Japan – what can we learn? - Construction Labour Research

traditional. The Japanese construction industry at the beginning of thenineties of the last century could be characterised on the one hand as asector dominated by a handful of key contractors, at the top of atriangle of subcontractors, specialised contractors and suppliers and,on the other, by a large section of many small firms using mainlytraditional methods.Other authors were much more critical and did not support thetendency to idealise the ‘harmonious’ Japanese system. The principalcriticism amongst those pinpointed is the system of dango, or priceringing (Kurosaki 1994) which led to a virtual implosion of thecontracting system and the fall of the Liberal government. The mainreason why the system appeared to be so harmonious was thatcontractual relationships were collusive, and that disputes wereresolved under the table rather than openly. Idealisation was evenmore surprising in the absence of any evidence that the Japaneseindustry has been more efficient, and anecdotal indications that thecompetitive advantage of Japanese contractors internationally derivedmainly from access to relatively cheap capital rather than greatereffectiveness in construction. A study of a Tokyo social housingproject (Reeves 1995) did not confirm the supposed superiority.The major influence of Japanese construction on the European marketwas expected in the imports of highly advanced constructionequipment, components and IT systems. These expectations werebased on the existence of powerful research institutes. The generalfeeling was furthermore that the innovative approach trickling downfrom the top, combined with a very active role of government inplanning and coordinating research programs, would bring the wholeof Japanese industry forward.Our German colleague Stefan Hochstadt made several study trips toJapan. In this issue of CLR-News he reports about his experiences.The contributions from Stefan and other authors will provide thereader with new findings. It gives us the opportunity to assess from ahistorical perspective the projections formulated 15 years ago.Jan Cremers, 2006-07-11CLR News No 2/20063