Development in Japan and China after WWII - Essay Example

Development in Japan and China after WWII Japan and China are two Asian countries with similar traditions and philosophy. After the end of WWII thepolitical and economic situations in Japan and China were changed together with their political priorities influenced by a number of external factors. Nevertheless, it is possible to find economic and political similarities in China and Japan, and compare their development after WWII. The political development of China was influenced by the Soviet Union ideology. China Republic, announced in 1949, adopted the "best" traditions of communism and reflected the model of the Soviet Union political structure. For along time Mao was a leader of Chinese people and their ideological tutor. He announced the policy of "leaning to one side" meant commitment to the socialist bloc. According to the socialistic economic model the transformations were made in the economic and social life of China. The citizens of China were divided into four social classes namely workers, bourgeoisie, peasants, and national-capitalists. The four classes were ruled by the China Communist Party (CCP) leading by the Chinese working class. In 1945 the territory of Japan was occupied and placed under international control, but in 1952 the Treaty of Peace granted Japan with full sovereignty. It should be mentioned that the level of influence between Japan and the USA was less than in China-USSR relations, and that is why the political priorities of Japan was free from strict ideological obtrusion. So, the outcome of WWII changed the political priorities of both countries, as well as their political ideology, which had a great influence on economic growth and development of China and Japan. The economy of Japan is often characterized as a "Japanese miracle". This extensive economic growth made it possible to recover the economy in a short period of time. From 1950s the governement of Japane had supported the extensive economic development which resulted in a first-rank economic power of the country. It should be noted that the economic miracle was impossible without the government considerable freedom aimed to oversee economic development in the long term. Through extensive state investment and guidance, and with a support provided by technology transfer from the USA, Japan rapidly rebuilt its heavy industrial sector (almost destroyed during the war) and agreculture. In contrast to Japan, the territory of China was not occupied, but the communist ideology, imposed by the Soviet Union, played the same role as an occupation (Sholler, 1997). China adopted the Soviet model of economic development based on a five-year plan. The model of the Soviet economic and technical assistance was expected to play a significant part in the implementation of the plan. In contrast to industrial Japan, the urgent need for China was agricultural sector of economy. According to the post war census (1953) the population of China was about 583 million, and to solve the problem of famine the government of Mao started the process of collectivization. Despite internal disagreement of collectivization, which at least for the time being was resolved in Mao's favor, preliminary collectivization was 90 percent completed by the end of 1956. In contrast to Japan, Chinese government provided the policy of nationalization of banking, industry, and trade. Private enterprises in mainland were virtually abolished. China had a one-party democracy, but the formal existence of certain liberties was useless because they were not exercused in practice The post-war settlement transformed Japan into a genuine constitutional party democracy, but, extraordinarily, it was ruled by a single party throughout the period of the "miracle". (Fairbank, 1986). So, taking into account the first post war decades it is possible to say that China and Japan developed different sectors of economics: China needed a strong agricultural sector, while Japan developed industry and banking sector. To some extent these similarities were caused by the post war situation, but mostly these directions were connected with political priorities of the countries. In the middle of 1950s Chinese government followed the socialist model of development while Japan employed capitalism. The main peculiarities of the economic growth in Japan between 1960-1970s were government-financed industry and protected home markets created a competitive advantage that allowed Japanese industry to sell, for a period of time, at what would be a loss for a free enterprise corporation. So, in half a century Japan has built the most modern industry and captured markets around the world, so long as trade surpluses are maintained, losses can be absorbed, up to a point, by those high domestic prices taxing back a part of the economic multiplier gains. It should be noted that many East Asian countries trade surplus with America were once offset by an equal trade deficit with Japan and those captured markets were released only when forced (Jansen, 2000). For instance, by 2000 China had $162 bullion in U.S. trade surpluses. So, the major characteristics of the Japanese economy included the working together of manufacturers, suppliers, distributors and banks in closely-knit groups; the powerful enterprise unions; cozy relations with government bureaucrats, and the guarantee of lifetime employment in big corporations. The economic growth of socialist China was slower. In general, it is possible to say that China was influenced by peoples who did not know its traditions and religion trying to adopt alien ideology and philosophy (Fairbank, 1986). In contrast to Japan, social reforms in China had a greater impact on the political and economic instability of the country. In 1962 Mao started an offensive to purify the party, having grown increasingly uneasy about what he believed were the "capitalist" and antisocialist tendencies in the country. Mao supposed that the material incentives that had been restored to peasants and other classes corrupted the masses, and announced the policy of "cultural revolution". The first phase of "cultural revolution" took place between 1962-1965, and called the Socialist Education Movement. Its purpose was to maintain mass education. The drafting of intellectuals for manual labor was part of the party's rectification campaign. The military phase started in 1966. Millions of Red Guards were encouraged by the Cultural Revolution group to become a "shock force" and to "bombard" with criticism both the regular party headquarters in Beijing and those at the regional and provincial levels. Red Guard activities were promoted as a reflection of Mao's policy of revolutionary enthusiasm. Japan did not know revolutionary movements or fight. The largest political party in Japan was Liberal Democratic party, which had lost its influence only in 1993, but regained it in a year. Bear in mind the social life of both countries it is evident that Chinese government provided more radical strategy aimed to hold the power and subdue masses. Japanese government provided social and cultural changes in order to strengthen and renew social life, but these transformation were not radical and agressive as in China (Fairbank, 1986). The political life in Japan and China was not free from international influences and interferences. The Cold War, the struggle between the USA and the Soviet Union which took place after WWII, had a great influence on the political situation in both countries. There was no direct millitary actions netween the USA and the Soviet Union, but the main weapon they used was political and economic pressure. The major peculiarity of this conflict was that many European, American and Asian countries were invloved in this war. "U. S. national security policies and the escalating Cold War played a larger role in promoting Japanese economic welfare and in forging the pattern of postwar economic integration and conflict between Japan and the United States than has previously been recognized" and as the Cold War came to dominate the USA "extended security commitments to two nations in Northeast Asia-the Republic of Korea and Japan" (Forsberg, 2000). In contrast to Japan China border conflicts with the Soviet Union, along with the Cultural Revolution, forced Mao to "revise his views on domestic radicalism and relations with the United States"(Fairbank, 1986). There was a contradiction between Mao's radical domestic and foreign policy. This contradiction and the threat of a new war with the Soviet Union led to an opening to the USA. The Taiwan Straits crises caused great confrontation between the USA and China where both sides glared at each other but purposely avoided an armed confrontation. Eisenhower's administration worked to continue Truman's administration policy of preventing Chinese expansion into Southeast Asia by driving a wedge between the Soviet Union and China to destroy their relashions. "Both China and the United States had foreign policies driven by "soft" culture-bound factors (beliefs, moral values, and historical consciousness) as well as so-called "hard realities" (economic and military power)" (Fairbank, 1986). The promise for Japan to join the United States in defense of Taiwan may only indicate that the relationship between these two countries is becoming closer than ever before. Forsberg said: " I cannot think of a time when their relations had ever been closer or more constructive" (Forsberg, 2000). Some historians suppose that the Cold War reappeared in Asia. As for China, in addition to arms, military technology, and "joint military training exercises, there is the lure of Russian oil - something the Chinese desperately need in order to fuel their growing economy" (Fairbank, 1986). In 1960s the increased cooperation between the Soviet Union and China created an environment that resulted in these two countries on one side and the USA and Japan on the other. Taking into account the facts mentioned above it is possible to say that after WWII China and Japan followed different ideologies: China inherited the socialistic way of economy while Japan followed the capitalistic model of development. Japanese government used more conservative reforms aimed to sustain economic stability of the country. In contrast, China needed more radical reforms to strengthen the political power of the Communist party. In spite of the fact that populations and territories of the countries played a significant role in their development, the dominant role was played by ideologies and adopted models of economic development. References 1. Jansen, The Making of Modern Japan, Belknap, 2000 2. Fairbank, J. The Great Chinese Revolution, 1800-1985. New York: Harper & Row, 1986. 3. Forsberg, A. America and the Japanese Miracle: The Cold War Context of Japan's Postwar Economic Revival, 1950-1960. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000. 4. Sholler, M. Altered States: The United States and Japan Since the Occupation, Oxford, 1997. Read More