V. RAMSES, Doctor of Economics

Globalization has literally burst not only into the lexicon, but also into everyday life in Japan. The ten-year crisis of the Japanese economy showed that the country, with its ossified socio-economic and bureaucratic model of "catch-up" development, did not fit into the process of globalization that had begun. Inadequate to the new economy were all the specific features of the national model of economic development, which in the 50s and 70s created the "Japanese miracle" of amazing economic growth. These include corporate ownership structures, Japanese management, the financial market controlled by banks, the labor market with its system of "lifetime hiring" and employee remuneration based on seniority, and state paternalism in relations between firms and the state.

Right now, Japan is still only at the beginning of reforms that open up its economy to the powerful forces of the global market and global competition. However, the Japanese are by no means inclined to give the country to these spontaneous forces.

There is a difficult search for the role of the state within the country and in the international arena in the new conditions.

MORE THAN SPEEDING UP INTERNATIONALIZATION

The most visible external manifestation of globalization is the rapid free movement of capital, goods, information, and people across national borders that has accelerated dramatically since the early 1980s.

This acceleration didn't come out of nowhere. It is based on a specific approach to the economic, political, social and cultural problems of the country from a planetary point of view. Such an approach, based on the idea of the world as a single and indivisible whole, implies the possibility of overcoming economic crises, protecting the environment, resolving interstate conflicts, ensuring security, and asserting human rights not at a purely local or national level, but at the global level.

The planetary approach is probably the fundamental difference between globalization and internationalization. If the latter is based on the premise of the inviolability of state sovereignty and is based on inter-State negotiations, which have in mind the agreement of the parties to the agreement between the parties.-

page 2

The first one is based on transnational, or, as some Japanese researchers put it, "supranational", supranational actions that essentially ignore state sovereignty. Therefore, globalization does not look like a logical continuation of internationalization, but rather its opposite, although external manifestations of the globalization process also occur during internationalization, which is characterized by increased interdependence of different States.

The world of internationalization is dominated by relations between States that generally focus on the same goals, such as ensuring economic growth, more or less full employment, price stability, etc., but, as a rule, use different means to achieve them. At the same time, economic interdependence is based on the intensification of trade between countries. When the clash of means used interferes with the achievement of their goals, States begin to establish international regimes, that is, conclude trade, currency and other agreements, as well as create organizations that regulate controversial issues. As central figures in the world of internationalization, States serve as a mechanism for mutual adaptation of international regimes and domestic orders, seeking to balance the autonomy of domestic policies with the needs of international economic liberalization.

The ultimate goal of the internationalization world is to implement "shallow integration" in the form of reducing barriers to the movement of goods, capital, information, and people.

At the same time, a typical phenomenon of the world of globalization is global systems, which are characterized primarily by supra - territoriality. They seek to interact with internal systems directly, bypassing government structures. They are programmed to eliminate or weaken local regulatory requirements and create a single set of international rules covering a very wide area, from political and economic institutions to industrial standards.

Global systems, of course, do not completely eliminate the state in the arena of public life. However, it has to put up with the transfer of a fair share of its regulatory powers to non-governmental organizations and firms.

As noted by Professor of the University of Tokyo and. Ecota, " thanks to scientific and technological progress in such areas as transport and communications, the growing scale and transnational nature of economic activity, as well as the free movement of people, goods, money and information across national borders, problems related to economic development, health and social security, education, and the fight against drug trafficking, ensuring law and order, that is, problems that individual countries are accustomed to consider internal (author's italics. - V. R.), globalized. Since the globalization process is uneven, some countries and regions have not yet felt its full impact, but the fact that this rapid and unstoppable process is dragging them into a maelstrom of radical change is beyond any doubt. In the twenty-first century, the world will have to solve common problems as a single human community (emphasis added). - V. R.It is obvious that among them will be problems related to the destruction of the environment, the depletion of natural resources, absolute poverty, population explosion, drug production and consumption, terrorism and massive refugee flows. As a matter of fact, even now these problems are treated as global ones... Until now, national interests remain the driving force in international relations, and individual national States are responsible for solving problems directly related to the improvement of life (the safety of citizens, the quality of everyday life, health and social security, education and the quality of the environment). Although they will still have the lion's share of responsibility in the twenty-first century, the scale of many of these challenges will outgrow the ability of countries to address them individually. The role of international organizations, especially the UN, in addressing these challenges will become critical (emphasis added). - B.P.)" ¹ .

According to the Ambassador of Japan to the Republic of Korea,Ogura believes that many of the contradictions that are revealed when taking measures to preserve and strengthen the modern international system are caused by " the inflexibility of governments and the sluggishness of their response to real events."

"The emergence of innumerable multinational corporations, the spillover of economic activity across national borders, the liberalization of capital transactions, trade and investment, and rapid technological progress have deprived governments of the ability to respond in a timely manner to new situations (whether at home or on the international stage) by creating a new order," he writes. - There are two ways to correct this situation. One of them is to involve the private sector and non-governmental organizations more actively in the creation of a new international order. The other is the transfer by individual countries of part of their sovereignty to multilateral institutions, that is ,the" assignment " of sovereign rights from the national to the international level (emphasis added). - V. R. Within the international economic community, the phenomenon of governments ' inflexibility and sluggish response to real-world events can be interpreted as a contradiction between growing cross-border economic activity, on the one hand, and political systems still functioning in the conceptual area of national borders and national sovereignty, on the other. The European Union represents, in a sense, a political attempt to resolve this contradiction by creating a regional alliance.

It is no exaggeration to say that Japan's economic security policy will have to deal with the extremely important issue of exercising national sovereignty. Whether it chooses the East Asian concept, whether it uses the Asian Economic Cooperation Forum, whether it turns to the idea of a Japan-US free trade zone, it should, for the sake of its own interests and the interests of strengthening the international system, think about

page 3

creating a mechanism for improving its economic structure on the basis of international cooperation, which would provide for mutual restrictions on the exercise of sovereignty (emphasis added). - V. R. ) " ² .

The exclusion of the state control valve from the economic mechanism and the orientation towards the virtually undivided domination of market forces in the context of globalization lead to the implementation of the principles of neoliberalism in practice.

The parameters of the neoliberal model of the economy were successfully summed up by the Russian scientist V. Kollontai: "... the emphasis is placed on the forced homogenization (on a rigid monetarist basis) of the mechanisms of economic regulation of countries that are part of the world economy; the main, if not the only, regulator of development is proclaimed to be a spontaneous market mechanism; the national economic complex, sovereignty, and partly even the state are Thus, their rapid overcoming is presented as the key to success; the main efforts are directed at weakening the economic role of the state, at liberalization and deregulation. " ³

This concise list clearly shows how much more serious risks are associated with globalization than with internationalization. These risks are not always obvious, they are poorly controlled in any way, and they are primarily affected by the unique components of national cultures in the broadest sense of the word.

However, according to most Japanese and other Western experts, the potential benefits of globalization far outweigh the risks associated with it. This is especially clearly seen in the example of Japan itself, where the remnants of closeness, the desire to protect accumulated traditions at any cost (even against common sense), blind faith in the eternal infallibility of the post-war development scheme, as well as the interests of a significant part of the ruling elite and the inertia of national psychology prevent us from finally dealing with the consequences of the economic leaders.

Finally, unlike internationalization, which primarily involves Western countries with highly developed market economies and democracies, globalization claims to include both highly developed and developing countries in its orbit.

YOU CAN'T STOP THE TRAIN

Although globalization is only just beginning to truly unfold and many aspects of it have yet to be fully expressed, this process is not only causing heated discussions in academic audiences, in business, political and official circles. It led to mass anti-globalist demonstrations, often accompanied by street riots, as was the case during the World Trade Organization conference in Seattle in late 1999. The World Economic Forum in Davos, the G8 meeting in Genoa last summer, the European Union summit in Barcelona this March, etc.

Among the opponents of globalization are trade unionists, whose organizations direct and finance the protest movement, presenting themselves as defenders of all the "humiliated and insulted", but in fact only care about preserving jobs that are really threatened by globalization in general and free trade in particular. Environmental activists march in columns of protesters. Anti-globalists are joined by anarchists and simply declassified individuals who are determined to destroy property in any form.

Anti-globalists blame institutions such as, for example, the collapse of the dividing barriers between countries. The World Trade Organization (WTO), although they are not the causes, but the consequences of the process of forming a "world without borders". After all, the more closely integrated individual countries are, the more vigorously they trade with each other, the more they need an institution that sets basic rules for trade (and this, among other things, is what the WTO does). Critics are pushing for even tougher environmental, labor, and legal standards than the current WTO framework provides.

There are legitimate concerns about globalization among the populous developing countries (India, Mexico, and China), whose current rapid growth has been driven by active participation in international trade and massive attraction of foreign investment. They are far from thinking about recognizing the trade unions of developed countries as representatives of all the "oppressed and insulted", about turning the process of globalization around and undermining this process.

page 4

an institution like the WTO. Moreover, developing countries do not support the position of those who, in fact, are trying to isolate themselves from them with sanitary cordons of unrealistic labor and environmental standards, and "save" the peoples of these countries from economic development.

Reasonably believing that the rules of participation in the globalization process are unilaterally formulated and descend down the steps of the hierarchy by the "golden billion" and that these rules are unfair, the rest of the world is fighting not against the "pie" that is being baked in this process, but for its more significant slice.

Countries outside this "billion" are concerned about the incessant acceleration of the pace of various innovations, which indicate the beginning of a new era. They would like to jump into the car of the departing train, but its speed is already such that it is almost impossible to do this. But calls to slow down the train's movement are also unrealistic.

Anti-globalists are opposed by willing or unwitting enthusiasts of the globalization process, who disperse it with the help of accelerated development and instant implementation of high technologies, as well as the Internet revolution. It is in the depths of this elite that the ideas of "creative destruction" of the usual world order, the ideas of a significant restriction of state sovereignty, which conquer the imagination of some and terrify others, are born. So far, we are mainly talking about removing corporate business operations from the system of national regulation, which is the responsibility of popular-elected governments, and transferring their business to a certain international dimension, where direct political supervision by any elected bodies is virtually absent.

FRONTAL OFFENSIVE OF MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES

During the Cold War, Washington actively promoted trade liberalization and economic growth, seeing them as effective means to combat the communist "threat." As a result of a series of foreign trade negotiations, the average level of customs tariffs in industrialized countries has been reduced to about 5 percent, compared with 40 percent in 1946. Europeans, taught by the experience of two devastating wars, saw economic unity as the best alternative to ruinous nationalism. By the beginning of the 1990s, the volume of world exports (adjusted for inflation) increased almost tenfold compared to the beginning of the 1950s.

By the end of the final decade of the 20th century, the picture of investment flows had changed dramatically.

In 1990, Governments, either individually or through international institutions such as the World Bank, provided an estimated half of the total amount of loans and credits to 29 major developing countries, including Brazil, China, India, the Republic of Korea and Mexico, according to the Washington Institute of International Finance. However, by 2000, private capital flows, even despite the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998, began to literally "clog" public capital. According to the Institute of International Finance, in 1999, private funds allocated to the same 29 developing countries (bank loans, bond financing, investments in local equity markets, and direct investment by multinational companies) totaled $ 136 billion, compared to $ 22 billion received from public sources ^.4

Multinational companies have launched a frenetic acquisition activity on the international stage. In the first six months of 1999 alone, the volume of new mergers and acquisitions carried out, so to speak, bypassing state borders, exceeded $ 500 billion in developed and developing countries, that is, it almost reached the corresponding figure for the whole of 1998 ($544 billion) and almost six times exceeded the figure of 1991 - 85 $ ⁵ billion .

Behind the boom in mergers and acquisitions is a growing belief among multinational firms that,

page 5

that many markets have already become global. In an effort to expand their presence in as many countries as possible, they seek to reduce costs by scaling up production and distribution. Multinational corporations are increasingly resorting to a global organization of production, dividing the production of components and final assembly between dozens of countries.

The share of such corporations in total output and employment is constantly growing. In 1996, the most recent year for which data are available, they produced 15.8 percent of American manufacturing output, up from 8.8 percent in 1985 and 13.2 percent in 1989. If in 1989 their enterprises in the same industry employed 10.8% of the total number of employees, in 1996-11.4% ⁶ .

Critics of globalization accuse multinational companies of destroying jobs, lowering wages, and undermining the local economy. But is the growing role of multinational companies in national economies so destructive?

First, the wages of their employees are higher than the national average: in Japan-by 35 percent, in the United States-by 6 percent. Second, they create jobs faster than their local competitors in most countries. In 1989-1996, the staff of multinational companies in the United States increased by 1.4 percent per year, while the corresponding figure for local firms was 0.8 percent. Third, multinational companies make large local investments in research and development. In 1996, for example, they accounted for 12 percent of all American spending for these purposes. Fourth, multinational companies export more products than local ones. In 1996, they exported 13.1 per cent of their output from Japan, and 10.6 per cent locally ^.7

THE "NEW CAPITALISM" DID NOT COLLAPSE

Global trade and investment can significantly contribute to economic development. Of course, a country's success or failure depends primarily on its own workforce, its own investment, and the quality of public policy. But getting involved in the global economy isn't without its benefits, to say the least.

The example of East Asia, including China, could not be more appropriate in this case. The rapid expansion of foreign trade and fairly stable economic growth, largely due to this integration, led, despite the financial crisis, to a noticeable reduction in the population at the very bottom of poverty. The World Bank estimates that between 1987 and 1998, the share of recipients of incomes not exceeding one dollar a day decreased from 27 to 15 percent of the total population. In contrast, Latin American and African countries, which have been late in joining the global economy or have imposed various self-restrictions on it, cannot boast of such results. In Africa, for example, the proportion of people living on a dollar or less a day remained at the level of ⁴⁶ per cent in 1987.8 in 1998 .

Opponents of globalization base their arguments mainly not on real events, but on pessimistic forecasts, although there are many reasonable warnings in their criticism.

page 6

which would help develop a balanced globalization strategy and prevent possible excesses.

Globalization, like any other economic, political and social processes, is indeed associated with a variety of risks, including economic instability. At the same time, the global economy is subject to more dramatic changes in the "prosperity - crisis" cycle than national economies. It "rewards" the winners who have managed to equip themselves with the necessary means of extracting benefits in the new conditions, and "punishes" the losers who did not have time or did not want to adapt to these conditions. The process of globalization with great difficulty lends itself to regulatory control, constantly strives to break out of the traditional "framework of decency", creating problems with the integration of different cultures, financial troubles, etc.

But we cannot approach globalization as a panacea for social ills. It does not have the happy healing gift attributed to it by the theory that in free-trade-thriving countries, the invisible hand of the market, unchecked by hopelessly outdated regulations, somehow encourages governments to protect the environment, ban child labor, or enact laws on workers ' rights.

Despite all the "sins", globalization seems to have passed in its development that critical milestone beyond which there is no return. Moreover, it has proved to be an optimal alternative to the worldwide rampant protectionism, with its unpredictable and, for the most part, extremely severe consequences, judging by the experience of the thirties.

The Asian financial crisis has provided clear evidence for this. It has hurt millions of people, especially in East Asia, but left the supporting structures of the global economy intact. The worst is over: the worst-hit countries are recovering quickly, the epidemics of financial crashes have not been allowed to spread, and economic growth has resumed. The collapse of the globalization process of the so-called new capitalism did not take place.

In contrast, the post-crisis world seems to present itself as even more market-oriented than the pre-crisis world, adopting new rules and practices that help markets function fairly smoothly. And this is the most important outcome of the 1997-1998 crisis.

Contrary to pessimistic predictions based, in particular, on the introduction of capital controls in Malaysia, the intervention of the Hong Kong authorities in the stock market, despite the financial disasters of Brazil and the default in Russia, neither globalization processes, nor the free market economy as a whole collapsed. Brazil survived, and Hong Kong and Malaysia are too small to create a global catastrophe. Moreover, it is striking that the damage caused by the crisis to the globalization process is insignificant. Countries that are recovering better than others, such as Thailand and South Korea, are becoming increasingly involved. And none of the countries affected by the crisis, except Malaysia, made any attempt to isolate themselves from the globalizing economy, either during or after the financial turmoil.

Opponents of the" new capitalism " seized on the Asian crisis to criticize the so-called Washington consensus, which prescribes uniform rules for fiscal discipline, deregulation, privatization, and trade and financial liberalization in the spirit of an orthodox "free market" approach. Indeed, a new consensus has begun to form under the impact of the crisis, but it is only adding to the old list with new requirements for stricter financial control, a flexible labor market, and greater transparency of entrepreneurship and public administration.

Some experts believe that the openness of countries to trade and investment is not a sufficient guarantee of economic development. But no one has ever claimed that such openness in itself can serve as such a guarantee. Another thing is that openness to the outside world has already become an indispensable condition for the success of Asian countries, especially those that have adopted it

page 7

now that technological know-how, usually obtained from outside, has become essential for a profitable business.

Now the question is not about revising the foundations of the free market, but about its possible renewal. Similarly, the ongoing attempts to create a "new financial architecture" are not designed to rebuild the existing system from a zero cycle. The goal of these efforts is to improve the financial rules and practices necessary to lubricate the gears of the market mechanism.

HOW TO OVERCOME STEREOTYPES?

The discussions of Japanese politicians, businessmen, scientists and journalists around globalization are focused primarily on the problems associated with the need to replace the half-century-old model of development.

These discussions have now become more constructive. Their participants are no longer fixated on a fruitless debate about the benefits or harms of globalization. The overwhelming majority of representatives of the political, business and intellectual elite accept it as a long-term phenomenon, not harboring hopes that the processes of globalization can be slowed down. They are more interested in how globalization should proceed, what will be the new economic rules and political norms.

There was a certain convergence of positions of Japanese supporters and opponents of globalization.

The indefensible - corporate, bureaucratic, and academic representatives interested in a globalized economy that is efficient and safe for business-are beginning to recognize that while their favorite brainchild has many benefits, it also has victims who need help.

In turn, neolithic people are increasingly inclined to believe that although globalization generates many negative phenomena and if it should be allowed, then only with the introduction of the most severe restrictions, it is useful for the economy and improving the standard of living, at least in developed countries. These include, first of all, representatives of numerous influential non-governmental organizations, trade unions and various associations that advocate for strict labor and environmental standards and guarantees of human rights.

Both the neo-left and the non-right are afraid of the huge changes and difficulties associated with Japan's involvement in globalization, and above all, the need to abandon Japan's unusually persistent habit of detachment from world politics.

To those who find any claim that the world's second-largest economic power is so detached absurd, the Japanese proponents of globalization respond as follows:

Throughout the post-war period, the Land of the Rising Sun consistently pursued a policy in which the economy was an unshakeable priority, and achieved a lot. However, its influence on international politics is very modest. Japan has firmly established itself as an outside observer. Whenever possible, Japan carefully avoided involvement in international problems, either leaving them to other countries to solve, or limiting its participation to the provision of funds, And the world community itself, fearing the remilitarization of Japan, its return to the status of a major military power, preferred to be content with its economic contribution, without showing any noticeable interest in its position on international issues.

However, the world order is formed on the basis of an interweaving of economic, political and military factors, according to Japanese adherents of globalization. In order to maintain its economic influence and bring the country's weight in world politics in line with it, Tokyo urgently needs to abandon the position of an outsider and build its policy in all areas based on the needs of globalization, and enrich national business activities with advanced globalist methods.

Japanese experts are very concerned about the problem of overcoming many well-established psychological stereotypes.

Will their compatriots be able to grasp the essence of the upcoming changes without delay and be creative in adapting to them?

In the 1980s, the United States found the strength to enter the next phase of economic growth through intensive development and implementation of information technologies and modernization of financial mechanisms, while Japan, intoxicated by the atmosphere of a "bubble" economy, lagged behind in both directions, maintaining a system of high costs and strict regulations. Moreover, maintaining the status quo remains one of the dominant moral values in the country, and corporations are content with limited competition.

Being brought up in conditions of almost one hundred percent national homogeneity, the Japanese nevertheless demonstrate the ability to comprehend the culture and values of other peoples. But it is difficult for them to establish emotional contacts with carriers of a different cultural heritage, different business ethics, and other methods of decision-making.

Will the Japanese, in the face of unprecedented changes, be able to protect from erosion those of their moral values that unite their peculiar society and its institutions? Will they be able to find a worthy alternative to these values?

So far, this erosion is increasing at all levels - family, corporate and state.

The danger of Americanization is also a concern. Well-known Japanese political scientist T. Inoguchi conducted a survey of members of the public and found that they were concerned about "American fundamentalism", which is understood as "the tendency of the United States to conduct its global economic affairs with such arrogance that inevitably causes rebuff, negative reactions. The Japanese approach is that globalization should not be reduced to sanctifying the principles of the Anglo-Saxon market economy and imposing them on other economies. " ⁹

CHANGE IS INEVITABLE

According to the editor of the newspaper "Iomiuri" H. Ota, the Japanese economy will not only have to get rid of the three "excesses" (excess production capacity, excess employment, and excess debt), but also do away with the remnants of excessive regulation and protectionism, open the domestic market to the fresh winds of global expanses, and reshape the industry structure in order to dramatically increase the competitiveness of products. Without implementation of these measures, no matter how painful they may be, Japan "will not have the twenty-first century" ^.10

In favor of the changes were and

page 8

three independent advisory bodies under the Cabinet of Ministers.

In July 1999, the Cabinet of Ministers approved the ten-year plan "Ideal Socio-Economics and Economic Revival Policy" prepared by the Prime Minister's Economic Council ^.11

It explicitly states that the country's economic downturn of the 1990s was not just another unfavorable phase of the cycle. He outlined the collapse of the economic system based on equality of results and the beginning of the historical transition from the industrial era to the era of knowledge, in which equality of opportunity will be at the forefront.

In other words, the document proclaims the replacement of one of the most important pillars of the post-war socio-economic ideology of equalization and foreshadows the introduction of a reward mechanism linked to individual creative initiatives and risks.

The document also provides for easing barriers to immigration of qualified personnel to Japan to fill vacancies in the high-tech sectors.

The Commission on Competitiveness recommended that employment policies move from protecting existing jobs in low-productivity sectors to encouraging the flow of human resources to high-performance sectors with the potential for further growth. She also proposed to abandon the current practice of subsidizing employers for retaining staff, instead assigning the state to guarantee part of the costs associated with retraining the unemployed for employment in the information and other sectors of the new economy.

At the beginning of 2000, the leading experts of the group under the Government published the document "The Inner Frontier: Empowering Individuals and Improving Public Administration in the New Millennium" ¹² . They sharply criticized what defines the portrait of modern Japanese society, what has been cultivated and praised for centuries as guarantees of the unity of the country - conformism, consensus-based decision-making, blind adherence to once and for all accepted norms of behavior, complete dependence of the individual on the state, bureaucracy, and all sorts of social and economic institutions.

The authors expressed deep regret over the lack of "global literacy" in Japan, especially in terms of English. At the same time, they referred to the complaints of their compatriots who believe that "Japan has long been considered a "faceless" country in the international arena," and qualified mastering English, computer technology and Internet know-how as "the key to survival in a globalized environment."

In order for Japan to succeed in the era of globalization, they called for changes in the" ossified " Japanese society, suggesting, in particular," dramatically expand the opportunities of the individual", provide the maximum possible support to those who take risks, cultivate a spirit of self-reliance and respect for rivals."

The report said that foreigners accounted for only 1.2 percent of Japan's permanent population, far less than in other industrialized countries, that the aging Japanese nation had taken on dimensions that threatened its future, and that many industries were unable to find Japanese workers. It was proposed to encourage permanent residence of foreigners who are useful for the country.

Now a new type of manager has appeared in Japan, although they are still a minority. In response to the demands of the global market, they are cutting staff, closing unprofitable businesses, and merging with local and foreign corporations in an attempt to minimize costs and maximize competitiveness.

Cracks have appeared in the" iron triangle " that unites Japanese politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen. The pressure of new wave entrepreneurs on the government is increasing, coupled with Western demands for Japan to free itself from archaic norms and play the economic and political game according to the modern rules of the qualified majority. Asian neighbors are also looking forward to bold reforms from Tokyo that would restore Japan's role as a growth engine for the entire region.

¹ Japan Review of International Affairs. Summer 1999, p. 89-90.

² Op. cit. Winter 1998, p. 331-332.

³ " World Economy and International Relations "(DOE and MO), 1999, N 10, p. 4.

⁴ "Asahi Shimbun", 08.01.2000

⁵ Ibid.

⁶

Permanent link to this publication: