In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • A New Japan for the Twenty-First Century: An Inside Overview of Current Fundamental Changes and Problems
  • Dick Stegewerns (bio)
A New Japan for the Twenty-First Century: An Inside Overview of Current Fundamental Changes and Problems. Edited by Rien T. Segers. Routledge, London, 2008. xvi, 284 pages. $150.00.

This book compiles the results of a research group on developments in contemporary Japan that was active at the International Research Center for Japanese Studies (Nichibunken) in Kyoto during the academic year 2006–7. [End Page 495] The project aims to provide internal views of a Japan “in a significant transition period, comparable to the Meiji Restoration of 1868 or the period immediately after the Second World War” (back cover). The group’s point of departure is “the urgent need to bridge the gap between the identity and the image of contemporary Japan . . . based on the structural inadequacy of currently interpretive models” (p. 5). The team leader and editor Rien T. Segers, on the basis of a textbook by Duncan McCargo, distinguishes mainstream (modernization theory), revisionist (Japan-bashing), and culturalist (Ruth Benedict, Nihonjinron) perspectives. The major common shortcoming observed is the tendency toward biased judgment over objective interpretation, due to either Japancentrism or Eurocentrism. Accordingly, “the three existing interpretive perspectives can no longer fulfil the requirements for the construction of an adequate interpretation of a rapidly changing Japan, caught between globalization and localization” (p. 10). Whereas Segers admits that “the localization-globalization paradox” is a universal phenomenon, he is adamant that Japan deserves special attention because “the quality and quantity of this paradox seem to be much more manifest in Japan than anywhere else” (p. 13) and inform most fundamental changes and problems in Japan today.

Are there merely three existent perspectives? Is there need for a fundamental reinterpretation? Can there be one superior and comprehensive perspective? And, if there is, can we expect this to be provided by a group of indigenous senior scholars? Segers makes clear that the project cannot possibly be all-encompassing and that the various contributions should be regarded as test cases with wider implications. Because they are very different, I discuss them separately.

The first section on business and technology consists of two chapters. Nobuyoshi Yamori and Narunto Nishigaki describe how the universal processes of globalization, liberalization, and technological innovation have led to mergers into megabanks, the advance of netbanking, the increasing prominence of foreign shareholders, limits to corporate governance by banks, and the shift to loan syndicates. The start of this ambitious book project is not very auspicious. The writing is difficult to grasp for lay readers, and the lack of international comparison leaves us in the dark as to where to position Japanese banks and their future. Specialist content also hampers Taizo Yakushiji’s contribution on technology, but it is mainly too short and provides only a general understanding of technological competition. Accordingly, one wonders whether Japan’s technological position “is unique in that its strength rests not in hard power but rather in soft power” and why Japan has to “play a decisive role” and “should always go one step ahead” (pp. 56, 63).

The second section on politics, governance, and foreign policy starts with a chapter on Japanese contemporary politics by the prominent political [End Page 496] scientist Takashi Inoguchi. This is a succinct and well-structured overview, centered on the omnipotent Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), and stands out for choosing the complete shift of focus toward economic growth in 1960 and the Plaza Agreement of 1985 as turning points instead of the start of the 1955 structure and the end of the cold war. But there are some hiccups. His exhortation to nurture more mediagenic, populist, and decisive politicians capable of Koizumi Jun’ichirō’s type of leadership is in line with this age of television democracy. However, the demand that politicians become more technocratically competent than the bureaucrats seems somewhat unrealistic (pp. 79–80), and it is odd that these requests are solely addressed to the LDP and do not include the opposition, thus giving the impression that Inoguchi advocates the continuation of LDP rule. This is also where the chapter becomes fragmentary, at the very...

pdf