Here are questions raised by students in class and the professor's answers.
Q1. How many foreign advisors were employed? Even though their salaries were high, can we not say that their productivity was also high?
During Meiji, officially and privately employed foreigners added up to the order of several hundreds in any year. But their composition changed over time. In the first ten years or so (around 1868-77), most of them were officially hired foreigners and numbered from 300s to 500s. But after that, government-hired foreigners declined sharply while privately-hired ones increased. Nearly half of them were teachers and professors at various institutions (including English teachers at private universities). By nationality, the British dominated followed by the French and the German. There were also a large number of Americans but almost all of them were professors or teachers (very few American engineers).
According to Kobusho Enkaku Hokoku (Report on the Outline of the Ministry of Industry, 1931), in early Meiji (around 1872), Yokosuka Shipyard alone employed 28 foreigners (all French), Railroad Agency had 80 (most of them were British), National Mint had 20 (most of them were British), and Ikuno Mine had 15 (all French). These four SOEs alone add up to 143 foreigners. But not all were high-level advisors. Many of them were workers, accountants, secretaries, and doctors.
It is reasonable to suspect that these foreigners were worth the money. But it is difficult to statistically measure their "productivity" when they were creating new industries. Without the British help, Japan could not have laid its first railroad. Does this mean their productivity was infinity? Should we measure the contribution of the new industries to GDP growth (impossible to separate other influences)? The return on foreign advisors also depended on how quickly the Japanese took over the new enterprise. Had the Japanese never learned, these industries would have forever depended on foreign hands, which would be very, very costly (in reality, this did not happen).
Q2. Why were Japanese trading houses (sogo shosha, such as Mitsui Trading Company) so active from the Meiji period? No other developing countries seem to have such companies even today.
I don't know exactly why. One possible reason is development of domestic commerce and the rise of rich merchant class during the Edo Period. But the continuity from Edo merchants to Meiji trading houses is not clear. The Mitsui family was a big merchant during Edo, but Mitsubishi was an entirely new group.
Q3. Import substitution failed in many countries. Why did Meiji Japan succeed in the import substitution of cotton textile industry?
Discipline imposed by forced low tariff (5%) may have been a factor. In addition, high capacity to absorb new technology, existence of innovative business leaders, a growing number of technical engineers, and appropriate official support were important.
Q.4 In the nineteenth century, did the West (US and Europe) protect their domestic industries?
Please wait