Abstract
Of the four structures of power analysed in this book, the knowledge structure is undoubtedly the most difficult to ‘map’. The difficult nature of the task flows from three major sources. The complexity of the technological-informational aspect, the amorphous and imprecise nature of the ideational or ideological aspect, and the general paucity of previous academic work in the field.1 Strange has herself been rightly criticised for leaving this area of her work undeveloped relative to the three other major structures of power she identifies, although no other has managed, as yet, to take the broad sweep of her initial work any further.2 A number of scholars have focused their attentions on the technological-informational aspect, but have failed satisfactorily to combine this narrow appreciation with the broader ideological aspect.3 Russell, for one, falls into this trap when he suggests that ‘while technology is the most important element within the knowledge structure we should remember it is not the only element. Knowledge is broader overall’.4 The technological-informational aspect and the ideational aspect of the knowledge structure are in fact inseparable, even though it may be convenient for the sake of analytical clarity to attempt to consider them as separate parts of a greater whole.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See U. Hilpert (ed.), State Policies and Techno-Industrial Innovation (London: Routledge, 1991)
and a number of the essays in M. Talalay et al. (eds), Technology Culture and Competitiveness (London: Routledge, 1997).
A. Russell, ‘Merging Technological Paradigms and the Knowledge Structure in International Political Economy’, Science and Public Policy, 22 (1995) 115, n. 53.
For a Japanese view see Sumiya M., ‘Japan: Model Society of the Future?’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 513 (1991) 139–50.
See S. Gill, ‘American Hegemony: Its Limits and Prospects in the Reagan Era’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 15 (1986) 311–36.
E. Mortimer, ‘Elusive World Order’, The Financial Times, 17 June 1998, p. 20. See also M. Walker, ‘A New American Isolationism?’, International Journal, 52 (1997) 391–410.
See references at n. 70, in Chapter 7; and S. Douglas and S. Douglas, ‘Economic Implications of the US-ASEAN Discourse on Human Rights’, Pacific Affairs, 69 (1996) 71–87.
See T. Jackson, Turning Japanese (London: Harper Collins, 1994).
For an introduction to the literature on post-Fordism, see A. Amin (ed.), Post-Fordism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994).
See R. Reich, The Work of Nations (New York: Knopf, 1991).
For background to the Japanese automobile industry, see Shimokawa K., The Japanese Automobile Industry (London: Athlone, 1994). The Toyota system of production is discussed below, but note here that that system was built within and is dependent upon the wider socio-political milieu obtaining in Japan. Hence, the development of lean production at Toyota and other firms must be seen within its historical context. Toyota and Nissan, for example, played a large part in the destruction of trades unions and their replacement
The literature is vast. In addition to the references given below, a thoughtful and reflective analysis can be found in Tabb, The Postwar Japanese System, chapters 2 and 5. For a genealogy of the Toyota Production System, see Ohno T, Toyota Production System (Cambridge, Mass.: Productivity Press, 1988), pp. 75–92.
What follows is the ‘celebratory’ view of the lean production system. This description should in no way be taken as approval, and nor should the characterisation of the transition from Fordism to post-Fordism be seen as signifying ‘progress’. The portrayal of ideal-types is intended as an aid to understanding more fully how these are ‘championed’ by their various proponents and achieve legitimacy. For a searing critique of early European and North American work on the ‘benefits’ of Toyotaism, see Kato T. and R. Steven, Is Japanese Capitalism Post-Fordist? (Melbourne: Japanese Studies Centre, Paper No. 16, 1991).
See inter alia J. Zysman, ‘The Myth of a ‘Global Economy’: Enduring National Foundations and Emerging Regional Realities’, New Political Economy, 1 (1996) 157–84.
See the special edition of New Political Economy edited by Barry Gills entitled ‘Globalisation and the Politics of Resistance’. New Political Economy, 2 (1997); and D. Singer, Whose Millennium? Theirs or Ours? (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1999).
See P. Hirst and G. Thompson, Globalization in Question (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996).
Shingo S., A Study of the Toyota Production System from an Industrial Engineering Viewpoint, revised edition (Cambridge, Mass: Productivity Press, 1989) p. xxviii. Shingo seems to have played a part in the development of Toyota very similar to that of Taylor at Ford: that is Ohno took all the plaudits, while Shingo is credited with making the ideas reality.
See inter alia M. Trevor, ‘The Overseas Strategies of Japanese Corporations’, and S. Levine and M. Ohtsu, ‘Transplanting Japanese Labor Relations’, both in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 513 (1991) 90–101 and 102–16 respectively. In a survey recording the proportion of foreign manufacturing affiliates to whom Japanese parent companies transferred management practices, the United Nations World Investment Report for 1995 found that 69 per cent of foreign affiliates adopted a common dining room; 65 per cent adopted open-concept offices; 41 per cent adopted uniforms; 35 per cent morning meetings; 25 per cent a bonus system; 14 per cent just-in-time inventory; 12 per cent enterprise-based unions; 11 per cent lifelong employment; and 2 per cent seniority-based wage system. Cited in The Far Eastern Economic Review, 1 February 1996, p. 13.
Cited in the foreword to Monden Y., Toyota Production System (Norcross, Georgia: Industrial Engineering and Management Press, 1983), pp. i–ii.
According to Saburo Okita: ‘the nations of the region engineer successive industrial take-offs and are soon moving on their way to higher stages of development. It is akin to a V-formation, and the relationship between the countries in the formation is neither horizontal integration nor vertical integration as they are commonly known. Rather, it is a combination of both. And because the geese that take off later are able to benefit from the forerunners’ experiences to shorten the time required to catch up, they gradually transform the formation from a V-formation to eventual horizontal integration’. Cited in W. Bello and S. Cunningham, ‘Trade Warfare and Regional Integration in the Pacific: The USA, Japan and the Asian NICs’, Third World Quarterly, 15 (1994) 455.
See A. Nicoll and W. Keeling, ‘Asians Seek a Head for their Bloc’, The Finan-cial Times, 20 July 1993, p. 5. For popular and élite Japanese views prevalent at the time, see G. Cardinale, ‘Through the Japanese Looking Glass’, 5Asian Survey, 32 (1992) 635–48. For East Asian dissent, see inter alia Berger, ‘The Triumph of the East?’ in Berger and Borer (eds), The Rise of East Asia; and The Economist, ‘Japan: The New Nationalists’, 14–20 January 1995, pp. 14 and 19–21.
A. Dupont, ‘Is there an “Asian Way”?’, Survival, 38, 2 (1996) 16.
See ibid.; and an interesting commentary by C. Patten, ‘Asian Values and Asian Success’, Survival, 38, 2 (1996) 5–12. Note, however, that the last point, concerning the economic and political decline of the ‘West’ does seem particularly overblown in the light of the Asian crisis beginning in 1997.
As noted, Japan’s relationship with the US ruled out a leading Japanese role, but Japan has reserved the right to consider the issue. For details see inter alia W Villacorta, ‘Japan’s Asian Identity: Concern for ASEAN-Japan Relations’, ASEAN Economic Bulletin, 11 (1994) 74–92.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2002 Dominic Kelly
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kelly, D. (2002). Mapping Japan’s Role in East Asia: Knowledge. In: Japan and the Reconstruction of East Asia. International Political Economy Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403905307_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403905307_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-42795-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4039-0530-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)