Japan’s new prime minister, Yoshihide Suga, has arrived with a suite of ambitious policy ideas, including plans to digitize government services and revive the country’s regional banks. But he has yet to come up with an overarching theme that strikes a chord with the public. Here is an idea: he should declare that by 2030, Japan will be positioned to make the best possible use of its one and only natural resource — its people.
Back in the 1980s, when the rest of the world looked admiringly at Japan for lessons about how to run an economy, it was assumed that the key to the country’s strength lay in its ability to tap a deep well of talent. After all, by that time Japan had become a high-wage, high-productivity, highly secure society with one of the world’s best education systems. In exchange for loyalty, Japanese high-school and university graduates alike received lifelong training and development from their employers, but, of course, this arrangement applied only to half the population: men.
Four decades later, Japan still has a great education system, which has made radical improvements on gender disparities. In the 1980s, most Japanese women had to make do with a two-year junior-college education. Less than 15 percent were enrolled in four-year university courses, compared with 35 to 40 percent of boys. This “education gap” explains why Japan has so few female leaders to this day.
Illustration: Yusha
However, over the past 30 to 40 years, the share of Japanese girls leaving high school for a four-year university has risen to 50 percent, compared with 55 percent of boys. The pipeline of future female leaders is now much larger. Yet despite this massive expansion of Japanese “human capital” (education and talent), its effective deployment has lagged behind, even reversing in some respects, for both men and women. There is now an extraordinary mismatch between Japanese workers’ educational achievements and employment.
The roots of this paradox stretch back to the 1990-92 collapse of stock and property prices, which caused significant social and economic stress and was soon followed by China’s emergence as a source of competitive pressure. Since then, successive Japanese governments, egged on by big business, have departed from the legacy of high wages and high job security, in favor of a cheap-labor strategy (they would not call it that, of course, but that is what it is).
In 1990, 80 percent of Japanese workers were employed on permanent, highly secure contracts. But by last year, nearly 40 percent were on insecure short-term contracts, owing to the relaxation of labor regulations over the past three decades. Moreover, as the working-age population has declined, millions of women and retired people have been recruited to maintain employment levels. Among these cohorts, over half of the women and almost all of the retirees are on short-term contracts, with many earning the minimum wage (which is one of the lowest among OECD countries).
While this cheap-labor strategy has helped support corporate profits, it also has emerged as the single biggest factor behind the country’s sluggish economic growth in recent decades. Household consumption is chronically weak, because wages have failed to rise regardless of how tight labor-market conditions have become. And, because employers have little incentive to invest in the human capital of part-time, short-term employees, corporate spending on training and development has declined, and relative poverty rates have risen, putting Japan far closer to the US than to egalitarian countries such as Denmark in this respect.
The cheap-labor approach may have been appropriate as an emergency measure to avert mass unemployment after Japan’s 1990 financial crisis, but it makes no sense as a long-term strategy for a highly educated, aging country at the technological frontier. Moreover, it is simply hypocritical where women are concerned.
At the January 2014 annual gathering of the World Economic Forum, Shinzo Abe, Suga’s long-serving predecessor, spoke boldly of making Japan “a place where women shine.” And after 2015, his government often boasted that Japan’s female labor-force participation rate had overtaken that of the US, reflecting its policies to increase public spending on childcare facilities, but with the cheap-labor strategy remaining in place and unaltered, the quality of women’s jobs has not kept pace with their quantity.
As a result, the benefits from the educational gains that women have made since the 1980s have fallen short of potential. To be sure, a new generation of university-educated women who graduated in the 1990s and 2000s is coming of age, and some will soon take up more prominent positions, but labor-market conditions for the bulk of Japanese women remain highly constrained.
While this problem partly reflects persistent misogyny and rigid corporate attitudes, the main culprit is the cheap-labor strategy. Too many men and women suffer from job insecurity and low wages, which almost certainly has contributed to Japan’s low marriage and birth rates. And this, in turn, has kept the overall population in decline, putting a cap on economic growth.
When he entered office last month, Suga promised to “create a cabinet that works for people.” To make that mean something, he needs to put the Japanese people at the very center of his national economic strategy. Japan desperately needs to develop and deploy the human capital embedded in its population, so that it can replace the 30-year-old emphasis on cheap labor with a restored vision of a high-wage, high-productivity society. Japan should be the Switzerland of Asia, not its US.
Bill Emmott is a former editor-in-chief of The Economist.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS