The Political Economy of Japan Bradley M. RICHARDSON

course of action implied dependency, poverty and the possible breakdown ofthe social system.A state (mainly MITI) developmental "ideology" is seen by Johnson as themajor driving force in industrial plans. By imposing their own version of economicrationality, or by basing economic policies on a synthesis of government technocraticformulae and market information, the Japanese government ministries are said tohave been capable of successfully guiding economic growth. Johnson's view hasbecome the mainstay of popular knowledge about the Japanese government'seconomic role, both among admirers and critics of Japanese policy(22).Some economists take a radically different view of the Japanesegovernment's importance to economic growth. For example, Hugh Patrick and HenryRosovsky have written that the state's role as less important than private sectorinitiatives and that Japan is much like European mixed economies as the result(32).Several investigators also state views of Japan's governmental role which liesomewhere between the two extremes represented by Johnson's stronginterventionist state and a view of the state as using mainly conventional fiscal andmonetary tools to stimulate the economy. Their interpretations of Japanesegovernment economic policy emphasize that (a) most important economic decisionsare politicized, (b) policy inputs by interest groups and firms are often moreinfluential than those of the government and (c) industry interests and governmentrationales aren't always complementary. The ends of state policy are also seen asbeing subverted by firms, behavior or unanticipated market trends. Among this groupRichard Samuels is the leading proponent of a view that political influence from firmsand industrial associations influences Policymaking. Samuels also holds that thereare many departures from government ministry intentions in the policies whichemerge from government-interest group negotiations. Samuels is joined by DavidFriedman in the assertion that there are often unanticipated aspects of policyimplementation (24).Interpretations of Japanese government economic policy roles form a roughcontinuum which includes two closely related dimensions. The first dimension is thedegree to which the state dominates economic policymaking and implementation.The second is the character of the rationales employed in economic policymaking. Atone pole, experts see a dominant state which orchestrates economic progressfollowing its own growth ideology (25). At the other extreme, the state's role isconstrained. Occupying the middle of the continuum are views that economic policyis a negotiated blend of ministry economic ideology and private interests;policymaking participation is pluralistic.In our own view, both poles of the continuum of interpretations of theJapanese government economic role are unsatisfactory. Johnson's rich history of