The point can obviously be debated, but has a lot to it. 1940 looks like the point when there was a major structural change in the Japanese economy, not 1945. The best source on this Tetsuji Okazaki, who has not published in any US economics journals. My wife and I present some of his arguments in our book already cited on this list. For a much more in-depth presentation of the argument, see Tetsuji Okazaki, "The Japanese Firm under the Wartime Planned Economy," _Journal of the Japanese and International Economies_, 1993, vol. 7.
Some of the early Japanese planners had been involved in running Manchuko after the Japanese conquest there and had come under the influence of Soviet planners, given the former Russian influence in that region. Of course the Japanese planning eventually was of the indicative variety. Barkley Rosser On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 16:26:39 -0700 michael perelman <michael at ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
> I found the AER paper fascinating, although I know virtually nothing
> about the subject. How solid is it, or at least the story that it
> tells?
>
> Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote:
>
> > Let me note that there is a literature out there by
> > Okazaki and others (a much weaker paper was in the May AER
> > Papers and Proceedings) that argue that the crucial
> > characteristics of the Japanese economy were established
> > during WW II for worker morale building purposes, lifetime
> > employment, and all that.
> > This parallels the argument that French planners came
> > outof the Vichy regime and the argument of Skidelsky that
> > the Nazi Funk Plan was the origin of the EU structure.
> > Barkley Rosser
> >
> > --
> > Rosser Jr, John Barkley
> > rosserjb at jmu.edu
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
>
>
-- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at jmu.edu