If the unending stream of immigrants from
countries south of the border, from Central and South America, is mainly caused
by economic reasons – where people are seeking better material lives – then
what can be done about it? The last
posting suggested a program of investing in those countries with the attempt to
turn those economies around. The aim
would be to modernize those economies and to demotivate their people from
migrating to the United States.
That posting suggested that a view of the history of Japan
might give one insights into what a traditional country should do since that
nation was traditional – in the 1800s – and today is a vibrant industrial/postindustrial nation. Relying on the
reporting of David Landes,[1]
this review has established that the Japanese cultural character played a
central role.
That is, they enjoyed strong domestic
institutions such as family and community life which led to a sense of
self-confidence. In turn, that
confidence made it non-threatening for them to seek information and contacts
with the world’s industrial nations of that time. With that information they were instructed about
what to do and not do on their path toward modernization.
And
so, they did. Here are some of the steps
they initiated:
·
Hiring experts and technicians from industrial
nations
·
Sent Japanese agents to industrial nations – in
Europe and America – to garner whatever they could from their eyewitness
experiences
·
Conducted extensive comparative analysis of the
information and insights they acquired
·
Extended their research to military information
– first heavily relying on the French model and then, after the Franco-Prussian
War (1870-1871), the German model
·
Abandonment of feudalist form of governance (the
rule of local lords) and adoption of a central form of governance
·
Adopted British style trade policies as modeled
on the Navigation Acts in England that in earlier phases of industrialization
instituted protective policies that were only lightened after their industry
was soundly established
·
When their industry was established, again like
Britain, instituted a more laissez-faire model
·
Under the leadership of Okubo Toshimichi, instilled
a more disciplined, hardworking orientation to work and development – opting
for a German orientation
·
And by utilizing comparative advantage
opportunities, began efforts with light industrial products, small scale efforts
such as cotton mills, wooden waterwheels, coal mining
All of these elements or steps led from small production
to big production over long periods of developmental processes. Landes
summarizes these processes as follows:
But the long haul to parity needed not so much
money as people – people of imagination and initiative, people who understood
economies of scale, who knew not only production methods and machinery but also
organization and what we now call software.
The capital would follow and grow.
The
Japanese determined to go beyond consumer goods. If they were to have a modern economy, they
had to master the heavy work: to build
machines and engines, ships and locomotives, railroads and ports and
shipyards. The government played a
critical role here, financing reconnaissance abroad, bringing in foreign experts,
building installations, and subsidizing commercial ventures. But more important were the talent and
determination of Japanese patriots, ready to change careers in the national
cause, and the quality of Japanese workers, especially artisans, with skills
honed and attitudes shaped by close teamwork and supervision in craft shops.[2]
Landes characterizes all this as the Japanese
version of Weber’s Protestant ethic.
That would be their form of a culturally based human capital foundation.
Given
the initial question – can Latin countries south of the American border develop
viable, modern economies? – does the Japanese example answer or help answer
that question? The opinion here is that
it does not or does not very much but does give one insight as to what is
involved. For one thing, no one is
arguing that those Latin countries become industrial powerhouses, but that they
become viable economies capable of providing employment and opportunities for the
bulk of their populations.
With that more modest aim, the blogger believes the Japanese
example can offer some insight. And to
begin with is a recognition that culture indeed does matter and that those in
charge of any policy changes in this field need to be sensitive and
knowledgeable about the cultural factors involved.
The path to the ideal, whatever that is, will
be complex and involved. As with the
Japanese, having the productive motives that the Japanese exhibited, the
necessary capital will follow. And a bit
of advice: the efforts should begin with those who took it upon themselves to
make the trip to the US – they have demonstrated gumption, bravery, and energy
to improve their conditions. These are
qualities a nation can exploit – even hold as essential – in any attempt to
improve their economic standing.
[1] David Landes, “Culture Makes Almost All the
Difference,” in Culture Matters: How
Values Shape Human Progress, eds. Lawrence E. Harrison and Samuel P. Huntington
(New York, NY: Basic Books), 2-13. Factual claims of this posting based on this
source.
[2] Ibid., 9-10.
