Economic Development of Japan
The Flexible Structure of Meiji Politics
1858-1881
Okubo Toshimichi
(Satsuma Han)
State-led
Industrialization
Saigo Takamori
(Satsuma Han)
Foreign Campaign
Kido Takayoshi
(Choshu Han)
Western Style
Constitution
Itagaki Taisuke
(Tosa Han)
Western Style
Parliament
Hans that produced many leaders
(Alternative place names in parentheses)
Meiji Restoration was a Samurai-led Revolution
• A revolution because of power change (end of bakufu, 186768) and systemic change (end of class/feudal system, 1871);
both achieved by military power of Satsuma, Choshu, Tosa
(and Hizen).
• The samurai class consistently supplied leaders.
• Distinction between leaders and supporting elites was unclear.
The same people often migrated between these categories.
• Non-samurais had very limited political roles in late Edo to
early Meiji : rich farmers (1877-early 1880s only); academics
such as Fukuzawa; bakufu elites and scholars.
• No mass participation in politics (poor farmers, workers),
except rebellions with no clear political message.
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)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Name
Nakane Sekko
Shimazu Nariakira
Yokoi Shonan
Sakuma Shozan
Nabeshima Naomasa
Uchida Masakaze
Yoshida Toyo
Shimazu Hisamitsu
Okubo Tadahiro
Hasebe Jimbei
Date Munenari
Nagai Uta
Murata Ujihisa
Katsu Kaishu
Iwakura Tomomi
Yamauchi Yodo
Saigo Takamori
Iwashita Michihira
Saisho Atsushi
Ijichi Masaharu
Matsudaira Shungaku
Yoshii Tomozane
Soejima Taneomi
Yuri Kosei
Takechi Hampeita
Yoshida Shoin
Okubo Toshimichi
Oki Takato
Years
1807-1877
1809-1858
1809-1869
1811-1864
1814-1871
1815-1893
1816-1862
1817-1887
1817-1888
1818-1873
1818-1892
1819-1863
1821-1899
1823-1899
1825-1883
1827-1872
1827-1877
1827-1900
1827-1910
1828-1886
1828-1890
1828-1891
1828-1905
1829-1909
1829-1865
1830-1859
1830-1878
1832-1892
Area of achievement
Political scientist
Han lord
Confucianist, statesman
Militarist, jurist, confucianist
Han lord
Bureucrat
Statesman
Han top leader
Bakufu official, statesman
Bureaucrat
Han lord, statesman
Advocate for open door policy
Statesman
Bakufu militarist, statesman
Statesman
Han lord
Statesman (1 of 3 Ishin Heroes)
Statesman
Bureaucrat
Militarist
Han lord
Bureaucrat
Statesman
Statesman, businessman
Statesman
Thinker, teacher
Statesman (1 of 3 Ishin Heroes)
Statesman
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Name
Kaieda Nobuyoshi
Kido Takayoshi
Mori Kyosuke
Eto Shimpei
Iwasaki Yataro
Fukuzawa Yukichi
Sakamoto Ryoma
Komatsu Tatewaki
Godai Tomoatsu
Inoue Kaoru
Fukuoka Takachika
Matsukata Masayoshi
Kawamura Sumiyoshi
Sanjo Sanetomi
Tani Tateki
Itagaki Taisuke
Kabayama Sukenori
Nakaoka Shintaro
Goto Shojiro
Okuma Shigenobu
Yamagata Aritomo
Komuro Shinobu
Kuroda Kiyotaka
Ito Hirobumi
Mutsu Munemitsu
Furusawa Uruu
Yano Fumio
Years
1832-1902
1833-1877
1834- ?
1834-1874
1834-1885
1834-1901
1835-1867
1835-1870
1835-1885
1835-1915
1835-1919
1835-1924
1836-1904
1837-1891
1837-1911
1837-1919
1837-1922
1838-1867
1838-1897
1838-1922
1838-1922
1839-1898
1840-1900
1841-1909
1844-1897
1847-1911
1850-1931
Area of achievement
Statesman
Statesman (1 of 3 Ishin Heroes)
Bureaucrat, statesman
Statesman
Founder of Mitsubishi Zaibatsu
Philosopher, founder of Keio Univ.
Freelance patriot
Statesman
Business leader in Kansai area
Statesman, businessman
Statesman
Statesman
Navy militarist, statesman
Statesman
Army militarist, statesman
Military leader, statesman
Navy militarist, statesman
Freelance patriot
Statesman
Statesman, founder of Waseda Univ.
Statesman, army militarist
Statesman, businessman
Statesman
Statasman
Statesman, diplomat
Statesman, bureaucrat
Statesman, literary man
Han as the Critical Unit and Incubator for
Producing Meiji Leaders and Policy Coalitions
• In successful hans, daimyo (han lord) and samurai
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 1858-1881, 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
Military, diplomatic &
economic failure against West
National unity
& nationalism
Rise of rich &
intellectuals
Socio-economy
vs. old system
Political
competition
Avoidance
of civil war &
colonization
Demand for
knowledge &
participation
Contradiction &
need for new
policy regime
Possibility of
new leader
and social order
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
– 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
– 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 (1894-95) and Russia (1904-05)
Transition Period: from 1858 to 1881
Period for restructuring the political regime, redefining national goals, and
agreeing on their concrete contents, priorities, roadmaps, and implementers.
1858 (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)
“Flexible Structure of Meiji Politics”
(Banno & Ohno Theory)
(1) Evolution of goals
– End 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
British style
multiple party
democracy
VS
Western style
Parliament
Edo
Meiji
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
- Mercantilism
- Bargaining
power against
other hans and
bakufu
Edo
State-led industrialization
with Western machines
and technology (Okubo)
-Developmentali
sm
VS
-Budget conflict
between 2 goals
Military expedition to rest
of Asia (unhappy samurai)
Meiji
Flexibility in Coalition Building
Industrialization
Fukoku Kyohei
(rich country, strong military)
Naichi Yusen
(internal reforms first)
Constitution
Okubo (Satsuma)
1830-1878
Foreign
expedition
Parliament
Kido (Choshu)
1833-1877
Saigo (Satsuma)
1827-1877
Seikanron
(Korean expedition plan)
Kogi Yoron
(democratization)
Itagaki (Tosa)
1837-1919
Source: Banno (2007), edited by presenter.
• 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.
Chronology of Transition Politics
1858-68 Influential hans: trading house, planning for
feudal assembly; inter-han agreements
1871-73 Iwakura Mission to US/Europe; Meanwhile,
rusu (home) gov’t insists on fiscal austerity
1873-75 Industrialization (Okubo) vs. Military
expedition (Saigo backed by discontented army)
1875 Osaka Conference: coalition against Military:
{(Constitution + Parliament) +Industrialization}
1876-80 Breakup of C+P coalition; I dominates but
gradually faces fiscal constraint
1880-81 Re-emergence of C&M; ousting of Okuma;
Decisions on SOE privatization and C&P by 1890
Meiji
1868
Iwakura
Mission
1871-73
Seikanron
1873
Osaka
Conferen
ce 1875
Kido
C
C
Saigo
Rise of Rebellion Budget
Industria 1877
crisis
lizer 1876
1880
C
C
Ousting of
Okuma
1881
Radical
Okuma
Conservative
Ito, Inoue
Split
P
P
P
Itagaki
Outside Gov’t
Okubo
I
I
Itagaki
I
I
SOEs!
I
I
Okubo
Kuroda
Privatization
assassinated
M
Saigo
Yamagata
C: constitution P: parliament I: industrialization M: military
M
Comparison of Influential Hans
Ability to pursue
multiple goals
Coalition building
capability
Stability and
flexibility of leaders
Satsuma
High
High
High
Choshu
Low
Moderate
High
Tosa
Moderate
High
Moderate
Saga
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
High
Low
Fukui
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.
• Saga (Hizen) leaders (Okuma, Eto, Oki, Soejima)—they lacked hanbased 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.
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 country, strengthen military).
Commercial
treaties signed
(Colors show dominant policy of each han)
1858
1867
1862
Satsuma
Perfect teamwork after 1862
1861
Alliance 1867
Policy shift embraced
1862
1865
Tosa
Fukui
Alliance 1866
1865
Choshu
Saga
End of Bakufu
New leaders emerged
Problem: no cooperation with other han
1863
1866
Too late
Sakamoto Ryoma (1835-1867)
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 (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 not commercially viable: later had to be privatized
– But other measures were effective in preparing private
dynamism in 1880s and 90s: infrastructure, foreign
advisers, technology contracts, engineering education,
research institutes, trade fairs, monetary and financial
reform, etc.
Authoritarian Developmental States in East Asia
1945
50
55
60
65
70
75
49
48
79 80
Rhee Syng-man
Nationalist Party
48
53
Quirino
61
92
Noh Taewoo
75
78
88
Yen
Chiang Ching-kuo
CK
86
Chiang Kai-shek
57
65
Marcos
Garcia
49
55
Singapore
59
92
65
98
Lee Kuan-yew
70
UMNO / Rahman
46 48
Thailand
57 58
Phibun
Razak
63
Sarit
76
Vietnam
80
88
Labor Party
Laos
91 92
53
60
Independent
Kingdom
48
01
Chuan
Chuan
76
Khmer
Republic
79
Kim Tu Bong
57
Chai YongKun
89
06
Thaksin
08
11
Ahbisit
Kingdom of Cambodia
97
88
62
01
06
11
Bounnh
Bouasone
ang
93
People's Republic
of Kampuchea
Burma Socialist Programme Party ･Ne Win
U Nu
98
Sisavat
Khamtai
h
Kayson Phom Vihane
70
MonarchyRegency
91
62
48
North Korea
97
Vietnamese Communist Party
Kingdom of Laos
Myanmar
09
Abdullah Najib
Mahathir
75
Cambodia
Lee Hsien
Loong
76
Indochina
Communist
Party
49
01
04
Mega
Wahid
Yudhoyono
wati
04
03
Prem
51
BA
99
Goh Chok-tong
Hussein
Thanom
10
Arroyo
81
73 75 76 77
Ma YJ
01
Ramos Estrada
90
57
Malaysia
Chen Shuibian
Suharto
Labor
People's
Party Action Party
08
Roh MooLee MB
Kim YN Kim Dae-jung
hyun
04
08
98
Sukarno
10
Hu Jintao
03
Lee Teng-hui
Aquino
05
02
97
67
Indonesia
2000
Jiang
Zemin
87
Chun Doohwan
Park Chung-hee
49
46
95
Deng Xiaoping
60 61
Taiwan
90
97
Mao Zedong
South Korea
85
76
China
Philippines
80
SLORC
11
SPDC/Than Shwe
94
Kim Il Sung
11
Kim Jong Il
Note: The grey area shows authoritarian developmental leaders and the dark area indicates pre-independence periods. For China, the most influential leader among those holding highest positions is indica
Source: Information in Suehiro (2000), p.115 was revised, updated, and expanded by the author.
The Rise and Fall of Post WW2
East Asian Authoritarian Developmentalism
Government-capitalist
coalition
Gov’t
(undemocratic)
‫װ‬
Capitalists
Gov’t
‫װ‬
Capitalists
Suppress
Workers, urban dwellers
Farmers
20-30 years of
sustained growth
Demand for
democracy
Middle Mass
Workers, urban dwellers,
professionals, students
Farmers
Features:
- Crisis as a catalyst
- Developmental ideology (delay in democratization)
- Strong leader
- Legitimacy through economic results (not election)
- Elite technocrat group
- Social change after 2-3 decades of success
Meiji Revolution: Not Like Post WW2
Authoritarian Developmentalism (AD)
Common Feature with AD
• Crisis (Western impact) as a catalyst.
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 AD in East Asia) is wrong.
A Hypothesis on politics of coping with
integration and modernization
• Soft structure of politics
– Flexible structure of Meiji politics
– Two-party rule with policy overlaps
• Hard structure of politics
– East Asian AD (government-capitalist coalition vs.
suppressed mass for a few decades)
– Entrenched confrontation and large policy swings (the
syndrome of developing country politics; revenge politics;
politicization of election)
• Hypothesis: soft structure performs better in securing longterm stability & resilience and simultaneous pursuit of multiple
goals (but it is difficult to realize).