corporate financial practices, the study linked corporate finance with the development of financial institutions in the United States and in Japan. While financial institutions affected corporate financial practices, the response of the firms to financial institutions and opportunities were diverse. The study also attempted to grasp variations in corporate financial practices by dealing with companies in three sectors: railroads, public utilities, and manufacturing. Finally, the study examined the structure of firm ownership. Contradictory to the widely held belief that U.S. firms distributed securities more widely to the public than did Japanese firms, many large American firms remained closely held, while some Japanese counterparts built publicly-held corporations.