Can Japanese agriculture survive? : a historical and comparative approach

587 52 101MB

English Pages 924 Year 1982

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

Can Japanese agriculture survive? : a historical and comparative approach

Citation preview

Can Japanese Agriculture Survive? —A Historical And Comparative Approach-

OGURA Takekazu

A g r ic u l t u r a l P o lic y R esearch C enter

Norin-chukin Bldg., 1-13-2, Yuraku-cho, Chiyoda Ward, Tokyo


The surname in all Japanese names is given first, which is the reverse order of published works in English or other Western languages.

Errata o f the 3rd ed ition , Can Japanese Agriculture Survive? Para. or No.


vii vii 6 17 23 24 >»

left right 3 1 4

20 10 20 4 1

Gumma Sanin 1885 dominate “one

Gunma San-in 1884 dominate “One

4 5 »»

” 25 29 35 46 49 58 ” 63 67 82 »»

230 235 »»

” 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 3 2 2 2 1 5 1 2 4 3 2 1 1 ” ” 2 4 »»

2 7 8 11 8 7 2 16 1 7 8 3 15 29 35 4 4 1 15 5 8 4 9 2 5 10 4 2 6 4 3 5 »»

238 243 258

5 4 3

medium and of rice war of rice of rice were , or, have however, emplate inbued proposal 1883 - 1971 “the silent. him.” carreer intercouse chapter begun denial; years expenses. follows: The Land Government General ’’Although “the organization milk, price such times just tariff of barley was has been ( ) early on relations million by 200-mile levy.

medium-andon rice War on rice on rice was , or have, however, template imbued proposals 1884 - 1960 “The silent.” him. career intercourse Chapter began denial: years’ expenses.” follows: “The land Governor-General “Although ‘The organizations milk, the price such times as just tariff on barley were have been ( )• early relations. million tons by the 200-mile levy.”


89 95 97 104 113 114 115 125 135 188 189 192 210 218 221 222 >» »»

5 11 13 10 9 16





282 292 »» »» i* 293 299 300 305 ” 307 317 321 »» 322 328 333 344 349 351 357 365 366 382 394 »» 423 438 526 »» 527 »» 536 ” 537 541 551 553 561 589 609 623 » 632 634

2 3 »» ** « ” »>

3 15 16 17

3 2 3

3 5 8

1 ” 2 1 2 ” 2 2 3 4 1 3 3 3 2 4 1 3 4 3 2 6

2 12 1 16 18 21 7 12 12 10 9 2 2 5 16 7 2-3 4 6 4 14 6

2 »* 2 4 2 6 2 1 2 3 5 3 1 2 3 2

4 5 5 13 5 6 3 3 3 8 2 9 2 9 4 11

18 ”

Moderate Cooperative cooperative cooperative representation of cooperative association in central consumption” : Farming

“Moderate Cooperatives cooperatives cooperatives representing cooperatives associations in the central consumption.” : “Farming

people.’ that the government 1907 Study ministry of Home affairs affairs affairs in 1889, as follows” : Education.” special cooperative (0 association

people.” that: “the government 1907 the Study Ministry of Home Affairs Affairs Affairs in 1889 as follows: Education. special cooperatives (e) associations



cabinet into Regional

Cabinet into the Regional

o f land

o f Land

obsecurity ncluded is Banks to the our make green the desert or the semi-desert of those countries. term of is used have the main stay agriculture decreased

obscurity included are banks to our make the desert or the semi-desert of those countries green. terms of are used has the mainstay agriculture will decrease


E ntrepreneures

amount comes seem multipurposed possible approach itsm embers and late or Constitution o is

amounts come seems multipurpose possible to approach its members and the late or the Constitution of are

639 3 ” 4 643 Chapt. 1-1 645 1 646 ” 18 Chapt. 1-2 647 9 ” ” 12 649 ” 29 ” ” 34 Chapt. 1-3 650 19 Chapt. 2-1 655 1 Chapt. 2-3 656 1 Chapt. 3-1 657 2 ” ” 10 ” ” 18 Chap. 3-3 660 9 ” ” 19 Chapt. 3-5 660 1 Chapt. 4-1 661 5 ” ” 10 ............. 662 ” 31 Chapt. 4-3 663 9 Chapt. 5-1 665 11 Chapt. 5-1 666 25 667 ” 52 Chapt. 5-2 668 19 ” ” »» »» Chapt. 5-3 670 2 ” 8 Chapt. 6-2 ” 2 671 ” 21 » »» »

1 6 9

before mentioned before mentioned SUPPLEMENTRAY

before-mentioned before-mentioned SUPPLEMENTARY

2 2

Toront, Henzan

Toronto, Hensan

2 2 1 6

Iju A griculture Zoku

Hu Agricultural Zoku
















1 2

N as follows; the


1 2

Staitstical fo r 1978

Statistical fo r Fiscal 1978


E xp o rt M o n th ly

E xp o rt M onthly Statistics

1 1 •’ 1

Iju Tsukai

Iju Tsukai



N ohon

N ohon







2 7

M unicipalties




4 5 17

Fearsey Fearsey Fearsey

Fearey Fearey Fearey

2 2

fo r 1965

fo r Fiscal 1966

for 1964

for Fiscal 1965

2 1 2

as follows: The

fo r 1974

fo r Fiscal 1976

Show a 51-nendo

Show a 50-nendo

May 1926

May 1976 - 3-

Table 1-5 ” ” ” Table 2-2 »»

Indicator heading last col. 2nd column 3rd row 1st col. 8 th row Table heading Hokkaido 2nd col. 2nd row Note: 2) line 2 Note line 5 Below the table 5) Source 2nd col. 2nd row Indicator heading 10,11 th col. 6th col. 3rd row 6th col. 9th row 3rd col. 6th row 5 th col. 18th row Note line 1 Year description line 7 7th col. 8th row Note line 1 1st col. 19th row Indicator heading 1st col. 3rd col. 9th row

710 Table 3-24

Description col. line 3

711 Table 3-26

Source added

Table 3-27

Source added

677 »» ” ” 680 ” 682 683 684 685 686 687 ” 693 694 ”

Table 2-7 Table 2-9 Table 2-11 Table 2-12 Table 2-13 Table 2-14 ” Table 2-22 Table 3-1 »»

695 ” 696 698 703 704

Table 3-3 ** Table 3-4 Table 3-7 Table 3-14 Table 3-15

etc 1.927.4 5.226.0 Uint 7,356l} amountts profecture tubo

etc. 1,927.4 5,226.0 Unit 7,536l) amounts prefecture tsubo




76.501 households households 7,80 7,20 51.571 27,136,854 besed 1908 - 1917 1.808.3 ratio 60.303 price 9,243,85


Edible potatoes

move to the right by one letter space respectively. For 1978, Show a 55 nendo Yoj

76,501 household household 7.80 7.20 51,571 27,136,854 based 1908 - 1912 1,808.3 ratio) 60,303 prices 9,243.85


For 1978, Show a 55 nendo Noi Hakusho.


1,271.7 559 Expenditures Total expenditures 100.0 P2 = number of persons move to the left by one letter space respectively. 77.8 Associations move to the left by one letter space respectively. 69

M eicho shu

M eicho shu

84.9 13,510 1962 121.4

84.8 5,828 13,508 1963 121.3



731 Table 4-2

2nd col. 5 th row 5 th col. 6th row Table heading Description col. line 2 10th col. 10th row Note line 1 5th, 6th and 7th col. 10 th row

1,271,7 55.9 Expeditures Total expenditure 107.0 P2 = number of person 2,141 12,968 990

735 Table 4-9 736 Table 4-11 739 Table 4-15

9th col. 2nd row Table heading 1st col. 1st row

77,8 Association 10,769

741 Table 5-1 *1 **

1st col. 1st row Source 2), 3) 9th col. 2nd row 3rd col. 1st row 7th col. 6th row Year description line 13 4th col. 10th row 5 th col. 3rd row

723 Table 3-50 ” Table 3-51 729 Table 3-60 »» »* ” »»

742 Table 5-3 749 Table 5-17 »» ” 750 Table 5-18 753 Table 5-26 757 Table 6-4


r '

! letter ido Nogyo ido Nogyo



Table 6-4 Table 6-5 ” Table 6-6-i ” Table 6-8-iii Table 6-14-i Table 6-14-iii Table 6-20 Table 6-23-1 ” Table 6-23-ii 111 Table 6-32 817 Chronology 820 left 825 828 left left 835 right 846 847 left ” right 851 ” ” 757 758 ” 759 ” 761 763 764 767 769 »» »»

852 853 ” ” 854 855 859 861 862 870

Table 3-23-2 Table 3-23-3 ” ” Table 3-27-2 Table 3-29-2 Table 5-27-2 Table 6-12-2 Table 6-13-2 Figure 3-14-2

6th col. 9th row 12th col. 5 th row Source Table heading Indicator heading last col. Source line 1 Table heading 7th col. 5 th row Indicator heading 3rd col. 1st col. 2nd row Description col. line 2 6th col. 1st row Year description 1955 line 1 ” 1981 line 1 44 17 17 23 18 53 (last) 8 14 34 Indicator heading 3rd col. Table heading line 2 Description col. line 4 Source line 3 4th col. 13th row Source line 1 Indicator heading 1st col. Indicator heading 2nd col. 4th col. 5 th row Note 2) line 2

24,5 23,471 Soruce The figures in ( ratio and cover

) is

24.5 33,471 Source The figures in ( ratios and over

) are

A dvanced


Persons, Engaged 2.9 organization 2,890 Other crop farming 409.930 establsihed economic fiscal yeur Coopeartive Greet Gerernorassocication Acount 583

Persons Engaged 2.6 organizations 2,890* Other crop farming* 409,930 established fiscal year Cooperative Great Governorassociation Account 585

Jayanese Y ukichi Agricultre

Japanese Y ukichi A griculture

Price TokyoParls p.55 212

price Tokyo = Paris p.55. 221

N osanbutsu no Juyo

N osanbutsu no Juyo

to all employing 5 (4,92) househols

to the all employing 5 and over (4.92) households

Dedicated to

Dr. TOBATA Seiichi

Professor Emeritus of the University of Tokyo

First Published 1979 Second Edition 1980 Third Edition 1982 Printed in Japan by Kyodo Printing Co., Ltd.


Foreword to The Third Edition

More than one year has elapsed since the publication of Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?, second edition. During this period there have appeared certain documents which should be referred to for further study of the theme of the book; for example,(1) The Long-term Prospect o f Agricultural Demand and Supply, decided by the Cabinet of the Japanese Government on November 7, 1980, (2) Advance Report o f the 1980 Census of Agriculture and Forestry, [/], [II], and [III], November 28, 1980, MAFF, (3) Report o f the Japan-United States Economic Relations Group, Japan-United States Economic Relations Group, January, 1981, particularly “Chapter VII, Agri­ culture Issues,” (4) The Annual Report on the Agricultural Situation, 1980, published at the end of March, 1981, and so forth. I, myself, have examined the above-mentioned documents, and have found that there is no need to revise my major analysis of the theme and my several proposals on it. I would also like to mention that the Council on Agricultural Policy has made its response to the governmental inquiry on “The Basic Orientation of Agricultural Policy during the 1980s.” It seems to me, in short, that the Council’s report does not open a new road for the survival of Japanese agriculture. It stresses the im­ portance of food security and of maintaining the present pattern of dietary life, but it lacks substantial measures for attaining such ideals. It does not present any reasonable answer to the issue of the high price of Japanese food which has become serious in nonfarming circles such as for businesses manufacturing food from raw materials, and associations of housewives or consumers. Neither does it deal with the agricultural trade between the United States of America and other countries. Two further issues among many should be mentioned in the field of agricultural policy. One issue is the “ Scheme for the Promotion of Agricultural Land Utiliza­ tion” which has been enforced since fiscal 1979, as well as the “ Law for the Promo­ tion of Agricultural Land Utilization” enacted in 1980, and the related amendment to the “Agricultural Land Law.” It could be said that these measures are intended to improve the agrarian structure amid various difficult conditions, and whether these measures are promising or not is still to be seen. Another issue is the “Second Three Year Plan for the Restructuring of Paddy Fields,” which starts from 1981. It seems that the overproduction of rice has become more serious and difficult to control. In the meantime, the second edition has been out of stock. However, a certain demand for the book continues to be felt at home and abroad. Therefore, I think that it is my duty to meet the demand. On the occasion of the third printing, I have decided to revise some statistical tables using the new data provided by the docu­ ments (1), (2), and (4) cited above, and have also reproduced certain important statistical tables and figures included therein in order to provide the readers with

the most recent data. The regrettable errors, as well as the unavoidable ones, have been corrected, but no serious changes in the context have been made. I believe that the third edition will be easier to read and will prove to be the most convenient one for the further study of Japanese agriculture. Takekazu Ogura Chairman, Agricultural Policy Research Center April 7, 1981 The Centenary of the Ministry of Agricultural and Commercial Affairs

Preface I wrote two small books containing my old and new English treatises and published both in 1977. One was Agrarian Problems and Land Reform in Japan, Agricultural Policy Research Center, and the other was The Food Problem and Agricultural Structure in Japan, Japan FAO Association. The first deals mostly with the historical aspect of the modern Japanese agrarian problem and policy, and the second one examines the food and agricultural problem of today’s Japan. These two books, however, were not sufficiently elucidative and they soon became out of stock as well. Therefore, I have wanted to publish a second edition revising and consolidating both of them into one volume. While I have been undertaking it, I have noticed the im­ portance of thoughts or ideologies in determining a proper philosophy for agricultural policy, and also the necessity to enlarge the sphere of the food and agricultural policy to be covered in the new book. Accordingly, this book is not a mere revised or regurgi­ tated combination of the two old books but rather a truly new one. This book contains several key points of Japanese food and agricultural policy and discusses them in relation to both the past and the present. In other words, the main contents of this book consist of a historical review of the modern Japanese food and agricultural policy, an analysis of its present condition, and some suggestions for its future. From the historical point of view, readers may be interested in part or all of the Meiji era, the prewar era, and the postwar era periods including the stage of high economic growth and the present time. Though this book does not clearly distinguish between the historical stages or phases, the readers certainly can choose any part of the eras which they prefer by referring to the contents. Since the contents are arranged according to the focal points or key items concerning food and agricultural policy, the reader is best able to approach easily the key point which interests him. Those who are interested in food and agricultural trade or budgetary matters concern­ ing food and agricultural policy might be disappointed, being unable to find such items in the contents. It is natural that the future of Japanese agriculture largely depends on the food and agricultural trade situation or on the financial aspects of food and agricultural policy. In this book these issues are dealt with in certain parts of some chapters. It should be noted here that this book does not aim to explain comprehensively Japanese agricultural policy, but rather aims to analyze selectively the major problematic themes from past to present. One more thing to be noted is that there is some duplication between certain chapters. This duplication was too difficult to eliminate in consideration of those readers who would like to read se­ lectively certain chapters thereby enabling them to understand the contextual re­ lationship between chapters. Please understand that this book was written in English by a Japanese. It neces-


sarily presupposes foreign readers both in developed countries and in developing countries. Their interests in Japanese food and agricultural policy may be varied. Some may be trade partners of Japan. Some may be foreign academic scholars. We Japanese hope that our trade partners, particularly those who want to export more agricultural produce to Japan, will be able to understand the Japanese food and agricultural situation. This book should serve them. We Japanese also think that the Japanese experience in food and agricultural policy may be useful for certain developing countries as well as for certain developed countries. Certainly the Japa­ nese experience in food and agricultural policy can serve them either as a positive or a negative teacher. This book should also be useful for them. But the foregoing is not meant to imply that this book does not serve Japanese at all. Those Japanese having a certain relationship with foreign countries and who are interested in Japa­ nese food and agricultural policy are encouraged to read this book which will be serviceable as background material for communication on the problem between Japanese and foreigners. It is expected that as a result of such communication the betterment of the Japanese food and agricultural policy could be achieved in the future. Japanese agriculture has been in a difficult situation in recent years. It is not the first time that it has encountered trouble. It has survived the troubles and has even expanded itself through various vicissitudes. Today’s difficulty, however, seems different from the past. Now, Japanese agriculture seems to have begun to decline. The policy for the reduction of rice production and the intractable task of intro­ ducing other crops in paddy fields is a symbol of the decline in specific terms. Some Japanese people are afraid that Japanese agriculture will decline further. Some others doubt whether Japanese agriculture will survive after all. This book aims in a sense to answer such uncertainty. Some alarmed readers might like to know an immediate and clear answer about whether or not Japanese agriculture can survive. I think that it is easier to answer “no” than “yes” to such readers. But most readers may not be satisfied with such an immediate answer. This book is directed to such readers and deals with the relevant thoughts on food and agricultural policy and the neces­ sary measures for agricultural survival rather than the causes of agricultural decline. Certain nonagriculturalists seem to believe that Japan can do without its agricul­ ture or even that Japan can do better without its agriculture. A somewhat similar issue was already discussed during the Meiji era (1868-1912) and it can also be an issue of the present day. This issue about whether or not Japan can do without its agriculture must be a problem too big for Japan itself, and for world history, to be discussed within the scope of this book. From the standpoint of scientific study, this book does not belong to any one discipline. If I dare say so, a historical as well as a comparative approach is the method taken in this book. When I say a historical approach, three factors are taken into consideration: One is the thought or way of thinking of those who participated in Japanese food and agricultural policy, and the second is the social or legal institutions concerning the framework or essentials of the policy, and


the third is the situation or circumstances whereby the policy is formulated and carried out. A comparative approach means a method of examining the various and diverse kinds of agriculture existing throughout the world. I have especially tried to evaluate the structure of Japanese agriculture, and the policies related to its development, from a worldwide perspective. Furthermore, as in the case of the historical approach, the Cartesian “White Paper” principle should be observed. The author should be independent of what is personal or private in his apprehension and feelings in regard to the subject to be studied. It is not easy for me, however, to be independent of what is personal in my apprehension or feeling. This is because I was involved in food and agricultural policy, especially after the war as an administrator of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, or as a member of the governmental consultative committees related to food and agricultural policy. If I dare to be independent in such a way, I might be too cold-hearted or inhuman, but some such impression seems to be unavoidable. It should also be noticed that the way of thinking of the historical approach as used in this book depends upon some familiarity with the themes or people mentioned herein and I myself have often had a certain relationship with such themes or people. Sometimes I was on the scene. It is almost impossible to unravel such relationships from myself. Therefore, I have rather preferred to state in this book my involvements in an episodical manner at times. Of course, all of these recountings can be seen to be of a nature that rational minds could perceive as real, true or valid. The contents of the book are, in principle, based on the facts and the informa­ tion available until January 1979, but needless to say all the facts and information available have not necessarily been gathered and utilized. What has been presented is my responsibility. For those readers who want to examine carefully what is stated in this book the statistical appendix should be useful, and to those readers who do not have much knowledge of Japanese farming, the illustrations should be helpful for understanding Japanese farming, rural society, and so on. The attached chronology, though very short, would be convenient for those who are not familiar with modern Japanese history. It is not necessarily a chronological summary of this book but rather a chronological glimpse of modern Japanese history from the viewpoint of politics, economy and agriculture. Finally I would like to express my gratitude to all the persons who collaborated with me in gathering the needed documents, including the reference books, statistics and illustrations, and in arranging the index and chronological table. Among them I must mention particularly Messrs. KOGA Kunihiko, MITSUNAGA Masaaki, NAKAMURA Hiromitsu, SUENAGA Hajime, YAMAZAKI Shigeru, YASUG1 Yoneyoshi, and many others. In addition, for the English correction and proofread­ ing, 1 owe much to a few persons, among whom Mr. H.R. Russell, Jr., at least, should be mentioned. 1979


Agricultural Regions and Prefectures of Japan

■ /* 47

Okinawa agricultural region

Agricultural region o f Japan


Agricultural region, subdivision

----- Prefectural division

Agricultural Regions by Prefectural Division Hokkaido agricultural region 1 Hokkaido Prefecture Tohoku agricultural region 2 Aomori Prefecture

iral regio

3 Iwate Prefecture 4 Miyagi Prefecture 5 Akita Prefecture 6 Yamagata Prefecture 7 Fukushima Prefecture Hokuriku agricultural region 8 Niigata Prefecture 9 Toyama Prefecture 10 Ishikawa Prefecture 11 Fukui Prefecture Kanto-Tosan agricultural region


Kita-Kanto agricultural region 12 Ibaraki Prefecture 13 Tochigi Prefecture 14 Gumma Prefecture Minami-Kanto agricultural region


15 Saitama Prefecture 16 Chiba Prefecture 17 Tokyo Prefecture 18 Kanagawa Prefecture Tosan agricultural region 19 Yamanashi Prefecture 20 Nagano Prefecture Tokai agricultural region 21 22 23 24

Gifu Prefecture Shizuoka Prefecture Aichi Prefecture Mie Prefecture

Kinki agricultural region 25 Shiga Prefecture 26 Kyoto Prefecture 27 Osaka Prefecture 28 Hyogo Prefecture 29 Nara Prefecture 30 Wakayama Prefecture Chugoku agricultural region Sanin agricultural region 31 Tottori Prefecture 32 Shimane Prefecture Sanyo agricultural region 33 Okayama Prefecture 34 35

Hiroshima Prefecture Yamaguchi Prefecture

Shikoku agricultural region 36 Tokushima Prefecture 37 Kagawa Prefecture 38 Ehime Prefecture 39 Kochi Prefecture Kyushu agricultural region Kita-Kyushu agricultural region 40 Fukuoka Prefecture 41 Saga Prefecture 42 Nagasaki Prefecture 43 Kumamoto Prefecture 44 Oita Prefecture Minami-Kyushu agricultural region 45 Miyazaki Prefecture 46 Kagoshima Prefecture Okinawa agricultural region 47 Okinawa Prefecture


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive? — A Historical And Comparative Approach — Contents Foreword to The Third Edition ........................................................................... Preface ......................................................................................................................

i iii

Chapter 1 Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy .................


1-1 Agricultural Fundamentalism versus Industrial Fundamentalism .............. 1-1-1 Introduction: Feudal Agricultural Fundamentalism............................ 1-1-2 Agricultural Fundamentalism after the Meiji Restoration ................ 1-1-3 Anti-agricultural Fundamentalism ....................................................... 1-1-4 Criticism against Industrial Fundamentalism........................................

1 1 7 16 21

1-2 Ideas on the Size of Farms ........................................................................... 1-2-1 Introduction of the Large-Scale Farming System ................................ 1-2-2 “Peasantism” Awakened ...................................................................... 1-2-3 Agricultural Protectionism ...................................................................

25 25 32 37

1-3 The Return of “Peasantism” ........................................................................ 1-3-1 Nationalist and Shintoist “Peasantism” ................................................ 1-3-2 Radical Right-Wing “Peasantism” .......................................................

39 39 45

1-4 Fostering Medium-Scale Farms .................................................................... 1-4-1 The Idea of Medium-Scale Farms ....................................................... 1-4-2 The Scale of Farms and Agricultural Structure ................................ 1-4-3 The Optimum Size of the Farm and the Viable Family Farm .........

50 50 60 66

1- 5 Positivism, Thoughts of Economics, and Economism ............................. 1-5-1 Positivistic Approach .......................................................................... 1-5-2 Approach of Economics ....................................................................... 1- 5-3 The Permeation of Economism ...........................................................

70 70 89 97

Chapter 2 From the Revision of the Feudal Land Tax to the Introduction of the Property Tax............................................................................... 105 2- 1 The Revision of the Feudal Land Tax ..................................................... 105 2- 1-1 The Outlines of the Revision................................................................... 105 2-1-2 The Results of the Revision ................................................................... 110


2-2 Necessary Consolidation of the Land Tax System .................................... 112 2-2-1 The Enactment of the Land Tax Act and the Debate on Land as Property ................................................................................................... 112 2-2-2 Difficulties of General Land Reassessment.................. 119 2-3 The Issues of Land Tax Transfer and Rental Price .................................... 122 2-3-1 The Change of the Taxation System—The Enactment of the New Land Tax L a w ........................................................................................... 122 2-3-2 The Amendment of the Rental Price .................................................... 128 2- 4Postwar Reform of the Land Tax System .................................................... 131 2-4-1 From the Local Transfer Tax to the Independent T a x ......................... 131 2- 4-2 The Land Tax after the Report of the Shoup M ission........................ 135 Chapter 3 Changes in the Food Situation and Food Policy ............................. 147 3- 1Controversy on Paddy Farming and on Food Self-sufficiency ................. 147 3- 1-1 Dominance of Paddy Farming ............................................................ 147 3-1-2 Establishment of a Food Self-sufficiency Policy ................................. 152 3-2 From the Rice Riots until the End of World War II ................................. 3-2-1 The Rice Riots ....................................................................................... 3-2-2 From the Rice Law to the Rice Control Law .................................... 3-2-3 Wartime Food Control ...........................................................................

157 157 165 192

3-3 The Postwar Food Problem and Food Policy ............................................ 3-3-1 Changes of Food Control ....................................................................... 3-3-2 The Postwar Food Production Policy ................................................ 3-3-3 The Price Support System ................................................................... 3-3-4 The Postwar Idea of Food Self-sufficiency ........................................

198 198 214 217 220

3-4 Declining Food Self-sufficiency ................................................................... 3-4-1 An Approach to Present Day Japan’s Food Self-sufficiency ............. 3-4-2 International Comparisons of Self-sufficiency Ratios (SSRs) ............. 3-4-3 Factors in the Declining of the Agricultural Food SSR ..................... 3-4-4 Nutrition and Lower SSRs....................................................................... 3-4-5 Declining SSRs and Foreign Dependence ........................................

226 226 233 234 239 243

3- 5The Current Issue of B eef............................................................................... 3-5-1 Characteristics of the Japanese Beef Industry........................................ 3-5-2 Import Liberalization and Deficiency Payment for Beef ................. 3- 5-3From the Viewpoints of the Exporter and of the Consumer .............

249 249 258 260

Chapter 4 A Chronicle of the Agricultural, Rural and Administrative Organizations ....................................................................................... 265 4- 1Development of the Cooperative.................................................................... 265 4- 1-1 Pioneers of the Cooperative ................................................................... 265

4-1-2 A Representative of Cooperative Movements......................................... 4-1-3 “Cooperative-ism” ................................................................................... 4-1-4 The Era of Agricultural Cooperatives ............................................ 4-1-5 Cooperative Farming Production............................................................

272 277 285 298

4-2 A Genealogy of the Agricultural Association ............................................. 302 4-2-1 Establishment of the Agricultural Association System and its Transformation ....................................................................................... 302 4-2-2 Agricultural Improvement Services of the Agricultural Association and its Finale ....................................................................................... 309 4- 3 The Transformation of the Rural Society and the Agricultural Administrative Organization............................................................................ 4-3-1 The Reorganization of the Hamlet and the Small Association of Family Farms ........................................................................................... 4-3-2 The Disorganization of the Common Lands ........................................ 4-3-3 The Present Rural Structure ................................................................ 4- 3-4 A Short History of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries ...................................................................................................

314 314 320 329 354

Chapter 5 Agrarian Problems and Agricultural Policy ..................................... 371 5- 1 Land Reform of the Meiji Revolution and Agricultural Policy before World War II ................................................................................................... 5- 1-1 Land Reform of the Meiji Revolution ............................................ 5-1-2 The Character of Land Tenure after theMeiji Land Reform ........... 5-1-3 Agrarianism and the Agrarian Movement ............................................ 5-1-4 The Scale of Farming and Agricultural Policy after the Meiji Restoration ...............................................................................................

371 371 374 378 395

5-2 Postwar Rural Land Reform and Related Agricultural Policy .................. 5-2-1 The Ideas of Rural Land Reform ........................................................ 5-2-2 Land Tenure as a Resuit of Rural LandReform .................................. 5-2-3 The Effect on the Scale of F a rm in g ....................................................... 5-2-4 Political and Social Implications of Rural Land R eform ..................... 5-2-5 Agricultural Policy Measures Related to RuralLand Reform ............

402 402 422 429 430 433

5- 3 The Enactment of the Agricultural Basic Law and Its Aftermath ...... 5-3-1 The Agricultural Basic Law ................................................................... 5-3-2 Overcoming Disparities between the Agricultural Sector and the Nonagricultural S ectors............................................................................ 5-3-3 Selective Expansion ............................................................................... 5-3-4 Structural Improvement...........................................................................

440 440 447 450 457

Chapter 6 Analysis of Agricultural Structure .................................................... 469 6- 1 Japanese Agricultural Structure in a World Perspective .......................... 469


6-1-1 6-1-2 6-1-3

The Meaning of Agricultural Structure ................................................ 469 Categories of Agricultural Structure .................................................... 472 Structural Problems and Policies ........................................................... 524

6- 2 Japanese Agricultural Structure ................................................................ 6-2-1 Agriculture in the Japanese National Economy ................................ 6-2-2 Characteristics of the Japanese Agrarian Structure ............................ 6-2-3 Interdependencies of Farmers ............................................................... 6- 2-4 The Agricultural Market System ...........................................................

534 534 538 548 562

Chapter 7 In Conclusion: Some Proposals on Japanese Agricultural Policy .. 579 7- 1 Standpoints ............................................................................................... 579 7- 1-1 Policy Orientation ................................................................................ 579 7-1-2 The Objectives, Values, and Criteria....................................................... 588 7-2 Mixed Market System ................................................................................... 598 7-2-1 Basic Ideas on the Market System and the Price Policy ................. 598 7-2-2 Land Issues ............................................................................................... 603 7-3 Policy Directions Related to the Agricultural Organizations ..................... 608 7-3-1 Roles of General Cooperatives............................................................... 609 7-3-2 The Reorganization of Agricultural Committees ................................ 610 7-4 Structural Policy of Farms ........................................................................... 612 7-4-1 Viable Family Farms and Cooperation in Farming ............................ 612 7-4-2 Fostering of Viable Core-farms ............................................................ 614 7-5 Development of Group F arm ing.................................................................... 7-5-1 Meaning of Group Farming ................................................................ 7-5-2 Conditions of Group Farming ................................................................ 7-5-3 The Cooperative and Social Land Tenure .............................................

623 623 630 637

N otes...................................................................................................................... Tables .................................................................................................................. Figures .................................................................................................................. List of Illustrations ............................................................................................... Chronology: 1859-1981 ....................................................................................... Index ...................................................................................................................... List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................... Supplementary T ables........................................................................................... Supplementary Figures ....................................................................................... List of the Tables and Figures ........................................................................... List of the Supplementary Tables and Figures ................................................

645 673 783 799 813 821 851 852 863 873 879

1-1 Paddy fields soon after the transplantation of paddy seedlings, Niigata Prefecture.


Chapter 1 Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy 1-1

Agricultural Fundamentalism Versus Industrial Fundamentalism

1-1-1 Introduction: Feudal Agricultural Fundamentalism We had in Japan a thought related to agriculture or agricultural policy called “nohon-shugi” (agriculture-is-the-base-ism) or rather, it is fairer to say that we still have a sort of basic thought deriving from “nohon-shugi” in considering agriculture or in formulating agricultural policy. The thought could be traced back to the Tokugawa era (or Edo era= 1603-1867). But before pursuing the historical course of this thought, the literal meaning of the term should be examined. In the term “nohonshugi” “no” means farming or agriculture, “hon” means the base, the foundation, roots or the origin, and “shugi” means an ideology, a principle or “ism” . Therefore, “nohon-shugi” would be literally translated into “agriculture-is-the-base-ism” .1 However, “nohon-shugi” could convey various ideas.2 In addition, there is another question. What is agriculture the base of in the case of agriculture-is-the-base-ism ? “Nohon-shugi” originally meant that agriculture was the base of the country. It meant also, however, the agriculture was the base of industries. The latter seems somewhat similar to American agricultural fundamentalism which originally meant that agriculture is the foundation for the entire economic system.3 During the Meiji era (1868-1912) “nohon-shugi” became a shibboleth .n agricul­ tural policies and studies. Though there were and there are a lot of shibboleths plagu­ ing farm policy, the most important would be “nohon-shugi” . Even the basic thought designated by the same term, however, is not always the same, varying according to the user of the term or to the period of the usage. If 1 dare say so beforehand, it is most suitable to use the term in explaining the basic thought of agricultural policy during the second half of the Tokugawa era. The term “nohon-shugi” , of course, was often proclaimed even after the Meiji Revolution and the meaning became more or less different from the Tokugawa era; accordingly, it is convenient to qualify the “nohon-shugi” of the latter half of the Tokugawa period as feudal in order to dis­ tinguish it from that of the Meiji era. Needless to say, the peasantry were the main class governed in the feudal society of Japan; the relation between peasants and land, the farming system, the way of living, and other matters were controlled by the overlords. In spite of the control, the stratification of the peasants, rural exodus, and other tendencies, were not prevented; the development of commerce and towns spurred the process and among the ruling elements there arose a sense of crisis over the feudal system. This is the reason why the thought of agriculture-is-the-base-ism began to be proclaimed by some official


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

scholars and even by private scholars particularly since the middle of the Tokugawa era.4 “The essence of the thought is the esteeming of peasants next to the samurai and on the other hand the connoting of a contempt for merchants” .5 Therefore it can be said that “agriculture-is-the-base-ism” was needed at the time when the capital of com­ merce and usury was accumulating and had established itself within the womb of the feudal society” .6 During the latter half of the Tokugawa era some feudal lords in financial difficulty demanded loans from rich merchants. The feudal agriculture-isthe-base-ism was an antidote for such a trend. It could be said, however, that during the Tokugawa era there was not any system­ atic presentation of agriculture-is-the-base-ism. But certain quotations from certain feudal scholars should suffice to indicate its existence. An eminent agronomist during the former half of the Tokugawa era, MIYAZAKI Yasusada (1623-1697) said in his own preface to his immortal book Nogyo Zensho (A Comprehensive Book on Agri­ culture) published in 1697: “Everything that is human has its principal purposes and its trifling purposes. When we behave in line with our principal purposes, we can manage ourselves in an orderly way, but when we behave moved by trifling things, the reverse happens. . . . Agricultural techniques are the principal way to feed the people successfully” .7 This saying cannot be the exact expression of agriculture-is-thebase-ism. But KAIBARA Ekiken (1630-1714) stated the idea more explicitly in his preface to the above-mentioned book and in the appendix of the said book gave an idea of “nohon-shugi” . He was a Confucian scholar during the first half of the To­ kugawa or Edo era and was a man of erudition. He was quoted as saying in the preface written in 1696: “Agriculture is the base of politics” .8 Ekiken stated also in the appendix written in 1697: “ In my opinion agriculture seems very humble but it is the beginning of the politics which govern the whole country and it is especially the base for nourishing the people” .9 Another great Confucian scholar of the middle of the Edo era, O G Y 0 Sorai (1666-1728) stated the idea more clearly in his writing, Seidan (Talks on Politics) : “ Should there be no boundary between urban and rural, peasants would gradually change themselves to merchants and the State would become impoverished. The role-changing of peasants to merchants has been an anathema to the politics of the State since olden times and such a way of thinking is an important trend of politics.. . . It is a rule preached by the sages to esteem the fundamental and to curb the trifles. In this case the fundamental is agriculture and the trifles are manu­ facture and commerce. It is a clearly recognized natural process that when manu­ facture and commerce flourish agriculture accordingly declines. . . Samurai and peasants could not live without the paddy field” .10 A great political economist in the second half of the Edo era, SATO Nobuhiro (1769-1850) was an advocate of agriculture-is-the-base-ism. For example, he stated in 1817: “Even though there is a vast area of land, if peasants would not cultivate it, manage farming, cause crops to ripen and pay tax, the head of the state, lords, subjects, their wives and children could not be free from hunger and cold. . . They are able to eat enough and warm themselves owing to the peasants’ laborious farming and tax payment. Considering these facts, we recognize the peasantry is the base of


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

the state and agriculture is the source of politics” .11 In short, the reason why he con­ siders that agriculture is the base of the state or the source of politics is the fact that agriculture provides the nation with materials for living and also provides the govern­ ment with financial revenue.12 Another Confucian scholar who also studied Western sciences through the Dutch language and who was at the same time a money exchanger in Osaka, YAMAGATA Banto (1748-1821) stated most clearly: “Encourage farming and discourage com­ merce . . . . The peasantry is the foundation of the country and the head of the people. The country and the people could not live without the peasantry but could live without manufacture and commerce. . . . The increase of even one peasant and the decrease of even one merchant should be striven for and it should be prohibited that the peasant could carry on commerce or manufacture. These things are the way of making the country wealthy” .13 In that feudal society which naturally depends on the fruits from the labor of the peasantry, feudal lords must have desired to have as many peasants as possible.14 Those whose sayings or statements were quoted above were all scholars. But there was one person who was engaged in farming, later in the activities of rural develop­ ment, and who proclaimed agricultural fundamentalism during the final years of the Tokugawa era. His name is NINOMIYA Kinjiro (or Sontoku) (1787-1856). He reestablished his farm and household economy destroyed by a flood, became a landowner and also an eminent and practical leader of rural development. He was venerated throughout the country as a model of diligence, economy, and practical guidance, especially since the Meiji era until the end of World War II; and his influ­ ence today can still be seen in some parts of this country. Since the Meiji era his personality and the story of his activities had been committed to the national text­ book of the primary schools and a song venerating his virtues has been sung by primary school pupils; a bronze statue of him in his boyhood days had been built in the corner of most primary school playgrounds. The statue showed him carrying a bundle of firewood on his back and reading a book in his hand. As the statues were made of bronze, however, they were taken down and melted during World War II for use as wartime materials. Anyway, his basic thought on agriculture was as fol­ lows: “Whatever are qualified as roots are necessarily humble. Even though they are so humble, it is wrong to neglect the roots. For example, a house is able to have an alcove and a writing place only after building the foundation. The foundation forms the roots of a house. It could be proven that the people form the roots of the country. Now, among various occupations, agriculture should be the base. This is because agriculture is the very way of living self-sustained by the means of cultivating and weaving and because agriculture is made up of activities which everyone in a family is able to carry on. The fact that such great fundamental activities are humble is the reason why they are the roots. The roots are always at the base. The peasantry is humble because it is a great base. The activities which everyone of the whole country can carry out without bringing about any inconvenience are the great base. .. .The activities which bring about inconvenience if everyone in the whole country


1-9 NINOMIYA Kinjiro This statue is erected at a junior high school in Kodaira City, Tokyo Metropolis. Chinese characters meaning diligence, economy, endeavor and practice are engraved on the pedestal of stone.



Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

carries them on are peripheral. This is a very clear principle. Therefore, agriculture forms the roots. The roots should be thick and should be nursed; then doubtlessly the peripheries will also flourish. While even branches and leaves should not be cut down, it is a method of nurture to cut down branches and leaves and to fertilize the roots when the roots wither” .15 The latter part of the quotation from Sage Ninomiya's Evening Talks reminds us of certain physiocratic expressions.' The following is cited by Louis Bromfield, an American writer and farmer, just before the foreword of his book Out o f Earth-. “The state is like a tree. The roots are agriculture, the trunk is the population, the branches are industry, the leaves are commerce and the arts. It is from the roots that the tree draws nourishing sap . .. and it is to the roots that a remedy must be applied if the tree is not to perish” .—Victor de Mirabeau (written at the beginning of the eighteenth century).16 Ninomiya was influential in various ways after the Meiji Restoration (1868). Besides the general influence upon national virtues such as diligence and economy, the special influence upon agriculture cannot be neglected. Let us select two or three examples. The official journal for public relations published in 1885 by the Ministry of Agricultural and Commercial Affairs (N6sh6mu-sho=MACA) carried a story of Ntnomiya’s boyhood; the story began with the following introduction: “Those whose virtues are many know little about economy and those whose virtues are few know economy well; it is difficult to have both much virtue and a deep knowledge of economy but there was in the recent past one person who had both; that is NINO­ MIYA Kinjiro” .17 Kinjiro was Ninomiya’s given name in his boyhood. The story in the journal was related to his difficulties during his boyhood. Later, SHINAGAWA Yajiro (1843-1900), when he was Minister of Home Affairs and was preparing the Bill of Credit Cooperatives, recommended HIRATA Tosuke (1849-1925), Depart­ ment Chief of the Legislation Bureau and concurrently Dietman of the House of Peers, to go and see FUKUZUMI Masae, a disciple of Ninomiya, in order to discuss credit cooperatives and “Hotokusha” . “Hotokusha” were organizations initiated and encouraged by Ninomiya, which sought to put into practice the teachings of Ninomiya, namely the practice of saving and the avoidance of poverty. Fukuzumi and Hirata were reportedly impressed by each other, talking for many hours from morning till evening.18 In comparatively recent times, ISHIGURO Tadaatsu (1885— 1960) who was Vice Minister of Agriculture and Forestry during the Great Depression, and Minister of Agriculture and Commerce (“ Nosho-daijin” ) at the end of World War II, was an ardent admirer of NINOMIYA Sontoku. At the centenary of Nino­ miya in 1955, he financed at his own expense the publication of an English book entitled NINOMIYA Sontoku, His Life and Evening Talks published by Kenkyusha.lS The feudal agricultural fundamentalism naturally reflects the society of the Tokugawa era. Throughout the era the Shogunate adopted a policy of seclusion and had almost no international relationships except in a limited way with Holland and China. Only at the end of the Tokugawa era did the Shogunate open the door first

Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy


to the United States and then to other Western countries. The opening of the country to foreign nations was in a sense an historical necessity but it was also a factor in speeding up the fall of the Tokugawa Shogunate. At any rate, the feudal economy of the time was mainly based on agriculture as in other feudal societies. It seems, however, that the dependence on agriculture was heavier in the case of Japan because of the national isolation, and the feudal agricultural fundamentalism was also strength­ ened by the policy of seclusion. There is a similarity of expression between the feudal agricultural fundamentalism of Japan, and physiocracy, and also there are somewhat common characteristics be­ tween them as both consider agriculture to be the only source of wealth. It should be noted, however, that feudal agricultural fundamentalism was not systematized into any economic theory by any scholar and it was not at all able to be the origin of the political economics of Japan. Another point is that physiocracy aimed at large-scale capitalized farming while the feudal agricultural fundamentalism of Japan intended to maintain the peasantry, though certain physiocratic ideas can be found in the agriculture-is-the-base-ism school of thought after the Meiji Restora­ tion. 1-1-2 Agricultural Fundamentalism after the Meiji Restoration After the Meiji Restoration, feudal agricultural fundamentalism of necessity greatly transformed itself. It was clearly the consequence of the national policy intending the national integration and the industrialization of the national economy. There were a few scholars who explained their basic thoughts on agriculture after the Meiji Restoration with the same term “agriculture-is-the-base” , but the contents of the term differed somewhat from one advocate to another. It would be convenient for us to consider briefly certain principles or doctrines related to the establishment of modern national economy. Firstly, agricultural fundamentalism, as stated above, could be understood in its original meaning which upheld agriculture as the most basic industry and considered it as the foundation for the whole economic system. In the case of the United States, the Official Seal of the Department of Agriculture proclaims that agriculture is the foundation of manufacture and commerce.20 By the mid-1800’s, American agriculture had changed greatly. Originally it was mostly subsistence farming, but it is now largely commercial farming. The fact that the U.S. Department of Agriculture established on May 15, 1862 adopted the said inscription could be taken as an indicator of the basic way of thinking about agriculture, at least at that time. The motto naturally presupposed that agriculture should be the most fundamental industry. Secondly, as a counterpart to agricultural fundamentalism, there should be such a term as industrial fundamentalism. It holds that industry, especially manufactur­ ing, is the basic sector for achieving economic growth.21 In addition, there could be commercial fundamentalism; in this case commerce mainly means international trade. Finally there should be the concept of the balanced growth of the national economy.


On July 14, 1853 he went ashore and presented to the commissioners of the Shogun President Fill­ more’s letters to the Emperor, and his own cre­ dentials. 1-10 Matthew Calbraith Perry (1794-1858), U.S. Commodore.


U.S. Commodore Perry’s vessels in Uraga Port, Kanagawa Prefecture.


Official Seal, Department of Agriculture, U.S.A.

Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy


The U.S.S.R. is well known for her industrial fundamentalism which attached special importance to heavy industry after the Revolution. India seems to have adopted industrial fundamentalism after her independence but since then has oscil­ lated between agricultural fundamentalism and industrial fundamentalism. China has proclaimed since 1962 that the national economy should be established on the basis of agriculture under the guidance of manufacture. The orientation is somewhat similar to agricultural fundamentalism but it is not a mere agricultural fundamen­ talism. This is because the principle implies that manufacturing development plays the leading role in national development, but that agriculture defines the pace and direction of industrial development, while at the same time manufacturing develop­ ment should support agriculture.22 In Japan, most national leaders of the Meiji Revolution continued to proclaim officially agriculture-is-the-base-ism,23 as they had done during the Tokugawa era, but this did not always mean the continuation of the feudal agricultural funda­ mentalism. It is possibly better to divide the agricultural fundamentalism after the Meiji Restoration into two types which will be taken up later: One is conservative and the other is modern or enlightened. During the Meiji Revolution, agriculture-is-the-base-ism came to mean agricultural fundamentalism similar to American usage as stated above. Moreover, American agricultural fundamentalism may have been introduced in the early Meiji era. For example, TSUDA Sen (1837-1908) went to the United States in 1867 with FUKUZAWA Yukichi (1835-1901) and others just before the Meiji Restoration. Tsuda was quite impressed by farming in the U.S. though he was a son of a samurai. After his return to Japan, he endeavored to improve Japanese farming, later publishing an agricultural journal. On the back leaf of the journal Tsuda quoted George Wash­ ington (1732-1798) who stated: “Agriculture is the most healthful, most useful, and most noble employment of man” .24 Political leaders of the Meiji Revolution also may have been influenced by the feudal agricultural fundamentalism; if not, they must have adhered to the idea of agricultural fundamentalism because agriculture was in fact the most important industry from the viewpoint of employment, production, trade and fiscal revenue (Table 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, Figure 1-1,1-2,1-3). We can cite some sayings of the political leaders of the early Meiji era. For example, OKUBO Toshimichi (1830-1878), veteran statesman of the Meiji Revolution, who stated in 1877 in a proposal con­ cerning the reduction of the land tax when he was Director General of the Land Tax Revision Bureau: “ Since my country is founded on agriculture, when the peasantry can nurture energy and be engaged in their activities, the populace would become stable”.25 He earnestly promoted agriculture while Secretary of Home Affairs,26 he established the Komaba Agricultural School in 1878, the forerunner of the College of Agronomy, Tokyo Imperial University. The Meiji Emperor Mutsuhito attended and honored the opening ceremony of the Komaba Agricultural School with an Imperial message. “ We consider agriculture the base of the State. Through it pro­ duction increases, and the people become wealthy. This is why agricultural sciences

1-18 The farewell address in reply to the students by TAKAHASHI Korekiyo, soon after his resignation from the presidency of the Tokyo Agriculture and Forestry School (the successor to the Komaba Agricultural School) on October 31, 1889.

Gentlemen, Today you are kind enough to hold a party f o r the departure o f the President and the welcoming o f his successor. Farewell speeches made by the students expressed their feeling o f sorrow over my departure with the warmest words. I never expected that Korekiyo was accepted and favored by the students with such deep affection. I believe this is the highest bliss and I have no words with which to thank you. Once I compared those young men now studying at schools to flowers in bloom. You are the golden flowers o f our country, because you w ill someday obtain valuable results and bring about more strength and wealth to her. I t is yo u r duty to improve the status o f Japan until it reaches the level comparable w ith that o f the advanced countries. Also it is required to maintain such improvement until Japan establishes the foundation on

Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy


which she could surpass those strong powers. Therefore, the burden you have to bear for the future o f our country is very important and grave. At this time o f leaving the school, my heart has overflowing feelings o f jo y. The reason why I am so joyfu l is f o r no reason other than that my successor is M r. Maeda. Mr. M aeda is the gentleman whom I respect as my teacher and rely upon like an elder brother. I am quite pleased to have such a person here for taking the leadership o f the school and educating the students. Also, I am quite sure that the students w ill spend pleasant days with the new president. Speaking o f my business, I was advised by the persons concerned to part with the students and to go 6 ,8 0 0 miles away from here f o r the management o f an undertaking by the government. Even though we w ill be separated by many mountains and rivers, the purpose we are both working f o r is the same. I shall stay abroad and engage in a business plan f o r u tilizin g the surplus labor here and supplementing the accumulation of capital which is in short supply in this country. You w ill stay at home and promote the national interest and people's welfare by using the capital fun ds in such a way as to maximize profits. Someday, I w ill come home. A nd I am planning to do something for serving our country upon consultation and arrangement with you. Gentlemen. I sincerely hope that you w ill all train yo u rse lf harder in the spirit o f patriotism and do your best in you r studies. Good-bye until we meet again.


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

should be studied. Now, we are very glad to see the newly constructed school and to be present at the opening ceremony. We expect that hereafter the national pro­ duction will flourish further and that our nation will become all the more wealthy” .27 Another distinguished statesman of the Meiji Revolution, was MATSUKATA Masayoshi (1835-1924) who was Okubo’s junior and who owed his political career to Okubo and who was several times Secretary or Minister of Finance and twice Prime Minister. Matsukata was dear and precise about modern agricultural funda­ mentalism but was leaning toward the idea of balanced growth. The following is taken from his explanatory note on the Establishment of the Industrial Develop­ ment Bank of Japan, and Local Banks of Agriculture: “As more than half of the people depend on agriculture, providing the people with food and cloth, the activities of the State should be based on agriculture. When agriculture does not thrive, even if commerce and manufacture flourish, the State will not be secure. When both agriculture and manufacture advance side by side, and commerce assists, then the State will have no difficulty in being really wealthy” .28 The date of the note is un­ known but it was probably only a few years before 1896 when related acts of organiz­ ing the banks were enacted. INOUE Kaoru (1835-1915), enlightened statesman who was Minister of Foreign Affairs during 1885-1888, and Minister of Agricultural and Commercial Affairs during 1888-1889 stated before his assumption of the office of Minister of Foreign Affairs, the following: “ In fact agriculture is the base of the national economy. If agriculture does not develop, commerce and manufacture could not flourish by themselves. This is because when agriculture is prosperous and thus the productive power of land increases and products become abundant, such production surpasses the domestic demand, the surplus can be exported, and the value of those exports determines the wealth of the nation. Therefore, one who considers the foundation of the national economy should esteem agriculture most of all” .29 This statement clearly delineated the essence of modern agricultural fundamentalism. The politically proclaimed modern agricultural fundamentalism, however, did not necessarily promise a flourishing agriculture. Rather it often seemed to mean in fact industrial development at the sacrifice of agriculture. Of course, during the early years of the Meiji era, “ Shokusan-kogyo” (promotion of production and the development of industry) was a slogan of the national policy. Such an orienta­ tion was easily consistent with industrial fundamentalism and the proclaimed agri­ cultural fundamentalism was gradually converted into nation-building at the sacrifice of agricultural development or of the peasant economy; this is because most of the national revenue came from the tax on cultivated land (Table 1-3, Figure 1-3), and most exports consisted of agricultural produce (Table 1-2, Figure 1-2); in ad­ dition, the capital necessary for industrialization was supplied either through the tax on cultivated land or the rent on cultivated land. 1-1-3 Anti-agricultural Fundamentalism During the first half of the Meiji era various thoughts related to nation-building

Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy


sprang up; basic thoughts on modern agriculture were not the exception. In other words, even if agricultural fundamentalism was the leading thought related to agri­ cultural policy, there were certainly different views, though in the minority. But the views of the minority seemed after a while to dominate the national policy even before the middle of the Meiji era. A noticeable view of these different opinions originated at the end of the Tokugawa era in 1861. It was in part an insistence on anti-agricultural fundamentalism by KANDA Takahira (1830-1899), a scholar of foresight and a leading bureaucrat who studied first Chinese classics and then turned to the study of western sciences by means of the Dutch language. He stated: “There are two ways of establishing the State; one is through commerce and another through agriculture. The way of estab­ lishing the State through commerce enriches the State while the way of establishing the State through agriculture impoverishes the State. Oriental countries establish States through agriculture adhering to old customs, while occidental countries establish the State through commerce according to new systems. Therefore, oriental countries are lacking in commodities and most of them are poor in spite of the fertile soil while occidental countries are abundant in gold and silver, and they are rich in spite of the infertile soil. The gap between rich and poor comes from the different way of founding the State, in other words through commerce or agriculture. This is because the State can get more tax through commerce than through agriculture and because the tax on agriculture becomes unneccessary with the establishment of the State through commerce. On the other hand, when agriculture bears the tax in establishing the State through agriculture, farming becomes less profitable. Consequently, the fields become increasingly infertile, and agriculture as well as commerce decline together, and the State also declines” .30 It should be noted here that commerce in his statement also means manufacture because he continued in the same statement: “ For example, agriculture produces one thousand units of value. If certain commodities were manufactured from the agricultural products, the value would be two thousand units. Further, the manufactured products would be exported and then the value could be three thousand units” .31 Such an opinion is a sort of mercantilism or industrial fundamentalism in Japanese thought; he was appraised as a man of foresight by later social scientists.32 In addition, he presented a proposal on land tax revision; at this he also was far-sighted. There was another scholar, 01 Kentaro (1843-1922), who although not an official at the time also advocated industrial fundamentalism. He learned Dutch, English and French, and studied the French law and constitution; he was a radical liberalist and at the same time an agrarianist. He answered, as follows, in his book, Jiji Yoron (Essays on Current Affairs) written in 1886 his own question whether Japan could strengthen national power through agriculture or develop the country through commerce and manufacture: “We should hope that Japan would be a country of commerce and manufacture because it must be noted that the territory of Japan is very small though the population is almost equal to that of France which numbers 37 million. That Japan is small cannot be denied. Though there is still fertile land


Can Japanse Agriculture Survive?

to be developed in Hokkaido (the northernmost island) and in Tohoku (the northeast region of Honshu), the land of Japan is limited and her population is unlimited. If the population increases very much, Japan would certainly suffer from a shortage of land. This is much more true because at present peasants’ assets are consolidated into the soil; peasants of Kyushu (the big southern island of Japan) and Chugoku (the southwest region) could not easily benefit by emigrating to Hokkaido or Tohoku; they are obliged to cleave to their own small fields and suffer from the shortage of cultivated land” .33 One more eminent liberalist thinker outside of the government should be cited, FUKUZAWA Yukichi (1835-1901). He was also an educator and the founder of “Keio Gijuku” (Keio private school), the predecessor of the present day Keio Gijuku University. He had already stated in 1885 that the way to enrich the country was to encourage international trade and this was not only his personal opinion but was also the view of the public.34 Furthermore he wrote in 1890 an essay entitled “ Shosho Rikkoku” (“Nation-building through the esteem for commerce”). In those days, when there were such Japanese terms as “shobu” (esteem for martial spirit) or “sonno” (esteem for farming), Fukuzawa instead wanted to insist on the esteem for commerce through which Japan should be wealthy.35 This mercantile view might best be called commercial fundamentalism. There was also another proponent who clearly advocated commercial funda­ mentalism, also before the Sino-Japanese War. “I would like to make Japan purely commercial. The partner with which my country is going to trade is not distant Europe but nearby China. .. . What I mean by trade is not the exchange of com­ modities between my country and China but brokerage activities between the United States and China. . . . Finally, I should say that the area at which merchant activities should aim is not only North America but also South America” .36 In recent years, we often hear the term “boeki-rikkoku” (the foundation of the state on the basis of international trade) which is proclaimed and granted by certain entrepreneurs and government officials. Surprisingly, their spirit can be found among the above-men­ tioned individuals of the Meiji era. It is all the more surprising because Japan in those years of the Meiji era had not yet obtained tariff autonomy and the export of com­ modities such as tea and raw silk, the main Japanese export items at that time, was in the hands of resident foreigners in ports such as Yokohama. Fukuzawa, however, was not a mere commercial fundamentalist. He was at the same time an industrial fundamentalist also. We can find his following statement in his essay written in 1898: “There is no other way of nation-building than through com­ merce and manufacture.. . . Already Japanese agriculture can not sustain the country and cannot even nourish the population; this fact is not denied by anyone; accordingly it is very important to build the country wholly through manufacture and trade, discarding the old thought of nation-building through agriculture. In an extreme case, one must be ready to import all necessary goods for cloth, food and shelter, from foreign countries, and pour the national energy into commerce and manufacture only. In order to enrich and strengthen the country in the present world, there is no other

Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy


way of nation-building than through commerce and manufacture; I strongly assert this, after having considered all possible ways. In fact, though the domestic supply of cloth, food and shelter is not enough to meet the demand, the people’s living is not painful in the least but apparently affluent or even luxurious, as compared with the olden times; this is due to the merits of foreign trade. . . . Nation-building through commerce and manufacture means the selling abroad of domestically manufactured products. The agriculture of my country cannot be relied upon while the future of commerce and manufacture seems so promising” .37 1-1-4 Criticism Against Industrial Fundamentalism It was quite conceivable that criticism arose against industrial or commercial funda­ mentalism or mercantilism from the standpoint of conservative agricultural funda­ mentalism because agriculture had an important role in the national economy and national politics as well in those days. The champion of the movement was YOKOI Tokiyoshi (1860-1927), the famous “Nohon-shugi-sha” (agriculture-is-the-base-ist). He wrote a paper entitled “Nohon-shugi” (“agriculture-is-the-base-ism” ) in 1897.38 The paper characterized industrial fundamentalism in a most cynical way: “In the olden times life was sacrificed for honor; today honor is sacrificed for wealth. The townsfolks’ mammonism is rampant throughout the country. This is because industrial fundamentalism has arisen in ‘Mizuho no kuni’ (the Land of Vigorous Rice Plants). This principle enriches the country. Accordingly, national power should also be promoted by wealth. . . . Today, all countries are practically neighbors and comple­ mentary to each other; convenience of transportation has developed day by day and month by month. Even if the international division of labor is made rapid, this could not be done without much disturbance. Even if the country were to lose agriculture, there would be no trouble at all. . . . Wheat from the U.S., rice from Indochina, and beef from Australia will be our food. Silk and cocoons from China, and cotton from Africa will provide our clothes. . . . Our country’s territory is limited, and agricultural production is limited under the law of diminishing returns. . . . Without taking into consideration the fertility of land, the area of the U.S. is far greater than that of Japan. .. Even if the agricultural produce of Japan could be increased, the productive power is inferior to that of industry.. . . In such an age agriculture-is-the-base-ism is anachro­ nistic”.39 Yokoi’s essay was written soon after the Sino-Japanese War. Industrialization in Japan had proceeded enough so that nonagricultural industries were developing faster than agriculture. Apart from whether agricultural fundamentalism or industrial fundamentalism was suitable for economic modernization, the balanced growth of the agricultural sector and the nonagricultural sector would have been desirable. Agriculture, however, had clearly fallen behind the nonagricultural sector in terms of the growth of the net domestic product of each sector. (See the ratio of primary to total in Table 1-1, Figure 1-1.) Hence, Yokoi did not contrast industrial funda­ mentalism with modern agricultural fundamentalism but with a conservative one or “peasantism” as stated later by an American scholar. There was, however, a young

Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy


scholar whose response to industrial fundamentalism was somewhat different from Yokoi. He was KAWAKAMI Hajime (1879-1946) who later became a professor of economics of Kyoto Imperial University and a famous Marxist economist as well. At the time of the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War while still rather young he wrote a book entitled Nippon Sonno Ron (A Treatise on the Esteem for Agriculture). It was published in 1905. For a time he was a lecturer at the practical course attached to the College of Agronomy of Tokyo Imperial University after his graduation from the College of Jurisprudence of the same University in 1902. Kawakami dealt with Japanese agriculture from both economic and noneconomic viewpoints. His consideration of agriculture from the economic standpoint was similar to modern agricultural fundamentalism while that of the noneconomic standpoint was like conservative agricultural fundamentalism or peasantism. Con­ sequently he held something like an intermediate position of modern agricultural fundamentalism and peasantism. This was the reason why Yokoi wrote a preface to Kawakami’s Nippon Sonno Ron. The reasons for Kawakami’s esteem of agriculture from the economic viewpoint may be expressed in the following way: “I reject economically Hensho-shugi’ (over­ estimation of commerce). The first reason is that commerce is a branch business while agriculture is a root business. . . . I dare to say, agriculture is truly productive while commerce is in fact unproductive. . . . The second reason is that the policy of over­ estimation of commerce weakens the foundation of the national economy. . . . Next, I reject industrial fundamentalism. The first reason is that the market of industrial commodities is being gradually reduced. . . . The second reason is that agricultural progress is instrumental to the cost reduction of industrial products and further con­ tributes to flourishing exports” .40 Kawakami made two points about the noneconomic aspect: “one point concerns military affairs, and the other, population. From the military viewpoint, the first is the need to supply food during wartime; the second is that commerce and manufacture would be damaged more severely than agriculture in wartime; and the third is related to the physical strength of the people. . . . In short, the conservation of agriculture is the critical element for waging a successful war. From the viewpoint of population, agriculture is a great source for the maintenance and increase of the national popula­ tion, supplying labor to commerce and manufacture” .41 Finally, Kawakami admonished the nation against suffering the same fate as Phoe­ nicia, Carthage, Rome, Spain, Portugal and Holland; he also tried to argue against imitating the British principle which overestimated commerce and manufacture.42 He finished the book in a stirring fashion: “Agriculture, manufacture and commerce are like the three legs of a tripod. If the length of the legs is equal, the tripod will be stable; but if one of the legs becomes longer, the tripod will fall down. If anyone desires the sound development of the country, he should pay attention to the balanced growth of the three sectors of the economy” .43 Several years later, Kawakami wrote another book entitled Nippon Nosei Gaku (A Study on Japan's Agricultural Policy). In this book he repeated the necessity for


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

the balanced growth of the three industries. “ If the national economy is expected to develop soundly, the three industries need to progress, in balance together.”44 How­ ever, he did not explain further the meaning of balanced growth nor further analyze the growth by sector. It seems that Kawakami learned more from history than from the immediate economic situation confronting him and Japan. The following quota­ tion cited by him in his book Nippon Nosei Gaku is meaningful: “ If there is one lesson that is stamped more clearly upon the pages of history than any other, it is this: That no nation has long survived the destruction of its agriculture—W. Martin” .45 It was clear that Kawakami was an advocate of the balanced growth of the economy based on modern agricultural fundamentalism. Another but perhaps the last advocacy of modern agricultural fundamentalism is found in a book entitled Chushono Hogo Ikusei Saku (Protective and Fostering Measures o f Medium-and-Small-Scale Farms) Vol. 1 and 2, published in 1912. The first line of the book Vol. 1 said: “Agriculture is truly the foundation of the State; agriculture not only provides the nation with necessary foods but is also the base of almost all production and in addition it is the groundwork of society because it produces healthy men” .46 While this statement seems to me rather behind the times, the book continued: “ Recently in Great Britain, a country based on commerce and manufacture, those who think about the future deplore the rural decline and earnestly desire to reconstruct the rural area” .47 According to the figures cited in the study, agricultural production amounted to ¥1.6 billion among the gross national product of ¥2.6 billion in 1907-1909; main agricultural exports were ¥168 million, with the total export value being ¥458 million in 1910. Tax on paddy fields and upland fields supplied 18.8 percent of the tax revenue; the exactions from agriculture and the peasantry were 45.8 percent of the total tax revenue including indirect tax in 1907-1910.48 It seems, however, that the lines quoted above were mentioned as reasons for the protection of medium and small-scale farms, meaning that agricultural fundamental­ ism had been transmuted into “peasantism.” Apart from the opinion on the balanced growth of the economy based on modern agricultural fundamentalism, there was another opinion of balanced growth based on the parallel progress of both agriculture and manufacture. YOKOTA Hideo (1889— 1926) dealt with agricultural protectionism and the principle of nation-building founded on commerce and manufacture (in short, industrial fundamentalism). During the later years of the Meiji era there were serious disputes concerning the protective tariff of rice. The rice tariff imposed temporarily as a means of raising revenue to meet war expenditure during the Russo-Japanese war, became the center of debate after the war, concerning its abolition or continuation. According to Yokota, the supposed confrontation of agricultural protectionism and industrial fundamentalism was no more than a dispute concerning the import tariff of rice, and both opinions were poorly grounded and not worth discussing.49 For Yokota: “A great country needs military power and material wealth. In order to secure both military power and national wealth, agriculture, commerce and manufacture should be developed

Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy


together within the country. This is because, in most cases, agriculture generates martial spirit, while commerce and manufacture excel in obtaining wealth.” 50 It might seem strange that agriculture could generate martial spirit, but some advo­ cates of small-scale farm-ism or “peasantism” (which will be later stated in detail) insisted on this; and on this point Yokota aligned himself with “peasantism” .51 His view of balanced growth, however, differed more or less from “ peasantism” and also varied from modern agricultural fundamentalism. First, he opposed the protective tariff of rice and stated Japanese rice growing was able to compete with foreign rice. He well recognized the necessity for the protection of agriculture and for en­ couraging commerce and manufacture as well. However, he was against the protec­ tive tariff. It could be said in the phraseology of the present day that he agreed with the domestic protective measures within the national boundaries but objected to protective measures at the national boundaries. Also, he was not an advocate of agricultural fundamentalism, although he knew the historical function of agri­ culture as the foundation of the country. Agricultural fundamentalism faded away during the 1910s, and “peasantism” also fell into decline between the 1910s and the 1930s. However, “nohon-shugi” (agriculture-is-the-base-ism) survived because it began to be understood as a termi­ nology meaning the esteem for agriculture. It may be argued then, that the ultimate core of agriculture-is-the-base-ism proclaimed and noted by various persons of various backgrounds at various periods, is the esteem for agriculture.52 1-2

Ideas on the Size o f Farms

1-2-1 Introduction of the Large-Scale Farming System We can discern three trends of thinking concerning the size of farms throughout modern Japan’s agricultural policy. The first one is “daino-ron” (large-scale farms thesis), the second is “chuno-ron” (medium-scale farms thesis); and the third is “shono-ron” (small-scale farms thesis or “peasantism” ). The size of farms has been one of the most heated and vital issues in Japanese agriculture. It really has been the basic problem since the early Meiji era until today. Even when it was not actually debated, it has continued to be the basic problem of Japanese agricultural policy. During the first half of the Meiji era, the issue of the size of farms was seriously debated in the political arena as well as in the scholarly field. It was, at first, a con­ frontation between “daino-ron” and shono-ron” . At the beginning of the Meiji era, uncultivated land on a large scale existed in Hokkaido (the Northernmost main island), Tohoku (the northeast region) and Kanto (the region north of Tokyo). Since Japan had developed from the west to the east, there was much undeveloped land in those regions. In addition, since Japa­ nese agriculture mainly consisted of paddy farming, those areas where water could not be readily supplied were not always developed. These uncultivated lands were largely owned by the State, one of the consequences of the division of ownership between the State and the people during the Land Tax Revision of the Meiji Revo-


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

lution. Most of the uncultivated lands owned by the State were granted or sold at a very cheap price in order to facilitate reclamation and the establishment of large-scale farms. There were those who hoped during the early Meiji era that Japan would follow the same course of development as Great Britain had gone through and that farming would be enlarged in size and commercialized. Incidentally, Great Britain was usually taken as the model of modernization especially for Japanese economic development, though the British experience was rejected by certain agricultural fundamentalists. Thus, Great Britain was considered as the teacher of Japan by most national leaders, but she was also considered as a negative teacher of Japan by others. Besides Britain, at least as far as agriculture is concerned, the farming of the United States offered to Japan the best example for establishing large-scale farms. In addition, the German scholars invited to Japan as advisers or instructors suggested the development of large-scale farming in the before-mentioned areas. INOUE Kaoru, the modern agricultural fundamentalist who was quoted before, earnestly propounded the idea of large-scale farms. He was a well known advocate of “daino-ron” and later generations considered him more representative of a “dainoron” than of a modern agricultural fundamentalist. While it seems correct to say agricultural fundamentalism after the Meiji Revolution developed into or was transformed into “peasantism,” it should be noted that modern agricultural funda­ mentalism (agriculture-is-the-base-ism) and the large-scale farms thesis (“daino-ron”) was unified by the idea of Inoue Kaoru. However, the enlightened principle for modernization of Japanese agriculture in the way of Inoue was not realized at all. This was not necessarily because of the lack of endeavor on Inoue’s part. The reason why this enlightened principle was not realized is best explained by a historical sketch of agricultural policy. Inoue stated in a speech to businessmen of Fukushima Prefecture in 1886 that “Agriculture in every country tends to adhere to old habits and customs, and Japa­ nese agriculture is no exception to this. It means that progress has been very slow as we can see today. There are several causes of this. First, and most serious, is the scattered small farming and less than totally consolidated land tenure, and second, there is the irregular and intermittent work. Until the Meiji Restoration the Shogunate and feudal clans depended on egalitarianism (akin to agrarianism) as far as economic measures were concerned. Annexation of poor men’s land by rich men was regarded as robbery. Despite that since olden times agriculture was esteemed and was ranked above manufacture and commerce, farming was considered as the activity of cultivating and living and viewed only from the standpoint of produc­ ing food. Hardly anyone regarded farming as a business for earning profit. These are the results of the small scattered farming plots and the insufficient regulation of relations between landowners and tenants. Land consolidation, and the regulation of the landowner-tenant relationships is related to the rise or fall of the country’s agriculture. . . . Some would say that such consolidation and regulations would benefit big landowners but would harm workers. It might be so. It is, however, economically natural and inevitable that the poor are dominated by the rich in the


1-25 1N0UE Kaoru


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

process of national progress. What is necessary is reflection upon the fact that the development of the core of the national economy is precisely designed to increase the wealth of the rich but it has no expectation for improving the lot of the poor. . . . The wages of our laborers are very low as compared with those in Europe or the United States of America Accordingly, it seems that any manufacturing enterprise which employs our workers should get large profits, but this is not the case. Besides the above reasons, this is also due to irregular work and the lack of proper economic management of workers” .1 One should mention that the word “ workers” in Inoue’s speech includes not only hired laborers but also self-employed working people. In the same year Inoue gave his speech on large-scale farms, he went to Hokkaido to look at settlements, accompanied by Max Fesca. Max Fesca (1846-1917) was staying in Tokyo as a consultant to the Ministry of Agricultural and Commercial Affairs (MACA) and as professor of Komaba Agricultural School. After Max Fesca’s return to Tokyo from Hokkaido he presented a report to Inoue in 1887. The report entitled Nippon Nogyo oyobi Hokkaido Shokumin Ron (A Treatise on Japanese Agriculture and the Settlement in Hokkaido) was published in Japanese in 1888. Because of his education and long residence in Japan, he was well acquainted with the essential characteristics of Japanese agriculture and its peasantry. His report contained his deep insight and understanding before his trip to Hokkaido, and also a proposal for establishing large farms on the newly reclaimed land. “The Japanese peasant is a proprietor of his business and at the same time a laborer in his business as well. The proprietor endeavors to continue farming because he does not know any other way of making a living. The laborer does not quit his boss despite the very low wage, because the laborer himself is the boss making his living. The income which could be deemed to be the wage earned by the peasant and his family corresponds to one half of the wage which would have to be paid should the peasant hire other laborers and let them cultivate. The income of the tenant is a matter out of accounting” .2 (Refer to Net Domestic Product per Worker of Table 1-1.) In order to remedy the condition of such poor peasants he proposed tax reduc­ tions for the peasantry, establishment of credit facilities, agricultural improvement, and so on. More than just a scholar of “daino-ron” , Fesca stated: “As long as the old system is vital for the existence of the Japanese nation, it must be maintained. While the future base is being prepared, the government should support and promote the old system. When uncultivated land is reclaimed, however, serious attention is necessary. Profitable large-scale farms should be established. Unless most of the labor is replaced by draft animals, large-scale farms will be fruitless. Draft animals not only save labor but also produce cheap fertilizers.” 3 Fesca continued: “While the development of large-scale farms which use draft animals may be necessary for Japan overall, it is absolutely essential for Hokkaido. This is because the agri­ cultural production of Hokkaido is not even enough to provide food for the people there. Therefore the proposal should first be put into effect there. Ten hectares of land must be allocated to each family consisting of three workers, and the necessary credit should be given to allow the acquisition of animals and machines” .4

Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy


After the tour of Hokkaido, Inoue stated: “ Considering the malady of the main­ land agriculture, it should be borne in mind that the illness should not be introduced to Hokkaido. Instead, as many large-scale-farms as possible should be settled” .5 He recognized both the possibility and the necessity of large-scale farms in Hokkaido, encouraged by the view of Max Fesca, though Max Fesca’s proposals did not aim to establish large-scale capitalistic farms. Inoue continued to advocate large-scale farms on various occasions especially when he was the Minister of Agricultural and Commercial Affairs in 1888-1889. In fact the government endeavored in the early years of the Meiji era to implement the policy of large-scale farms in Hokkaido and in other uncultivated areas of the mainland, especially as a part of the general measures taken for the resettlement of ex-samurais. The attempts were also a part of the general enthusiasm for all things Western which were prevalent in Japan at the time.6 Large uncultivated sections of land were granted or sold at low prices to the ex-overlords and statesmen of the Meiji Revolution. This may not necessarily have been due to political ma­ neuvering, but ordinary people could not get those lots for fear of the land tax or because of lack of capital. The attempts to establish the large-scale capitalistic farms resulted in failure.7 Udo Eggert, a professor of political economy in Gottingen, Germany, and concurrently a professor of the Imperial University of Japan and a consultant of the Ministry of Finance of Japan in 1890, had already noted the failure in Hokkaido. TAKAOKA Kumao (1871-1961) who later became a professor of Hokkaido Im­ perial University, successor of the Sapporo Agricultural School, analyzed the causes of the failure of large-scale farming in Hokkaido. “According to my limited under­ standing of Hokkaido, the owner-farmers of more than 100,000 tsubo (about 33.1 hectares) number less than ten and most landowners divided their large estates into small plots of about 10,000 tsubo (about 3.3 hectares), in order to rent them out to others. Thus most landowners become landlords depending on tenancy and forming small farms in the country. There are a few landowners who engage in farming by themselves, but most are absentee. The rent paid by the tenants’ painful labor in Hokkaido is spent in restaurant rooms covered with fancy mats in Tokyo, or for moon-viewing in the evening elsewhere, ft is distressing that so little of rent paid was invested in the development of Hokkaido” .8 Then he enumerated nine causes for this failure: (1) Japanese are accustomed to “ shono-shugi” (the principle of small-scale farms); (2) no experience with large-scale farms in Hokkaido; (3) limited supply of laborers and too high wages; (4) unskillfulness in the use of ma­ chinery and problems of mechanization because of the remaining stumps more than ten years after reclamation; (5) lack of managers; (6) high interest rates; (7) limited markets because of transportation inconveniences; (8) land utilization by tenancy is more beneficial for landowners, and tenants could live under a system of tenancy; (9) the tenacity of the “shono-shugi” principle” .9 Among these causes listed by Takaoka, (1), (8) and (9) seem most important. The other causes have mostly vanished through later industrial development. Among the three, (8) seems


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

to have ceased due to the reduction of rent during World War II and due to the postwar land reform. (1) and (9) have been abandoned since the enactment of the Agricultural Basic Law in 1961. Still, any noteworthy development of large-scale farms of cultivated land or grassland is yet to be seen, though a general trend toward a larger scale is visible, especially in Hokkaido (Table 1-6). Returning to “ daino-ron” (large-scale farm thesis) during the Meiji era, Udo Eggert proposed improved measures for large farms in Hokkaido and in other uncultivated regions. “ It is not expected that from consolidation alone large farms will arise; this by itself will have but very little effect on the size of estates; but it is a very natural wish that large estates should come into being, as by then it is hoped to introduce a system of agriculture more according to Western models, and to bring under cultivation the large unused tracts, which are found in northern Japan, and above all in Hokkaido. . . . These uncultivated tracts usually belong to the State and if they are subdivided into fairly large portions and then handed over to private persons they are sure to be better cultivated than if they were farmed by officials at the expense of the Government. It would, therefore, be for the public good, to give these lands to men able and willing to farm them, and for a run of years at any rate to leave them free from rent and even free from taxation, as is now done in Hokkaido” .10 He then stated the qualifications of the persons to whom land should be given and then the easiest condition of cultivation and ownership, e.g., under hereditary copyhold and without any rent at all for a long span of time. Accord­ ing to him, “the fittest person for such copyholders would be the students of the agricultural colleges especially if they first have some practical training here or in foreign countries; instead of becoming farmers, they now usually from want of money adopt teaching as a profession, or else enter the government service as of­ ficials. Such persons, educated in a fit way, are certainly the only ones who in the future may cultivate large farms” .11 At about the same time as Eggert’s Land Reform in Japan, a Japanese scholar wrote a paper entitled “ Daino-ron” (“A Treatise on Large-scale Farms”).12 The scholar was SATO Shosuke (1856-1930) who studied agricultural policy at Johns Hopkins University in the United States and who later became president of the Imperial University of Hokkaido. In his paper he stated: “We do not need to insist on large-scale farms such as those in Great Britain and the United States of America. The agricultural structure of our homeland would be revitalized if the average acreage of the family farm could be 18-20 acres, as in Belgium, which is the smallest scale farm country in Europe, by means of the exodus of surplus farm labor on the one hand and the utilization of uncultivated land on the other. . . . Large-scale farming should be introduced in Hokkaido. The farming of Great Britain and the United States could be practiced to some extent in Hokkaido. The theory, technique and economy could be modified and adapted to Hokkaido. . . . The agricultural structure of our country would be ideal if such an equilibrium of large-scale farms in Hokkaido forming the apex, and medium-and-small-scale farms in Hokkaido equal to the large-and-mediumscale farms in Honshu forming the base, could be achieved.” 13

Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy


Another scholar of Sapporo Agricultural School, TAKAOKA Kumao elaborated on the idea of Sato in the book A Treatise on the Agriculture o f Hokkaido from which one part was quoted above. Both Sato and Takaoka aimed at large-scale farms in Hokkaido which would form Japan’s agricultural super structure. Apart from statesmen and scholars, a firm believer in the large-scale farm ap­ peared in a drama.14 The drama called Daino (Large-scale Farming), depicts a struggle between a father and his son, and later between the son and his sister. In the story the father is a big landowner having a son and a daughter and managing his land by the tenancy system. His son wants to change the management of land by tenancy into a large-scale farm while the daughter wants to continue the manage­ ment of the land as her father did. The tenants oppose the son’s idea. One seeks to kill him, but by mistake kills the father. The father’s will gives two-thirds of the land to his son and one third to his daughter. The son and the daughter are to manage their respective lands separately, the former by owner-farming, the latter by tenancy. A big flood comes but both the son and the daughter survive. At the end the son says. “God has taken out the ugly man-made small parcels of land by the flood just as a wrinkled cloth is pressed by an iron. Almighty God does not allow human beings’ vile handiwork to exist unmolested. God will protect and favor large-scale farm­ ing.”15 It is already clear that even large-scale farms managed as an integrated farming unit from the beginning tended to be parceled out into tenanted plots, though the property continued to be called a “farm” . But in the drama the practice is reversed. This makes Daino (Large-Scale Farming) all the more exceptional. The writer of the drama, seemingly under the influence of the Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen (1828-1906), wanted to portray an individual of strong character willing to break down the old customs in order to promote the idea of large-scale farming.16 Whatever the drama meant to represent, it could be called the last flicker of “dainoron”. Thereafter there were almost no proposals or ideas of large-scale farms until the enactment of the Agricultural Basic Law in 1961. Of course, the controversy over whether large-scale or small-scale farms are better has continued to be discussed in academic circles. One of these discussions was FUKUDA Tokuzo’s “A Study of Arthur Young in Relation to the System of Large-Scale and Small-Scale Farming in Both Great Britain and France in War-torn Europe” . In this study, Fukuda insisted on the need for absorbing the spirit of Arthur Young (1741-1820), a frequent traveler of England, Wales, Ireland and France, who studied farming in these coun­ tries and insisted on large-scale farming.17 These discussions, however, had almost no effect on actual agricultural policy.18 Since the controversy between “daino-ron” (large-scale farm thesis) and “shonoron” (small-scale farm thesis) ended up with the domination of the latter, apparently no one wanted to continue a useless discussion. This does not mean of course that the issue of farm size was ended. Some insisted on the establishment of mediumscale farms. Others considered both the possibility and the necessity of large scale farming in the socialist system, though public discussion or publication of that


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

concept became very difficult.19 1-2-2 “Peasantism” Awakened During the Tokugawa era, Japan’s agriculture was dominated by small-scale family farming averaging about one hectare.20 Paddy rice growing was the principal crop. This was the system established even before the Tokugawa era. Its longevity perhaps attests to the ability of the feudal lords to exact the highest amount of tax (“ nengu”) through such a system. The system imposed certain limitations upon the transfer of cultivated land and upon the crop to be planted. Such limitations were abolished after the Meiji Restoration in order to prepare for the Land Tax Revision. The Land Reform and later the Land Tax Revision of the Meiji Revolution, however, did not change the system which continued from the Tokugawa era, save for the con­ version of the feudal tax in kind, mostly rice, into tax in cash, plus other minor changes. The core of the system, namely small-scale family farming dominated by rice growing, remained as it had been during the Tokugawa era. Of course, we should not neglect “daino-ron” advocated especially by INOUE Kaoru, but it does not seem to have long survived in the national policy. Instead the insistence on large-scale farms awakened the “ shdno-ron” (small-scale farming thesis). While Inoue, as Minister of Agricultural and Commercial Affairs was ad­ dressing himself in speeches to the issue of “ Shokusan-kogyo” (Promotion of Pro­ duction and Development of Industry), two critical editorials and a critical essay appeared in the nationalistic journal Nippon-jin (The Japanese). The first editorial argued: “During his stay in Kyoto, Viscount Shinagawa told a certain person that while Count Inoue has recently proclaimed the idea of large-scale farms and has spoken of it to local wealthy farmers, it is no more than an empty theory and could not be carried out in Japan. It can only be practiced on a vast plain as in Hokkaido. . . . Viscount Shinagawa held the important position of Vice Minister of Agricultural and Commercial Affairs for many years and is well acquainted with the practice of farming and animal husbandry. Hence, his view is so correct and reasoned that it is enough to demolish the foolish idea of large-scale farms” .21 The second editorial, entitled “ Don’t Let Japan Be Unpopulated” , said: “Ac­ cording to the recent news, all family farms of a village have been disposed of by public sales, because of default on the land tax payment. Through such hurried public sales the rich would amalgamate fields and become large-scale farmers. Since olden times, however, wise men have been afraid of the demerit of amalgamation and have insisted on as many small-scale farms as possible. Count Inoue, on the other hand, promotes large-scale farming and this tends to worsen the evils of the times. We are most alarmed, together with all noble-minded patriots of the whole country” .22 An essay carried in the same journal The Japanese, entitled “ Daino-ron” , clarified the reasons for opposition to the large-scale farming.23 “ In paddy field cultivation it should be noticed that as the rice plant grows differently according to the right or wrong method of irrigation, the method should be very reliable and safe, and as

Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy


water tends to level off, it cannot stand still even on a very gentle slope. According to the farm families’ ways of thinking and experience of many years, the paddy field is divided into the present plots. If anyone tried to remove the dikes which separate the field into plots and to mechanize rice farming, irrigation would become unmanage­ able and mechanization would be impossible” .24 Finally the paper concluded: “The large-scale farm of today is owned by the large landlord who rents out the land to many tenants, and the earning of the landlord comes from rent. . . . The land, how­ ever, could increase its productive power if the landownership were divided into plots and transferred to the tenants” .25 Faced with the opposition from advocates of small-scale farming (“shonoshugisha” ) and with the difficulties of setting up large-scale farming, both the idea of large-scale farming and modern agricultural fundamentalism faded away. As nonagricultural industry became fairly well developed (Table 1-1), modern agricultural fundamentalism began to be replaced by “shono-shugi” (the principle of the smallscale farm) from about the end of the nineteenth century. “Shono-shugi” in Japanese also means agriculture-is-the-base-ism (“nohon-shugi”). On the other hand, “nohon-shugi” often began to imply “shono-shugi” . However, the word coined by the American scholar Gordon Wright, “peasantism” , conveys an idea similar to “shono-shugi” .26 Japanese “peasantism” could also be called conservative agricultural fundamental­ ism. At least peasantism was often united with the latter in Japan. For example, in the idea of SHINAGAWA Yajiro (1843-1900), Japanese peasantism and conservative agricultural fundamentalism were fused. When he was Minister of Home Affairs (1891-1893), he wrote a preface to a book entitled Nogyo-keizai Ron (A Treatise on Agricultural Economics) translated from German. He said in the preface: “Agri­ culture is the foundation of the family and of the State. Given farming, the family can exist and also the village can exist. . . . It should be enunciated that agriculture is the foundation of all industries and the roots of the State. . . . Since olden times this country has built the State upon a base of agriculture. The public taxes as well as the food and fiber of the family come mostly from the land. Most institutions also are based upon agriculture. Therefore, this country may be rightly called an agricultural country. When agriculture does not prosper and the products of the land do not develop, just as in today’s situation, can the family be rich and the State strong?” 27 This preface states the basic idea of conservative agricultural fundamentalism, though this is laced with nationalism. In this regard, Japanese peasantism became com­ pletely tied to nationalism after the Manchurian Incident (1931). Apart from this point, Shinagawa clearly differs with Inoue. As previously mentioned, Inoue was a keen advocator of “daino-ron” while Shinagawa was a defender of “shono-ron” . Another difference is that Shinagawa was also an earnest advocate of cooperatives. Japanese “peasantism” could be said to have often been characterized by the idea of cooperatives. The following is quoted from Shinagawa’s explanatory address in the presentation of the Credit Cooperative Bill to the House of Peers in 1891: “ In fact, small landowners or small farmers, small merchants and small manufacturers repre-


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

sent a basic part of national producers, and so they are the foundation of the State. As you know gentlemen, the people operating small farms and enterprises, however, are losing their productive capacity. The Credit Cooperative Bill now presented here aims to provide such people with credit and to enable them to use capital at a modest rate, while concurrently encouraging the spirit of mutual aid and nurturing energies found locally” .28 Shinagawa was later called the pioneer of cooperatives. Thus Japanese peasantism has had a close relationship with nationalism, the idea of cooperatives, and also protectionism. Taking up first its relation with nationalism and protectionism, the ideas of TANI Tateki (1837-1911) should be mentioned. He entered upon a political career after retiring as a lieutenant general in the army, and he was Minister of Agricultural and Commercial Affairs, 1885-1887. He championed Japanism against Westernization. His basic idea is found in his speeches against the govern­ ment plan for increasing the land tax along with other taxes in 1898 in order to meet the cost for carrying out policies in the post-Sino-Japanese War era. “ In general, maintaining security of the State means forging strong organizational bonds among the people and stabilizing them. The most stable people are the peasantry. It is my desire that there be as many independent farmers who earn their livelihood by cultiva­ ting one or two or three cho (hectares) as possible. When the number of independent farmers increases and they settle upon land, local communities of various areas are better off, and local landowners are able to fulfill their responsibility, giving charity to local communities, encouraging local education and maintaining those who are intelligent, strong and moral. Whatever may happen, for example, the rise of such abominable parties as the socialist party or the nihilist party, the foundation of the State shall not be shaken. Both recent students of politics and I myself have noticed the stability of the rural population settled upon the land” .29 It should be noted, that he did not propose any measure for the establishment of owner-farmers nor did he have any intention of improving tenancy. Instead he very earnestly opposed the govern­ mental plan to increase the land tax after the Sino-Japanese War. 30 Tani’s agricultural protectionism seemed to be derived from his observation of Japanese agriculture against the background of the international situation. “ In the process of modernization, however, agriculture could not keep pace with manufactur­ ing industry, and naturally fell behind it. Certainly the peasantry is the base of the State, and the State rests most stably upon the base of the peasantry, but the base of the State would be endangered, if the peasantry were to decrease. Consequently we must encourage agriculture and support it by all means. I have heard Japan has good agricultural institutions and has fairly many owner-farmers. We should support them. . . . Britain today is a commercial country and looks down upon agriculture. Some British scholars are worried about this. In the future, Germany, France, the United States and other countries might develop industry, and then Britain would lose in economic competition with them. India and also Canada might become inde­ pendent, if industrialization proceeds further in both countries. What could a Britain with declining agriculture do when food could not be bought with money? I have heard people in Britain say that British agriculture should be revived and revitalized.” 31

Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy


In addition, Tani insisted on the self-sufficiency of the food supply as will be seen later. He can be labeled the first political advocate of food self-sufficiency. It might also be said here that peasantism has usually contained within itself the advocacy of food self-sufficiency. Among the scholars, YOKOI Tokiyoshi (1860-1927) has been considered a typical agriculture-is-the-base-ist, or, a conservative agricultural fundamentalist. He was a graduate from Komaba Agricultural School, became a professor of the College of Agronomy of the Imperial University after studying in Germany, and became president of Tokyo Agricultural College in 1911. He started his career as an agricultural chemist and later became a conservative-minded agricultural economist. One will recall Yokoi wrote a paper on “ nohon-shugi” (“Agriculture-is-the-baseism”) in 1897 as mentioned before in Chapter 1-1-4. [n the paper, he clarified the idea of “nohon-shugi” , explaining the reasons why he opposed industrial fundamentalism. “I don’t hesitate to agree to industrial fundamentalism, if national power is pro­ portionate to national wealth. Nor do I hesitate to agree to industrial fundamentalism, if national happiness goes with national wealth. Doubtlessly, industrial productive power is superior to agriculture, according to today’s statistics. (Refer to Table 1-1, Net Product per Worker.) It is doubtful, however, that national power is proportionate to national wealth and it is a fact proven by realities that national happiness does not always go together with national wealth” .32 “First, the increase of national wealth does not always mean the increase of wealth for all the people. . . . The industrialized economy of today cannot rapidly accumulate national wealth without tolerance for the social distance between the rich and the poor, and of an amalgamation of wealth by rich men. . . . Secondly, though it is indisputable that the poor are weak, the rich are not always strong. . . . Wealth is not instrumental in fostering national vigor but rather sometimes acts to depress it. Consequently wealth is not instrumental in building national strength. . . . Thirdly, the vigor of a country is nurtured in the families of the middle class, especially in the farm families. The most excellent quality of the farm family member is the ability to be soldiers to defend the country because of their purity, honesty, liveliness, vigor, steadiness, sin­ cerity and strength. Though land itself cannot constitute a country, a country cannot separate itself from the land. Farmers are closest to the land. It is they who love the land and the country” .33 Thus, peasantism is linked up with patriotism. This is the point which differenti­ ates “peasantism” from modern agricultural fundamentalism. According to Yokoi, peasantism is tied up with the country’s destiny. “ Industrial fundamentalism only aims at industrial development and neglects the peasantry’s sacrifice.” For example, “the abolition of the tariff on cotton in 1896 has benefited only a few cotton yarn dealers at the sacrifice of many peasants. (Refer to Table 1-2.) The pleading voice of many peasants for about ten years in the area polluted by the copper poisoning of the Ashio Mine means the benefit of rich townsmen at the sacrifice of the poor peasants.” 34 According to Yokoi, materialistic enlightenment has given rise to mammonism and the latter has begun to extinguish agriculture. “ Industrial fundamentalism has already


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

been adopted, benefiting manufacture and mining at the sacrifice of farming. If the present situation continues, miserable peasants will be oppressed by rich townsmen, becoming further distressed and impoverished year by year. Independent and healthy farmers would rapidly disappear. Those remaining would be so poor that even if they could eat in the morning, they would not be sure to have anything to eat in the evening. National vigor would be lost, national power would be extinguished, and finally there would be no way to restore either.” 35 Instead of modern agricultural fundamentalism, Yokoi insisted on the balanced growth of the economy and “peasantism” at the same time. In conclusion he stated: “Commerce and manufacture enrich the country, and agriculture guards the country. Commerce and manufacture are progressive businesses, and agriculture is a con­ servative business. The progress of commerce and manufacture is expected without general protective measures while agriculture can develop only with protection. If the State adopts the principle of agriculture-is-the-base-ism and takes suitable measures to protect the peasantry, then all three industries could progress together, display their specific merits, contribute to healthy national development, overcome the unhappy gulf between the rich and the poor, and gain both wealth and strength for the nation.” 36 In spite of the national leaders’ advocacy of modern agricultural fundamentalism in the early years of the Meiji era, in actual fact industrial fundamentalism dominated national policy. Yokoi discerned that and challenged it, basing his arguments upon the principle agriculture-is-the-base-ism. But in this case agriculture-is-the-base-ism was not a form of modern agricultural fundamentalism. Rather, it was a “peasantist” fundamentalism. To restate Yokoi’s position, agriculture was not the foundation of manufacture and commerce; instead the peasantry was the source of national vigor. Besides, he pressed for agricultural protectionism, one of the characteristics of peasan­ tism. He insisted on the balanced growth of industries, facilitated and achieved by a protectionist policy for agriculture. Yokoi repeated this idea in his preface to KAWAKAMI Hajime’s book Nippon Sonno Ron (A Treatise on the Esteem o f Japanese Agri­ culture) which was mentioned earlier. KAWAKAMI Hajime does not seem to have been an advocate of “peasantism” , but in his book Nippon Sonno Ron he presupposed an agricultural structure consisting for the most part of small-scale farming. He stated: ‘If more than half of the nation is needed to populate the rural areas, it is necessary for us to conserve agriculture. Unfortunately, the recent situation is rather contrary to our hope because the number of peasants is decreasing as they flow into the cities, leaving their ancestral land” .37 If we summarize the above thoughts and words, the core of Japanese peasantism seems to be a doctrine which insists that the agricultural structure should be based on small-scale farms and that such a structure most efficiently utilizes land and labor. For Yokoi, in his paper, “The Relationship between the Size of Farms and the State” : “Japanese agriculture consists of small-scale farms; the method of farming corresponds with the scale. The double cropping of rice and wheat or barley could not be practiced without the small-scale farms. Wheat or barley is one of the most

Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy


stable and productive crops in Europe and America. In Japan it is one of the riskiest crops, because the harvesting season of wheat or barley comes during the rainy days. Moreover, the harvesting season of these winter crops overlaps the trans­ planting season of rice. A large-scale farm could not procure enough laborers during the busy season. If the large-scale farm were to give up the growing of these crops, it could not achieve a balanced distribution of labor.” 38 In short, intensive farming in Japan depends on the small-scale farm. The analysis offered by Yokoi was totally true. Even today the unstable nature of wheat or barley growing is not yet overcome. Mechanization in recent years has partially solved the problem of labor, but just as it was at the beginning of the twentieth century, an overlap problem exists today, because the transplanting season has come earlier due to the earlier growing of rice and to the mechanization of rice transplanting. Mechanization is easier with smaller seedlings but the same seedlings require earlier transplanting. 1-2-3 Agricultural Protectionism That peasantism often involved agricultural protectionism has already been stated. At first peasantism called for the protection of the peasantry, and soon afterwards it shifted to a call for general agricultural protection. The call for agricultural protection for the peasantry is due to the following conditions. Firstly, the decrease of owner-operators was noticeable during the later half of the 1880s. In addition, from about the end of the 1890s, landowners who accumulated land began to give up farming by themselves and instead leased land to tenants. In other words, landowners who hired laborers to farm land owned by the landowners, began to lease part of their land, and ultimately became mere lessors of all their land. Lawmaking contributed to this process. The lessor’s legal rights were superior to the lessee’s rights as established by Part I, II and III of the Civil Code enacted in 1896. Secondly, the national economy as a whole had already passed the takeoff stage and by then many capitalistic enterprises were established in the nonagricultural sectors by about the end of the nineteenth century. Therefore, the urban climate began to permeate the whole county. Thirdly, it was after the Sino-Japanese War that sub­ sidies as a policy measure were adopted especially in the agricultural sector by local governments and soon after by the central government as well. A protective tariff for rice was inaugurated in 1904, though its initial aim was to increase fiscal revenue during the Russo-Japanese War. In this period a noticeable event was the discussion on “The Problem concerning the Protection of the Small-Scale Farm” held at an academic meeting in 1914 by the Academic Association of Social Policy.39 Yokoi spoke at this meeting and the paper accompanying his speech expatiated upon his idea on the relationship between smallscale farms and protectionism. He stated: “I believe that since Japanese agriculture consists of small-scale farms, Japan’s agricultural policy should be mostly protective of small-scale farms” .40 Ultrasmall-scale farms were not included in his category of small-scale farms. Therefore ultrasmall-scale farms were out of the scope of pro­ tection of small-scale farms. He defined ultrasmall-scale farmers as follows: “They


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive ?

are not able to live off farming because their farms are too small. Since their farms are not able to provide them and their family members with enough income-earning farm­ ing work, they and their family members are obliged to find off-farm jobs. Farmers of less than fifty ares should be called ultrasmall-scale farmers; farmers of less than one hectare might often in fact be ultrasmall-scale” .41 Another speaker at the academic meeting, SOEDA Juichi (1864-1924), a financier and concurrently a scholar of social policy during the Meiji and Taisho eras, suggested: “From the economic point of view, especially from the standpoint of productivity, the large-scale farm would be more favorable but from the viewpoint of income dis­ tribution the small-scale farm is preferable. From the political, military and social viewpoint also the small-scale farm is desirable” .42 He referred to the history of Britain, warning that Japan ought not to repeat her experience. FUKUDA Tokuzo (1874-1930), a brilliant professor of Keio Gijuku University and the Tokyo Commercial College (now Hitotsubashi University in Tokyo) criticized both Soeda and Yokoi. Referring to Soeda’s speech, Fukuda stated: “Britain, which according to Dr. Soeda mistakenly pursued a certain agricultural policy for such a long time, nearly one thousand years, has become a model country of world agriculture. The other European countries are envious of her agriculture and endeavor to imitate it. This comes from my knowledge of economic history and this is the reason why I cannot agree with Dr. Soeda” .43 Fukuda’s criticism against Yokoi was more severe: “Even if small-scale farms should be protected, whether they should be protected as they are at present, whether they should be protected after changing the number or the size of the small-scale farm, or whether such changes should be the first step toward their protection are issues which should be studied. If casting away the status quo is needed in order to promote Japan’s agriculture, protection of the small-scale farms under the present condition could conceivably be even harmful. Therefore, to assert that protection of the small-scale farms ought to be Japan’s agricultural policy is neither approved nor recognized by logic. Such a decisive state­ ment would be tolerable for exercises in logomachy or Phrasenmacherei, but it must not be mistaken for a judgement based on modern scientific study” .44 While the discussion seemed to end in Fukuda’s favor, actual agricultural policy favored Soeda and Yokoi and agricultural protectionism.45. The government started agricultural protectionism at the beginning of the twentieth century, when Japan shifted from a rice exporting country to a rice importing one. It strengthened the policy, further taking the opportunity to establish the food policy after the Rice Riots in 1918, and strengthened it again during the Great Depression and once more during World War II. Such agricultural protectionism has often aroused criticism from nonagricultural sectors and general economists until today. The criticism, however, has seldom been effective in altering policy.

Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy 1 -3


The Return o f “ Peasantism ”

1-3-1 Nationalist and Shintoist “ Peasantism” As the agrarian movement (called a peasant movement, by the Japanese which will be discussed in another chapter) flared up from the 1910’s, “peasantism” gradually declined. Conversely, as the agrarian movement declined under the suppression of the secret police and the influence of the totalitarian trend in the 1930’s, “ peasantism” returned and became a dominant ideology of agricultural policy. “Peasantism” this time, however, was different from “ peasantism” before about 1910. One of the characteristics of the peasantism after the 1930’s was its heavy nationalistic content. Needless to say, “peasantism” after the 1930’s was under the influence of the totalitarian trend and the Great Depression which also imprinted its mark. Another characteristic was that it involved various advocates and more or less different thoughts. This reactivated peasantism may be divided into several types. The first is nationalist “peasantism” best represented by OKADA Yutaka (1870— 1949). He was a graduate from the practical course attached to the Faculty of Agro­ nomy of Tokyo Imperial University. He was continuously engaged in the survey of agricultural production costs and of farm management as first a staff member of a county agricultural association and then that of a prefectural agricultural association and then finally of the Imperial Agricultural Association. As a result his “ peasantism” was based on knowledge deeply grounded in the practical learning of family farms.1 He enumerated three characteristics of Japanese agriculture mainly structured by the small-scale family farm: (1) The social distance between rich and poor is not so wide. In rural society where wealth is not easily accumulated and at the same time poverty does not come suddenly, the social distance of rich and poor visible in urban society is not apparent. (2) Unemployment does not occur, because there are so many activities to be undertaken on the family farm. The farmer of a family farm is the manager of the farming enterprise, even though small-scale, and also the laborer on the farm. No one is ever discharged. In a society where there is no social distance between rich and poor, and no one is dismissed, the necessary conditions for stable livelihood exist, though no beer, cigars and automobiles are included in the conditions.2 According to Okada, safeguarding the Japanese national character depends upon the family system, and the conditions for the maintenance of the family system were as follows: “(1) The occupation for sustaining livelihood should be carried out at home. (2) The occupation should be suitable for familial cooperation. (3) Any member of the family who is engaged in the familial occupation should not de­ mand remuneration for his work. (4) Family living should be completely cooperative” . He stated, “Japan’s agriculture is based on the family system. Therefore, the system of the family farm coincides with and coexists with the national character, fosters it and glorifies it. The true meaning of agriculture-is-the-base-ism really implies it” .3 As an agronomist of Ehime Prefecture, he tackled the problem of poisonous smoke at the Besshi copper mine owned by Sumitomo Mining Co., Ltd. He spent three years proving that the damage to the plants in the eastern part of Ehime Pre-


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

fecture was caused by the smoke of the smeltery of the copper mine. Until the publica­ tion of his survey, the technologists of the prefecture and the Ministry concerned stated that the damage was caused mainly by a pest and the smoke was only a secon­ dary cause, and the authorities did not move to solve the problem. Okada actively contributed to solving the plant damage problem for the peasants in that area, and he received letters of thanks from 230,000 of them from the four counties in Ehime Prefecture. Later in 1920 he was appointed to the Committee on the Tenancy Prob­ lem by the Minister of Agricultural and Commercial Affairs while concurrently holding the post of local agronomist. The appointment represented recognition by the Ministry of his distinguished industrial survey of the prefecture, his achievement and his sense of justice.4 He was not only a theorist of agriculture-is-the-base-ism but also a practical leader for the peasants. When he was a senior staff member of the Imperial Agricultural Association, he was elected to the House of Representa­ tives in 1924 from his native place. Another type of revived peasantism is seen in the later years of YAMAZAKI Nobukichi (1873-1954).5 It was “peasantism” imbued not only with nationalism but also with classic Shintoism. After his graduation from the Faculty of Agronomy of Tokyo Imperial University, he became a teacher at agricultural schools. At the age of twenty-nine, he was promoted and became the head of the Anjo Agricultural School, Aichi Prefecture. He noticed the importance of rural autonomy and then indicated important points for the economic rehabilitation of the farming family. The points were diligence, frugality and saving. These virtues were not so different from those of the traditional peasantism, but the implications were not the same. While diligence meant working properly, plus fidelity to the occupation, according to Yamazaki, diligence could only be realized by combining the forces of health, intelligence and morals. While frugality had originally meant only material economy, for him, it meant the efficient utilization of not only materials and money but also of time and mind. Frugality of mind meant the attitude of not worrying about trifles. Saving was neither aimless nor unconscious. Rather it was for concentrating one’s spiritual and physical energy in order to realize certain ideals (elevation of personality, family and human society). Such a way of thinking with its utilitarianism and realism probably influenced many cultivators. “Compared with him, Yokoi Tokiyoshi would be called a bureaucratic peasantist,” 6 or, better, a peasantist inclined to landlordism. Yamazaki’s “peasantism” seemed to have been influenced by the totalitarian trend since the early years of the Showa era (1926-). He stated in the preface of his book entitled Koa Nomin Dokuhon (A Reader of the Peasant for the Development o f Asia)-, “Agriculture-is-the-base is an eternal truth: The peasant living on the base of this truth and serving the country is the permanent national treasure. We should grasp the truth for the prosperity of the fatherland and we should work to realize the prosperity of the peasant in order to attain the national ideal of Japan under the Imperial reign. Taking this into consideration, we must clarify the truth of agri­ culture and realize the appropriate position of the peasant” .7 Related to the last

Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy


point of the quotation Yamazaki added: “The continuance of our country is assured by a vigorous nation and substantial materials, particularly food, and the continued assurance is made possible by the permanency and certainty of the food supply. Our country, having a long history and incomparable national character in the world, has guarded this principle as a national guideline which should not be transformed however the world may turn. Truly, considering that the vigorous nation is maintained by the rural countryside and that food is produced by the endeavor of the peasant, our nation’s being exists in the rural country and in the peasant. Nor is this an argu­ ment based on the sectional interest” .8 Then Yamazaki noted: “ It goes without saying that the present rural countryside is economically distressed. Material and economic assistance is urgently needed but if material and economic measures were taken, while spiritual development was neglected, the peasant would tend to be dependent on others’ help” .9 In 1929 Yamazaki established a training school “ Shinpu-gijuku” (Moral Training School of the Divine Wind) in order to establish “Nomin-do” (the moral doctrine of the peasant), based on the idea that spiritual development is possible by developing the moral doctrine of the peasant. During the Great Depression, many training centers or private schools for the future peasants were established. GOTO Fumio (1884-1980), Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, ISHIGURO Tadaatsu (1884-1960), Vice Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, and KODAIRA Gonichi (1884—1976), Director of the Rural Rehabilitation Bureau encouraged the establishment of such institutions. The objective of “Shinpu-gijuku” was to train future farmers, and make them into those who are conscious of the “peasantism” of Imperial Japan, have them participate in farming, and believe in the absolute supremacy of the Emperor. The idea of absolute supremacy derived from the influence of the old Shintoism of Japan. Accordingly, the daily course of “ Shinpu-gijuku” contained ceremonies of old Shinto and nationalism besides farming practices and lectures. All pupils had to live in dormitories. Yamazaki was elected to the House of Representatives in the first universal suffrage in 1928 as an independent, being strongly urged by the graduates of the Anj5 Agri­ cultural School and other progressive farmers to be a candidate. The election oc­ curred amid the banking crisis which had begun in the previous year. He disliked politics and political maneuvering but he believed that the economic progress of the peasant could not be attained without the political awakening of the peasant. Another person associated with the character of Shintoist “peasantism” was KATO Kanji (1884—1967).10 He was born and grew up when his family was in a period of distress. He became a Christian and a Tolstoyan in his school days. After his graduation from the Faculty of Agronomy at Tokyo Imperial University and a period of work in the Ministry of Home Affairs and in the Imperial Agricultural Association for a while, he became a teacher of the Anjo Agricultural School, headed by YAMAZAKI Nobukichi. At the school he listened to lectures given by KAKEHI Katsuhiko (1862-1961), a professor of the Japanese Constitution at Tokyo Imperial University, and a famous classic Shintoist. The lectures caused him to undergo

42 1-26-28

Ota District, Aiuchi Village, Aomori Prefecture, Late in April, 1936.

1-26 The poorest farmhouse in Ota District, Aiuchi Village.

1-27 A farmhouse of the middle class in Ota District, Aiuchi Village.


Rural children of Ota District, Aiuchi Village.


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

a change of mind in favor of classic Shintoism. Owing to his experiences in farming and his education at this school, he became an agricultural educator strongly imbued with classic Shintoism.11 He was then appointed as the principal of a training school for local improvement, Jichi Koshu Sho in Yamagata Prefecture. There he experienced land reclamation. After being the principal of Jichi Koshu Sho, he became the principal of Kokumin Koto Gakko established in 1926 in Ibaraki Prefecture under the sponsorship of ISHIGURO Tadaatsu, NASU Shiroshi, YAMAZAKI Nobukichi, HASHIMOTO Denzaemon (1887-1977) and others. Kokumin K5to Gakko—literally national high school in Japanese—sought to educate students based upon knowledge of the Danish experience with folk high schools for rural youth and adults. Kato’s idea and method, however, were radically different from the Danish folk high schools.12 Kato empha­ sized: (1) the importance of hard labor; (2) correction of an overemphasis on intel­ lectual training; (3) moral education based on classic Shintoism; (4) a daily morning ceremony consisting of the worship of the gods, reading of the Imperial Rescript on Education, three banzai cheers for the Emperor, and a short classic Shintoist recitation.13 After the Manchurian Incident in 1931 (military occupation of the Northeast Region of China by the Japanese army), a long term plan for agricultural emigration to the Northeast Region of China (Manchuria) and Inner Mongolia was decided upon by the Government in 1937. In a sense it was a result of Kato’s endeavor to promote emigration combined with Shintoist peasantism and Japanese militarism. He became responsible as a leader for the training of emigrants. Historically speaking, this was an inevitable course for peasantism during the wartime, but the emigration of rural youth to the Northeast Region of China proved a great tragedy for them as well as for the native Chinese people and the Korean settlers in the Region.14 Kato’s Shintoist peasantism was based on his view of life. He stated: “The human life depends on the life of the crops. Crops grow through human nurturing and natural fostering. We can find God in the combination of the human being, crops and nature. This importance of agriculture derives from that, and agriculture-is-the-base-ism also derives from that” .15 Why did such agriculture-is-the-base-ism lead to emigration to the Northeast Region of China? It came about, according to Kato, because of the complaints of the pupils of the training school, Jichi Koshu Sho. Presumably in 1922 when he was the principal of the training school, several graduates came to his home and one of them said: “We have decided to fulfill the duty of the Japanese peasant, owing to your training in the peasant’s spirit for one year. We express our heartfelt gratitude to you for educating us. However, we are faced with a problem. We are second or third sons. We don’t have enough land to be independent farmers when we go back home, nor have we enough funds to buy land. Please tell us what we can do” .16 As primogeniture prevailed in those days, both because of custom and the civil code, only the eldest son could inherit the property of his father. Another graduate, a second son of a tenant, said: “ Before I came here, I worked at my father’s farm until I was twenty-five. It pained me to stay home any longer because my parents

Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy


were worrying about my future. A youth in the same situation in my village worked on a conservancy project of the Mogami River and earned some money. But such a situation did not seem to continue for a long term. Some friends of mine, though they were honest and good, began to dislike farming. Most went out in the evening for pleasure and some of them contracted social diseases. Considering such things, I came here and owing to the training, your lectures and the reclamation works, I have acquired the farmer’s spirit and the ability to farm. Now that I have graduated, I’ll go back home, but I won’t be as vigorous as an eldest son. The agony of one year before comes back into my mind. How can we, the sons of landless and money­ less tenants, fulfill the Japanese farmer’s mission in the future?” 17 The agricultural ladder did not function well. It was difficult for an agricultural laborer or tenant to become an owner-operator. Kato became convinced that emigration should be an extension of farming education. In those days, the social and political conditions directed everyone’s attention to East Asia, not to South Asia or to South America. Such conditions seemed to waken Kato to the idea of emigration to the Northeast Region of China. The scale of farm­ ing Kato ultimately hoped to develop was not small. At first the emigrant’s size of farm had to be small but gradually would be enlarged to five or ten hectares and even more.18 Opinion on the emigration to the Northeast Region of China was divided. A large number of scholars were against the emigration because it was almost impossi­ ble for Japanese peasants to emigrate and to settle there. Kato endeavored to pursuade them, being encouraged and advised by ISHIGURO Tadaatsu and others. For example, KOZAI Yoshinao (1864-1937), President of Tokyo Imperial Universi­ ty, exemplified the negative attitude of some scholars. Kato had been a student of Professor Kozai who had lectured on agricultural chemistry, but Kozai did not even remember Kato when he called on him and tried to persuade him of the neces­ sity and the possibility of emigration. Probably sympathy for a second or third son of a peasant was aroused in Kozai’s heart.19 1-3-2 Radical Right-Wing “Peasantism” The reactivated “peasantism” was often linked with new radical right-wing move­ ments of reform. These “nohon-shugi” philosophers did not form a concerted homo­ geneous movement and had little contact with those officials concerned with agri­ cultural policy. In this sense the radical right-wing “nohon-shugi” did not have as much influence over agricultural policy as the nationalist or Shintoist “nohon-shugi”. GONDO Narikuni (1868-1937) was the theorist of the Village Government Federa­ tion, which was anti-bureaucratic and anti-militarist as well as anti-capitalist. He envisioned the ideal society as an aggregate of self-governing and almost self-sufficient village communities.20 He stated during the Great Depression that: “ In the present uneasy situation rural villages are the most seriously distressed. Our villages are the foundation of the country and the roots of popular morals. At present the agricultural population


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

is one half of the total population and most of the national land is utilized by them. Not only staple foods, but also materials for manufacture, and other commercialized goods are largely produced by the peasantry. The peasantry should be the main force of the nation. On what base do they stand? What prestige and strength do the peasantry have? If they have already lost the base and all strength, the future of the peasantry is dark. Originally the base and the prestige and strength were found in self-control. If the individual peasant does not have the power of self-control, rural self-governing cannot be realized. If self-governing cannot be realized, the power of autonomy does not arise. If the power of autonomy does not exist, popular morals of self-existence and mutual relief cannot be maintained. From such a stand­ point, the present distress of the peasants is due to their loss of self-control” .21 His thought of social transformation is seen in the next conclusive statement. “ If we would reconsider in detail the past history of party politics and the morals of civilians and military officers in the context of local autonomy, we may say a bureaucratic government system based on Prussian statism is the cause of the gap between the upper and lower classes and of the national distress. We have however, a tradition since the time of our ancestors and are well endowed with fresh blood. The blood is full and alive within our nation. Therefore, once we are awakened, a strong catharsis should happen and everything should be immediately solved. That is the promise of history” .22 One of the characteristics of the governmental and administrative structures before the end of World War II was to centralize power as much as possible. Another was to abolish or weaken the rural community (or hamlet) as much as possible. It does seem that the concepts of self-governing and the autonomy of GONDO Narikuni were based on the rural community which the central government did not legally recognize and endeavored to weaken since the Meiji era. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, however, noticed the importance of the rural community or rural hamlet, particularly after the Great Depression. After World War II, the characteristics of the rural community which tended to prevent the development of individualism were criticized. Particularly in recent years, however, the rural community has again begun to be valued as a unit of mutual aid and cooperation. We will consider this later in greater detail. Gondo’s grandfather and father were Confucianists. He also studied the genesis of institutions from his grandfather and father. The study of the genesis of institutions here means a study of the history and the present status of institutions.23 He seemed to be a great scholar of classic institutionalism but had little influence over the radical right-wing revolutionary movements. However this does not mean that his thought, as quoted above, did not have any influence over the “revolutionary” youth in the 1930’s. It is said that TACHIBANA Kozaburo (1893-1974) never stopped revering Gondo.24 Tachibana was a typical reactivated right-wing “nohon-shugi-sha” (agriculture-isthe-base-ist).25 He was born into the large family of a merchant in Mito City, Ibaraki Prefecture. After his graduation from Mito Middle School, he entered the First Higher


1-30 KATO Kanji

1-31 TACHIBANA Kozaburo


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

School in Tokyo, studying the so-called elite course. He devoted himself to philo­ sophic thinking, and began to seek a true human life, giving up mundane careerism. He withdrew from the school and returned to the land to be a farmer. It was in 1915 that he began to engage in farming at Tokiwa Village, Ibaraki County, Ibaraki Prefecture. In the beginning his farm was three ha. He married and his brothers joined in farming. Thus the Tachibana brothers’ farm was formed, having seven ha. Accord­ ing to Tachibana’s vision, it was a “commune” of brotherhood where utopia was realized, though small in scale. He had an idea of cooperative farming as the way to develop the “commune” of brotherhood. He had incubated such an idea already in his First Higher School days. He established Aikyo-kai (love-of-home-villageassociation) in 1929, responding to the enthusiastic rural youth, for rural relief by peasants themselves. The association had about twenty-seven branches and about four hundred members in the prefecture. The objective of the association was to promote the spiritual development of “Aikyo-do” , and to realize that objective the association carried on enlightening activities for rural youth and cooperative activities for purchasing and marketing. The term “Aikyo-do” meant a moral doctrine on the marriage of man and land, and the unity of man and man. In addition, the associa­ tion intended to organize a political party for rural reform. As a result of Tachibana’s activities in the association, he published a book entitled Noson Gaku (Rural science) in 1931, and at the same time he established Aikyo Juku (a private training school for the love of the home village). He stated in the conclusion of the book:26 “ Land is in fact the root of life for humanity which could not find the homeland of life without heaven and earth and outside of heaven and earth. So long as human beings shall depend on land, human life needs diligent labor and cooperation. Any society without diligent labor and cooperation is not able to exist. The core and substance of diligent labor and cooperation was maintained by the peasant, and rural villages organized by diligent labor and cooperation formed the foundation of the total social organization. Sources of social creative power, namely diligent labor and cooperation, however, are vanishing, and accordingly the village is in a dying condition and the peasant’s life is going to ruin. The overall future of human society is also in the dark. . . . It is very clear what we must do. We must now go back to the land, and reconstruct all things based on the stabilizing quality of living on the land. We must return, and begin anew. This is the only path remaining for us, the only way of liberating ourselves and others. It is the only way to save urban and rural societies, and the total national society. It is in the rural countryside that the capitalist society will be replaced by the welfare society . . . . Human beings are moving towards the establishment of a welfare society. What mission does Asia have for this great movement? What must India, China or Japan do ? If one considers this point, Japan’s mission could hardly be said to be small. The mission of the great peasant family numbering five million and fifty three thou­ sand is also great” . The quotation from his book, Noson Gaku reminds the reader of the patriotism so common to the right-wing philosophers before World War II. The patriotism led some of them to attempt a coup d’etat. Before describing that, we must briefly con-

Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy


emplate the educational direction of Jiei-teki Kinro Gakk5 Aikyo Juku (Independent Private Working School for Love of the Home Village). The private school was established as one of the activities of “Aikyo-kai” , supported by a member of the House of Representatives, KAZAMI Akira (1886-1961), and others. The educational precepts were as follows:27 (1) Principle of close relationship with the land. “Human beings cannot exist if separated from the land. The country should be established on the basis of farming” . We should at this point recollect the establishment of Israel which attached importance to the agricultural settlement. (2) Principle of brotherhood. “Society cannot be maintained if human beings do not act like brothers. Human beings should live on the basis of mutual love and mutual reliance on brotherhood” . This principle would be Tachibana’s special educational message. (3) Principle of labor. “Human beings must fulfill faithfully their mission and calling, according to what the individual’s mission and calling may be” . In general, “nohon-shugi” , par­ ticularly during the Great Depression, emphasized diligent working, namely hard labor with a hoe and a sickle. Tachibana’s principle of labor seemed somewhat different from the more common forms of “nohon-shugi” . For him labor is intimately related to the achievement of each one's mission and calling. Since the end of 1931 he participated in a broader organization aiming at establish­ ing “nohon-culture” (culture based on farming), the realization of a self-governing society, etc. Thus he came into close contact with right-wing persons such as INOUE Nissho (1886-1967).28 Just before the Incident on May 15, 1932,29 Tachibana delivered a lecture to young naval officers at Tsuchiura, Ibaraki Prefecture. The manifesto he stated at the time was:30 “No nation is without national land; no national society is without a nation; no life is without a national society. Therefore one who does not love the State is not a human being.. . . Japan should base its existence on the principle of Japanese patriotic brotherhood which is an incomparable uniting force throughout the world, centered around the most sublime Imperial Household. In fact, Japan does live on the principle of patriotic brotherhood, and the latter flows from the national character. . . . But where is the principle of Japanese patriotic brotherhood now? How is the national character, now ? The trend of the world, the present reality of the State, and various other conditions, all speak of the urgent need for reform of the State. The present crisis of Japan is one which we have not ever experienced. What can overcome the crisis? Only patriotic reform. . . . What is worthy of life should be achieved through life! Japanese patriotic reformists! Stand up on the highway of Japanese patriotic reform, giving your life to it. Stand up and let that cause receive your death.” In addi­ tion, in the last part of the lecture, Tachibana explained the relationship between the national defense system and the peasantry: “Considering the fact that more than seventy percent of Japanese soldiers are the brothers or sons of the rural countryside and judging from the lesson of history it is inescapable that military strength depends firmly on the rural countryside. For example, the soldier of Sparta, or of the Roman Empire, was strong because he came from the peasantry. The Ironsides of Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658) and the troops of Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) were the


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

same. An old truth is now reviving itself. The present situation of China makes us understand it well. The reason why the Communist army of China bested the army of Chiang Kai-shek (1887-1975) is that the Communist army was of the peasantry. . . . In the future, we should think about the organization of mighty forces based upon the principle of peasant soldiers necessary to support world peace, organizing the great national forces for national self-strengthening and self-defense” .31 Tachibana and his trainees participated in the Incident of May 15, 1932. in which the prime minister was assassinated. At that time I was a student of the Tokyo Im­ perial University. 1 -4

Fostering M edium -Scale Farms

1-4-1 The Idea of Medium-Scale Farms Between the idea of large-scale farms (daino-ron) and the idea of small-scale farms (shono-ron or shono-shugi) there arose the idea of medium-scale farms (chuno-ron) which sought to foster or increase medium-scale farms. “ Peasantism” could in a sense include the idea of medium-scale farms. The idea of fostering the medium-scale farm, however, seems different from peasantism in certain respects. For example, the idea of medium-scale farms often implies structural improvement or reform while “peasant­ ism” tends to maintain the status quo. If we use the word “peasantism” in order to express “chuno-ron” , it seems better to say progressive “ peasantism.” Related to this, we can equate conservative “peasantism” with “shono-ron” . Conservative peasantism has continued to exist until recent times while progressive peasantism has arisen inter­ mittently since the Meiji Revolution. The idea of fostering the medium-scale farm seems to have appeared after that of establishing large scale farms, but we could say that “chuno-ron” arose almost at the same time as “daino-ron” . Surely “chuno-ron” was neither as attractive as “dainoron” nor was it so persistent as “shonS-shugi” . It appears that the first person who had the idea of creating medium-scale farms on a wide scale was Udo Eggert to whom reference has already been made concerning the introduction of large-scale farms. While he did propose the establishment of large-scale farms in Hokkaido, if one con­ siders his proposals in a general sense, he rather insisted on increasing medium-scale farms, or, enlarging ultra-small scale farms and small-scale farms to medium-scale. Eggert’s stay in Japan was shorter than that of Max Fesca. It is said that he stayed here in Japan from 1887 to 1893. In 1890, three years after his arrival in Japan, he gave a general outline of his ideas for land reform in Japan: “In general old feudal regulations and institutions oppose reform; these must be swept away; but it is easy to see that fundamental reform is a difficult matter. Although in the first degree it will be farmers who will gain by such a reform, yet all other classes in the country will be profited in an indirect way; by opening up uncultivated land the power of the State and the wealth of the nation will be increased and Japan will occupy a higher rank among the nations of the world.1 . . . The proposals referred to hereafter are, I assume, those most appropriate to meet the most urgent exigencies of


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

this country. In many regards, I believe the support of the State to be necessary in order to make the agricultural population self-reliant, and to be in a position to make use of those institutions which we shall speak of under the heading o f‘credit-organizations’.”2 His proposals also covered the redemption of debts, consolidation of dismembered areas, large farms on a western style, agricultural insurance, reform of land tax, occupations of farmers, new markets, and capital and associations. It seems all these items had to logically be considered for promoting Japan’s agriculture at the time of the proposals. His characteristic recommendations were most importantly the enlargement of ultrasmall-scale and small-scale farms by providing capital, offering land tax reduction, undertaking land reclamation on a large-scale, and finally, making them self-reliant so as to be able to use credit organizations. He knew quite well, however, that Japan had no large tax resources other than land tax. Further he knew that there was no hope of lightening the heavy land tax to a more bearable proportion either by other sources of public income or by retrenchment. Nevertheless, relief for the peasantry was necessary. His proposal, therefore, was “to extend the area of arable land, and to distribute the present amount, which the State cannot do without, over an enlarged area, reducing in this way the future rate of unity of assessed land, without depriving the State of its principal source of income. This proposal coincided with the common counsel, to promote the economic progress of this country by unleashing its fundamental force” .3 He continued, stating: “In Japan unoccupied and uncultivated lands are to be found everywhere, around villages and far from human habitation, besides the many plateaus or upland meadows which are seen so often even in mountainous districts and which in Europe would certainly be cultivated.4 . . . According to the survey of undeveloped and forest land, and from the fact that a large portion of it occupies arable soil, there will be no difficulty to select and double or treble the area now under cultivation. Private forests, “hara” and “no” , are the best source while governmental forests, “hara” and “no” , are of supplementary importance, in providing about 8-9 million cho (hectares) of land suitable for cultivation. If in this way arable land is doubled or even trebled and no extra impost is placed on the farming classes, beyond the present burdened, cultivated land, the same sum of land tax will be brought in, but as it would be levied on twice or three times as much property, the present rate of 2 54 % on the taxed value of land would be reduced to about 1%.” 5 Related to this proposal, he gave a discourse on some related issues such as the method of land distribution, the supply of farming labor, and the marketing of produce. According to his proposals, firstly, the distribution of land should favor all farmers from an economical and social point of view. It would be the best to make grants to all in about the same proportion as the arable land they had presently. If they should become proprietors of an area three times their present amount without any further impost, land tax would be reduced from 2 54% to about 1 % of the taxable value of their property. Secondly, the farmers’ time was hardly fully occupied in the tilling of their land.

Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy


Some local information indicated that the number of working days per annum devoted to agriculture by the members of the household of well-to-do-farmers was about J4 ~ Yi of the total days at the disposal of those people. Of course a lot of time was used in home industries which in the future could not successfully compete with large factories. That there was an excess of agricultural labor in Japan was also seen by emigration to Hawaii, where Japanese laborers on sugar plantations were so pro­ minent. Moreover, it was found that for one cho (about 1 hectare) of paddy field, the average working days were 200, and for upland field about 100. Since the average property of one agricultural house was about % cho of arable land, the necessary number of working days for one family amounted to about 150. A certain part of the work was done by children or female members of the house, which usually included 4~5 persons, but often more than that. Besides all this his plan involved the use of work animals, partly also mechanical devices, for the extension of arable land no doubt referred principally to dry cultivated land. Therefore Eggert assumed that lack of time would be the last objection to his proposals.6 Thirdly, after examining commodity by commodity the consumption of food and the home market of agricultural produce, he concluded that the gradual extension of culti­ vated land would not be hindered by a lack of demand for the increased supply of agricultural products. Subsequently he felt no earnest objection could be raised against his proposal.7 In addition to what has been mentioned, I would like to quote some phrases from Udo Eggert’s perspective on the unavoidable change of the food production structure: “The present staple food of Japanese, rice, will with the changes brought about by the introduction of the western style of living, perhaps be partly supplemented by cereals and other European crops and will leave a considerable balance for exportation. ... White bread is coming more and more into favor with Japanese consumers; a similar change is to be observed in the meat diet. The number of animals slaughtered in Japan is increasing in a striking way. From central locations where the youth are staying for education or in military service, the meat diet is spreading over the country, especially along the railroad. Without an increased consumption of meat, all proposals for an agriculture in the Western style would be hopeless, both going hand in hand. More remarkable seems to be the consumption of milk, at least in Tokyo, where of late years milk-shops and meat-houses appear nearly as frequently as tobacconist shops and restaurants in some European capitals. . . . Western food spreading over the whole country will never replace the wholesome consumption of rice; only its restriction will become the consequence. The opening of areas in order to grow herbage, and the use of animals to assist in cultivation and in manuring will expand crop production both for a rapidly increasing population and for foreign markets. Larger estates, more farm animals, and good private model-farms will contribute to promoting the cultivation of cereals, and the present low average of the harvest will doubtless be raised by better methods of manuring and raising crops.”8 It seems that Eggert’s ideas on the enlargement of small-scale farms, land reclama­ tion and the reduction of land tax upon farmers were excellent, and his perception of


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

the demand and supply of food was extremely foresighted. The influence upon Japan’s agricultural policy, however, is almost unknown. SAKURAI Takeo (1908—) stated in 1975, commenting on Eggert’s Land Reform in Japan-. “ His logic is so clear that he is worthy of the title of economist, not being disturbed by the trifles of specialists and pursuing the direction of economic progress. Japanese agriculture, however, did not develop as well as he had expected. . . . Production of agricultural products which he had in mind, such as cotton and other textile plants, plus sugar cane, declined after his proposals, owing to foreign competition. Unexpectedly, landlordism stood in the way, blocking his proposed land reclamation. He found out that the heavy land tax was the main obstacle to agricultural progress, but failed to notice that the heavy rent in kind was the more serious burden for tenants. Max Fesca, however, noticed it, saying that Japanese tenancy was more harmful than the heavy land tax” .9 During the Meiji era, particularly during the first half of the era, the land tax in cash and the rent in kind were heavy burdens on owner operators and tenants. The deferred reassessing of land value and the rising prices of agricultural products, especially of rice, however, reduced the burden of land tax in cash, but hardly at all reduced the burden of rent in kind. This is one reason why landowners preferred to be noncultiva­ ting land owners rather than owner-farmers. In this sense, the statement of Max Fesca was correct. The concept offered by Udo Eggert, however, should not be totally rejected, because one of the reasons for high rent was indeed probably due to the limited supply of cultivated land. Therefore, the reclamation of vast uncultivated areas, if possible, would have helped to reduce the high rent in kind. At any rate, the proposals of Eggert were not adopted by the Japanese Government. However, the idea of increasing medium-scale farms survived. The first statesman who advocated medium-scale farms, perhaps was ENOMOTO Takeaki (1836-1908). Enomoto studied naval and military affairs, law, chemistry and mechanics in Holland, and became Secretary of the Navy under the Tokugawa Shogunate. After the Meiji Restoration he participated in the development of Hokkaido and became a Vice Admiral, Minister of Agricultural and Commercial Affairs (1888-89, 1894-1897), and then Minister of Foreign Affairs (1891-1894). As Udo Eggert’s book, Land Reform in Japan was published in 1890 and translated into Japanese in the following year, Enomoto as Minister of Agricultural and Commercial Affairs might have read the book either in English or in Japanese. At any rate, since he had studied in Holland and had served in the development of Hokkaido, his idea of the medium-scale farm might have been due to such experiences. According to him, agricultural improvement and the betterment of the living standard of farmers needed the increase of medium-scale farms. The following are excerpts from a speech ad­ dressed by ENOMOTO Takeaki, Minister of Agricultural and Commercial Affairs at a general meeting of the “Dai-Nippon-Nokai” (Great Japan’s Agricultural Soci­ ety) of 1894. Firstly, he mentioned the failure of the hasty industrialization policy in the past years, and noticed the need for local experimental stations and for the emigration of Japanese people. Then he stated: “According to our agricultural statistics, the average area of cultivated land per person of a family farm is


Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy


18 ares and the average area per family farm is 90 ares, supposing that members of a family number 5 persons. Such small-scale arable land can hardly provide the family with a livelihood. I am not a man advocating the large scale farm, but I believe that the peasant could not stand hunger and cold unless the present arable land area would be more than doubled. The influence of the overseas emigration upon domestic agriculture corresponds to this aim. The emigration does not imply a neglect of domestic agriculture, but it would strengthen the national power and result in the increase of agricultural benefit” .10 Besides Enomoto Takeaki, later in 1898, TANI Tateki as mentioned above, insisted on the increase of independent farmers cultivating from one to three hectares. These statements of statesmen, however, did not seem to clarify any measure of agricultural policy except for Enomoto’s insistence on emigration and Tani’s opposition to a land tax increase. The first scholar who presented a specific proposal exclusively concerned with the creation of medium-scale farms was YANAGITA Kunio (1875-1962), who wrote a paper entitled “Chuno Ikusei Saku” (“Measures of Fostering the Medium-Scale Farm”) in 1904.11 It was in fact a real proposal for a better agricultural structure from the standpoint of farming scale. He had already stated the same idea in 1901 in another paper and also in his book, Nosei Gaku which is presumed to have been written in 1903-1904.12 When he wrote his paper “Chuno Yosei Saku” , the discussion on the agricultural protective tariff was proceeding. His opinion was against protectionism and was for agricultural improvement, but he thought that the pace of improvement was slow because the measures concerned were only related to minor factors of the issue and the true basis of the issue was neglected. According to him, a number of peasants having only thirty or forty ares and worrying about rice for home consumption of a half year did not take into account the market and trade. They were mainly concerned that their labor would not provide sufficiently enough income. They had no time to awaken to world trends and to endeavor to improve farming. He noticed that: “In recent years, the local living standard had risen but the area of the paddy field and upland field had not increased while the number of farming households had increased only a little. Big landowners had ceased to farm themselves and had leased out land. Accordingly, tenants had increased; small-scale farms had become smaller, and medium-scale farms had decreased. Although the bad points of small-scale farms are obvious and need not be stated here, ultrasmall-scale farms populate the whole country, which is almost totally lacking medium-scale farms and large-scale farms which could adopt new farming methods with enough capital, promote enthusiastic entrepreneurship as a result of improvement, and be pioneers or models for general farms”.13 This statement, though a bit exaggerated, reflects the establishment of land­ lordism up to around this time. He continued, commenting: “ There would be those who say that even small-scale farms have some merits, but small-scale farms that have some merits are really fairly large, not ultrasmall-scale ones as in Japan, and are inter­ locked with more or less medium-scale and large-scale farms.14


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

That was the analysis of agricultural structure by Yanagita at the beginning of this century, namely before the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). It should be noticed that he distinguished medium-scale farms from small-scale ones and ultrasmall-scale ones, though peasantists sometimes confused the distinction. Based on such a structural analysis, he proposed ideas and measures to rectify the situation, in other words, an agricultural structural policy with the same meaning as the term used in recent years. His proposals on structural improvement centered on the size of farm and were quite radical. He first criticized SAKO Tsuneaki (1861-1909), Director ofthq Agricul­ tural Affairs Bureau, the Ministry of Agricultural and Commercial Affairs, stating as follows: “Doctor of agronomy Sako stated that the system of ultrasmall-scale farms was very unfortunate, but that we could not reform it at once and we had no other choice than to leave it to a natural process for more than one thousand years. It is discouraging to the researcher’s spirit to hear such a decisive opinion from a leading figure whom I respect. However, I cannot help but research whether the fostering of medium-scale farms is hopeless or not” . Then he continued: “ My ideal for future Japan’s agriculture is a little bit audacious. I hope that all farm-households of Japan would have at least more than 2 hectares” .15 According to his consideration, even if the reclamation of land were carried out as much as possible, the cultivated land area would be increased by three or four million hectares at the most. Since cultivated land area at this time is about 5.2 million hectares, the total area in the future would be 8.2 or 9.2 million hectares. If the average area of medium-scale farms is assumed to be three hectares, the total number of farms would be three million; if the average area is assumed to be four hectares, the total number of farms would be two million and two or three hundred thousand.16 Hence, the number of farm households should be decreased. He stated: “The decrease of farm households is not at all sorrowful. In our country where cultivated land area is very limited, the really sorrowful fact is the increase of farm-households” .17 Such a statement as that was very audacious, because “peasantism” did not want to decrease the number of peasants, and even after a little more than a half century from the time of his statement, namely at about the time of enacting the Agricultural Basic Law, the progressive political parties were against the policy of agricultural structure which implied a decrease in the number of farm households. Yanagita continued: “The reason why I expect the decrease of farm households is due to the necessity of enlarging farms enough to be independent and self-reliant. Without such enlargement, we could not develop agricultural improvement and agricultural produce. . . . The exodus of men and women from rural to urban areas in the prime of life is not always due to the urban fever stated by Dr. Yokoi, and it is too unsympathetic to have disdain for them as if the rural exodus were a result of their frivolous behavior and not to search for the real causes” .18 In addition, he criticized the protectionism: “ The authority of the present agri­ cultural policy is much too compromising. They have the courage to insist on the protective tariff in order to lighten the peasant’s distress due to the cheap imported rice. However, they are not confident enough to assure us that competitive power would be


f 111

1—35 The house where Yanagita was born. 1-34 YANAGITA Kunio when he was working in the MACA.

1-36 YANAGITA Kunio in the Spring, 1951.


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

fostered during certain periods of the protective tariff. The agrarian party of Germany calls it a protective measure, but it is self-defeating. People of commerce and manu­ facture are naturally against the protective tariff. Those who dare to insist on it will stimulate a conflict between agricultural partisans and commercial-manufacturing partisans” .19 These lines make clear that the proposals for fostering medium-scale farms come from the necessity of agricultural improvement and competition in international trade. “Peasantism” became inbued with protectionism, therefore Yanagita could not be called a peasantist, but rather an economic rationalist as a scholar of social policy. In order to foster medium-scale farms, YANAGITA Kunio insisted on the non­ cultivating resident landowner’s going back to farming. According to him, “they and their ancestors have been living in the rural community for several hundred years and have had land transferred from ancestors, and have continued to be the backbone of the nation in olden times as well as at present, and will be so in the future. They are land tax payers who store rice paid as rent, care for their wives and children in rural homes, and are busily engaged in national or prefectural affairs, and nevertheless, do not forget for a moment agricultural progress” .20 Since about the end of the nineteenth century, however, many landowners ceased to farm their fields. “This is not only due to political causes but also due to economic causes. The economic changes of the new period also caused local commotion. It should be especially noticed that small farmers were obliged to sell parcels of land and accordingly, tenants have increased. The increased demand of tenancy influenced the level of rent and sustained the level of rent in rice. Even the same amount of rice benefited the lessor. It is because of the rising price of rice. . . . What a pity for Japan such landowners have increased! Moreover, they unmercifully raise rent taking advantage of the opportunity or sell the parcels of land to the capitalist. Therefore, the paternalistic relationship between the landowner and tenant has changed into the legal relationship between the lessor and lessee of the Civil C ode.. . . The process, however, is a temporary process, from the lack of measures for being owner farmers. This is why most landowners have become nonfarming lessors. . . . I hope that most landowners would return to farming.. . . In today’s Japan manufacture has enough capital but lacks labor. Certain flourishing industries complain about rising wages. On the contrary agriculture lacks capital and has plenty of labor. The laborer naturally tends to move towards higher wages and it is high time for governmental intervention to induce a suitable movement” .21 Then, Yanagita enumerated six measures in order to facilitate the establishment of medium-scale farms. The first was the consolidation of cultivated land. The second was the limitation on the free partition of land. He proposed to prohibit the partition of parcels less than ten ares per plot. Proposing also preemption in the case of more than ten ares, he stated: “The landowner who owns land neighboring to the land to be sold should have a preemption right at the same price as the price offered or at a price higher than the selling price” .22 Regarding this point, Yanagita presented the following unique proposal: (1) Village bodies should intermediate in the selling and buying of land, assessment of land price, etc. (2) Or the land consolidation associa­

Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy


tion, which is a temporary organization for land consolidation under the present law, could be transformed into a permanent legal person which would contract with the member landowners an agreement whereby the landowner who does not need a lot of his land within the district of the association should sell the lot to the association. (3) Or, purchasing cooperatives which would provide necessary capital, could buy neighboring land which is going to be sold and sell or lease it out to the member. Through such measures land should be procured by the direct user, namely the cultivator.23Concerning the limitation of free land partition, the primogeniture system of the country at that time was suitable for maintaining the size of farming, therefore, Yanagita proposed a certain limitation on testamentary bequests and of inheritance other than primogeniture.24 After World War II the primogeniture system was abolished and land partition according to the equalized inheritance under the postwar Civil Code became a big problem. The third measure was concerned with the annexation of land. In order to prevent absenteeism or noncultivating landlordism, Yanagita proposed the restoration of the idea by which all land inside the boundary of a hamlet should belong to the members of the hamlet and the hamlet should endeavor to take measures to prevent the transfer ofland existing inside the hamlet to any person outside the hamlet. Another important proposal was the progressive land tax in order to prevent the accumulation of land by capitalists and to facilitate the procurement of land by the cultivator.25 Fourthly, Yanagita insisted on the establishment of model farms. Model farms did not mean experimental stations for production but for economy. The size of model farms was 2.5 hectares in the case of owned land and 5 hectares in the case of tenanted land. The manager of the farm would live off the farm and would be the owner-farmer in the future.26 The fifth measure was the encouragement of local manufacture in order to give employment opportunity to the agricultural workers who would lose their jobs accord­ ing to the increase of medium-scale farms.27 The sixth was the utilization of the cooperative system: “ The present Industrial Cooperative Law does not seem to approve joint farming associations, but it should be amended, if necessary. The joint farming cooperative should be able to buy or lease all fields of the members, consolidate them into large enough plots and decide the job of each member. The wages would be paid proportionately from the income of joint farming”.28 It was 58 years after Yanagita’s proposal when the joint farming coopera­ tive, that is, the legal person association of farming affairs (“noji kumiai hojin” ) was finally legalized. Further he proposed cooperatives of reclamation in areas of uncultivated land.29 Many such cooperatives of reclamation were established soon after World War II. It seems that the ideas and measures proposed by Yanagita were also excellent but none of them were immediately implemented except for land consolidation and local manufacturing establishments. The crucial point of his proposal, as noticed above, was the return of nonfarming landowners to farming. Tn such a case, landowners should take back tenanted land and the tenants would be expelled. What did Yana-

r 60

Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

gita think of those tenants? Would they be absorbed in the local industries? Or would they participate in joint cooperative farming? It is needless to say that the restoration of leased out land to the landowner was easy because the legal, social and economic position of the landowner was stronger than that of the tenant; the restoration of leased out land, however, became a little bit difficult after World War I, because the tenants began to organize themselves in order to confront the landowner. 1-4-2 The Scale of Farms and Agricultural Structure We have encountered the idea of large-scale, medium-scale or small-scale farms and related policy orientation. But the distinction made between sizes has been vague, and the relation between the farm size and agricultural structure is yet to be seen further. As stated above, SATO Shosuke had in mind such a structure having large-scale farms in Hokkaido at the top and medium-and-small-scale farms in Hokkaido on an equal footing with large-and-medium-scale farms in Honshu. TAKAOKA Kumao of the Sapporo Agricultural School expatiated on the idea and did a comparative study of large-scale, medium-scale and small-scale farms in A Treatise on Agriculture in Hokkaido (1897) and the result was published in 1899.30 “According to this result, in the central plain of Hokkaido for grain and pulse growing farms, large-scale ones are more than 50 hectares, medium-scale ones are more than 10 ha and less than 50 ha, small-scale ones are more than 4 ha and less than ten ha, and farms less than 4 ha could be called petty or ultrasmall-scale. The basis of these definitions consisted of the management method and the living standard. The owner of the large-scale farm is engaged exclusively in farm management and does his best for the management. The farmer of a medium-scale farm is engaged in farm management and also engaged in one part of the farming labor necessary for his farm. The small-scale farmer is engaged in farm management and also in the farming labor together with his family members, depending on only a small amount of hired labor, if necessary” .31 He said in conclusion, after considering the merits and demerits of each size, “The evil of smallscale farms is that they tend to be ultrasmall-scale and that of large-scale farms is the inclination of amalgamating land and of becoming ultralarge-scale.. .. On the whole, if the large-scale farm would be dominant in a country, there should arise oligarchy, plutocracy and despotism. If only the small-scale farm were to be influential, com­ munism or nihilism would flourish. When the current of socialism which is now seen in the nonagricultural sector would infiltrate into the agricultural sector, the infiltra­ tion surely would begin from the small-scale farm society.. . . The medium-scale farm would overcome these demerits and take in merits, harmonizing the relation between large-scale farms and small-scale ones, maintaining the security of the society, pro­ moting agricultural development and being the backbone of the State. . . . But since one country’s agriculture could not consist of only medium-scale farms, the coexist­ ence of large, medium and small-scale farms is natural, and it is important to keep the balance of these three strata” .32 This idea of the agricultural structure seems to be similar to that of KAWAKAMI Hajime. He stated in his book entitled Nippon Nosei Gaku (A Study on Japans

CL >
■< M



< t








■ >







i*. m l}

5 &



Jr >



jf r*



k & S



W t



' • : •-

- -



■ B p lf e

1-58 A folk song quoted in Kondo’s N ogyo Keizai Ron (A Treatise on Agricultural Economy).

Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy


Is yet to be boiled hot. Where is the ladle? I cannot find it. While baby is crying, My hip is itching. It is said that a tenurial professor of agricultural economics, SAKAMOTO Kusuhiko (1922-) had been impressed in younger years by the folk song quoted above and was encouraged to earnestly study agricultural economics.33 In fact, it reminds one of the hard labor of farmers’ wives and also of the kitchen scene in family farm homes. It could also arouse among the agriculturalists a certain spirit to be free from poverty. Rondo’s basic thought in recent years is well arranged in his monograph “Five Theses of Agricultural Problems.” 54 The first thesis: “ Rebuilding of the National Economy” is incompatible with the extreme distortion between the production sector of production goods and that of consumption goods. Agriculture would not be the host but the hostess in the high economic growth of Japan. The self-sufficiency of food is the basic condition of Japanese economic growth and also the minimum requirement for nonparticipation in war. The second thesis: “The Doctrine of the International Division of Labor and of Comparative Production Cost,” and the classical liberalistic recognition that foreign agricultural products will overwhelm Japanese agricultural products, is a theory which justifies an intrusive economic policy intending to expand the overseas market at the stage of state monopolistic capitalism at the sacrifice of the peasantry. In order that Japan’s economic policy should be based on peace, the fostering of the domestic consumption market should receive more emphasis. The third thesis: “The Optimal Utilization of Land and Resources” is a matter of economy and also a matter of morals. The cultivated land of Japan, especially the paddy field, is not mere land but also a production facility; it should be utilized. The limited supply of labor means the limited supply of cheap labor for capitalism. The whole labor force of Japan is not assured of employment. Raising the selfsufficiency of food and feed is not only necessary, but also possible. The fourth thesis: “Improvement of the Agricultural Structure” is not possible without a price policy and a marketing policy. By means of bringing down the market price of agricultural products by free competition, sacrificing production goods for farming to the strengthened monopolies and not strengthening agriculture by improvement of the agricultural structure due to unprofitable market prices for farmers, only the exodus of cheap labor results. The aim of agricultural policy is to strengthen the people in charge of production but not to strengthen the auxiliary organ such as the agricultural cooperative. The fifth thesis: “The Rice Price” should be enough to maintain the living of full­ time rice growers. The red figures of the Special Account of Food Control are not


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

the cost of undue financial expenditure for farmers but partial compensation for the laborers’ loss of wages due to inflation, and the public finance is burdened with one part of a wage which employers should pay. These theses were formulated during the high economic growth period of Japan. Certain modifications might now be necessary. The basic thought, however, need not be changed, even today. It seems such a basic thought has had a certain influence upon agricultural professional organizations and others. At least the opinions of national agricultural cooperative organizations and some agriculturally related poli­ ticians seem similar to Kondo’s. The so-called food crisis beginning in 1972 and the oil crisis in 1973 have revived or strengthened, more or less, peasantist thought. It seems to me that each of the five theses of Kondo presupposes its own antithesis. Some of the antitheses go back to the Meiji era and others are after the postwar economic rehabilitation of Japan. More specifically, the confrontation of the first and the second thesis with their antitheses has been going on since the Meiji era, and the confrontation of the third, the fourth and the fifth thesis with their antitheses began in 1955. The confrontations have become particularly serious since the enactment of the Agricultural Basic Law. Kondo’s thesis could be characterized as being against the principles on which the Basic Law has been established. By the way, those theses remind us of “agriculture-is-the-base-ism” or “peasantism” , though Kondo is neither an “agriculture-is-the-base-ist” nor a “peasantist.” It is noteworthy to comment that real agricultural policy has not been based on the antitheses pre­ supposed by Kondo nor, of course, based on Kondo’s theses. Actual policy has been based on the compromise between Kondo’s theses and presupposed antitheses, if not on their syntheses. In order to delve further into this issue, it seems suitable to touch upon the presup­ posed antitheses. As mentioned above, some of the antitheses have dated since the Meiji era, but the advocates of antitheses were mostly those of an outgroup, namely nonagricultural economists or nonagricultural free thinkers. Moreover they did not give much thought to the development of agriculture. Perhaps the first scholar of agricultural economics who has systematized the antitheses of peasantism and who has clarified the development of agriculture is TOBATA Seiichi. After his graduation from Tokyo Imperial University, he studied economics further at Wisconsin State University, in the United States and at the Universitat Bonn, in Germany. He seemed to be particularly influenced by Joseph Alois Schumpeter (1883-1950) at the Uni­ versitat Bonn. He has had a certain influence upon Japanese agricultural policy through his work at Tokyo Imperial University, through his papers and books, and through participation in agricultural policy making. Tobata’s basic thought could be said to be exactly opposite peasantism or agriculture-is-the-base-ism. It could be summarized as follows:55 First of all, the study of agriculture from the standpoint of economics is yet to be formulated as an intellectual unity. Agricultural economics should be sepa-

Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy


rated from legal or social study. The origin of Japanese agricultural economics could be found in the study of agricultural policy. The sphere and methods were not always within economics.56 Though the study of agricultural policy as a study of economic policy began during the Taisho era (1912-1926), it could not be said that the study of agricultural policy as economics was established during that era.57 Secondly, the characteristics of Japanese agriculture should be sought by com­ parison with manufacture, but not with foreign agriculture. Technological kinship does not necessarily mean the kinship of economy. The issue involved in the econo­ mic network should be grasped by the study of economy, regardless of the techno­ logical kinship. Thus agriculture should be considered within the national economy. As the internationalization of the economy proceeds, Japanese agriculture has come to face the need to also be examined from the context of international economy. Thirdly, the measures vis-a-vis rural problems could be divided into political remedies and economic solutions. It should be remembered, however, that the sphere of politics and the field of economy are essentially different from each other. Economic intercouse has its own cosmos which does not always correspond to the sphere limited politically by national boundaries. Agricultural goods are needed by all means for economic life; accordingly, agriculture is inevitable. Economics often demands that agriculture is not limited within national boundaries. The cosmos which the present economy establishes independently by itself is the macrocosmos, namely the whole world. The sphere which politics establishes is nothing but many national boundaries, large or small, which artificially in some cases divide the great cosmos of economy. From this point of view, the inter­ national division of labor is preferred over the closed economy of self-sufficiency. Fourthly, the term of time in politics is different from that in economy. Par­ ticularly, the term of time in political remedies is different from that of economic solutions. For example, in the case of the overproduction of rice, the political remedy often removes the oversupply by means of governmental purchase, but the problem of overproduction cannot always be economically resolved, except in the case of a temporary bumper crop. Oversupply of paddy fields should be tackled through economic solutions. (Statements like these were made by Tobata during the Great Depression. Coincidentally, Japan has been confronting the same problem in recent years). Though land utilization is an important issue, the utiliza­ tion of paddy fields for paddy rice brings about the continuous oversupply of rice. Fifthly, one of the characteristics of political belief seems to be the pursuit of the principle of the status quo or the restoration to the status quo. Today’s difficult problems related to economy are nothing but issues brought about by economic development. Politics might be too often cyclical; economy seems rather develop­ mental. Why should we so tenaciously adopt such a narrow-minded policy relieving and maintaining the peasantry as rural people, for instance? Considering the recent economic development of Japan, the relative importance of Japanese agriculture in the national economy is getting less and less. (Refer to Table 1-1.)


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

However, since political remedies intend as before to restore the status quo, there arise unreasonable situations. Remedies to these are not always economic solu­ tions. There is the economic solution of Japan’s rural problem by a relative de­ crease of those whose livelihood depends on farming. The persistence of the idea that “agriculture-is-the-base-of-the-state” in the minds of statesmen or politicians is the very reason which does not enable agriculture to be economically the base of the state. Sixthly, everyone must, at least in part, act economically; in this sense, everyone is an economic unit; every economic unit must either be an “economic subject” (Wirtschaftssubjekt) or be dependent upon one. In the present economic society, however, we can distinguish some people, whose chief activity is economic conduct or business, from other people, in which the economic aspect of their conduct is over­ shadowed by other aspects. In this case, economic life is represented by a special group of people, although all other members of society must also act economically. The special group of people may be divided into two kinds of “economic subjects.” One is the mere manager, businessman, farmer or worker ( Wirte shlechtweg), and the other is the entrepreneur. The former behaves according to the circular flow of economic life, maintaining the static situation. In other words, the former is the follower in the dynamic process of the economy, while the latter adapts most ingeniously to the change of extraneous postulates and creates endogenous changes in the economy. The latter is the leader in the dynamic processes of the economy. The fact that the peasantry of Japan consists of mere managers is the core of the agricultural problem of Japan. Therefore the agricultural policy should aim to foster the entrepreneur of farming and encourage entrepreneurship.58 As suggested above, the paper from which the above was taken was written in 1934, and the book of TOBATA Seiichi to which the last paragraph is owed was published in 1936. It was the time when the last flicker of agriculture-is-the-base-ism was so brilliant. It was about a quarter of a century after that that the Agricultural Basic Law was enacted. It seems to me, however, that the basic thought of Tobata did not change during that span of time. When the Agricultural, Forestry and Fisheries Basic Problems Research Committee was established in 1959, attached to the Prime Minister’s Office, the members of the Committee elected him as Chairman. Eventually, I myself was appointed de facto director of the secretariat of the Committee, in addi­ tion to my regular post, Director of the Secretariat of the Agricultural Research Council in the MAF, of which the chairman again was Tobata. I learned much through his books. But thereafter, I was able to hear much more from him through his chairmanship of both organs. The report of the Committee of Agricultural Basic Problems presented to the then Prime Minister, KISHINobusuke(1896-)inMay 1960 naturally reflected certain basic thoughts of Tobata. The Agricultural Basic Law was mostly drafted according to the report, referring to the Agricultural Law in 1955 of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Agri­ cultural Orientation Law of France in 1960. Though the essentials of this Law of

Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy


Japan will be stated in chapter 5, one thing which must not be missed here is the Council on Agricultural Policy prescribed by the Law. Tobata was appointed to be one of the Council members and was also selected as the chairman. For my part, I resigned from the MAF after the promulgation of the Agricultural Basic Law almost at the same time as the resignation of SUDO Hideo (1898-) as theMinister of Agriculture and Forestry in the reshuffling of the Cabinet. I was Vice Minister under Sudo. It was three years later after the promulgation of the Law that Kondo publicized the “Five Theses of Agricultural Policy.” At about that time, it seemed that Tobata still believed in the possibility of the entrepreneurial farming structure of Japan but resigned from the committee and also the chairmanship of the Council on Agricultural Policy. I succeeded to the chairmanship. One of several successors of TOBATA Seiichi in the field of agricultural economics, is KAWANO Shigeto (1911-) who is now the Chairman of the Council on Agri­ cultural Policy, while one of the successors of KONDO Yasuo, SAKAMOTO Kusuhiko, is quoted above. As one of the eminent scholars of agricultural economics, OUCHI Tsutomu (1918—) should also be mentioned though he is not their succes­ sor. He wrote various books among which the most recent one is Nippon Nogyo Ron (A Study of Japanese Agriculture)?9 a systematic and comprehensive study of the Japa­ nese agricultural problem which is basically viewed as the fact that it is difficult for agricultural production to be capitalistic. It seems to me that TOBATA Seiichi’s view has presumed a possible economic necessity that farming would be domi­ nated by capitalistic enterprise while Ouchi’s standpoint asserts the difficulty or impossibility which farming must face when it is going to be a capitalistic enterprise as is to be found in manufacture. The issue is concerned with the question of whether the capitalistic enterprise would be dominant in Japanese agricultural production or not. As far as that question is concerned, it seems to me extremely difficult for the large capitalist farming enterprise to be dominant in Japanese agricultural pro­ duction. 1-5-3 The Permeation of Economism The Agricultural Basic Law was adopted by the Diet in spite of the opposition raised by the so-called progressive parties. National organizations of agricultural co­ operatives were not necessarily earnest about executing the Law according to the implied direction. National agricultural organizations were always against the adaptation of economic rationalism in farming by means of public policy, while the Basic Law has been based precisely on the principle of economic rationalism. One of the main objectives of the Law has been to attain an income parity between farming people and the general nonagricultural workers. Though the Law intended to achieve the objective by means of raising agricultural productivity, the agri­ cultural organizations instead have demanded higher agricultural prices, in particular the rice price, as a way toward income parity. The national policy aimed at doubling the national income in ten years which was advocated by Prime Minister IKEDA Hayato (1899-1965) and publicized one year before the enactment of the Basic Law

Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy


spurred the farming organizations on to demand higher agricultural prices. It seemed to me that the economic rationalism implicitly expressed in the idea of the Basic Law tended to be economism. By the way, it was at this time that the Japanese began to think of themselves as economic animals since the then Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (1928-1979), reportedly said that the Japanese were economic animals and this comment spread all over Japan. IKEDA Hayato as Prime Minister stated in September 1960 that the agricultural problem would be solved through the income-doubling program because the farming people would be reduced to one third within ten years, i.e., during the period of the program.60 The prospect of the decreasing farming population caused a furious debate, and OKAWA Kazushi (1908-) projected that “the population engaging in farming would decrease in ten years by between thirty to forty percent and the remaining population in farming would be between sixty and seventy percent of the present.”61 Okawa’s projection turned out to be right. Anyway, the Prime Minister’s statement opened a serious debate on the decrease of the farming population. The opposition parties’ members and others criticized more ardently the Basic Law as a law of firing poor peasants. They insisted on agricultural prices high enough to ensure income parity for the peasantry. The successor to SUDO Hideo, Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, was KONO Ichiro (1898-1965) who did not seem too earnest about executing the Basic Law. The improvement of the agricultural structure, the main pillar of the Basic Law, was re-interpreted and the de facto rural reconstruction program at large was started. Measures for facilitating the giving up of farming and enlarging the size of farming were not emphasized, and the establishment of facilities for common use in farming, cultivated land improvement such as enlarging the area of the plot, and so forth, became cores of the program. KONO Ichiro showed himself to be a political ration­ alist. After Ikeda, Prime Minister SATO Eisaku (1901-1977) seemed rather critical of Ikeda’s so-called economism and changed the economic plan of the nation to the social economic plan. In fact, there was no big change, especially in the field of agriculture. Change was brought about by TANAKA Kakuei (1918— ) who suc­ ceeded SATO Eisaku. During the period of high economic growth Tanaka was a particularly striking Prime Minister when placed side by side with Prime Minister IKEDA Hayato, though their personalities were quite different. Ikeda was born as the son of a sake brewery owner, became a financier through a career in the Minis­ try of Finance, and was an economic rationalist. He was once obliged to resign as Minister of International Trade and Industry, owing to his comment that one or two small-and-medium-scale businessmen would naturally be bankrupted in a recession. On the otner Band, Tanaka was the son of a part-time farmer, became a career businessman in the construction industry, and entered politics in his younger days. He seemed, as a politician, to be a man of economism rather than an economic rationalist. During his premiership, economism prevailed throughout the country. It seems best to comment here on economic rationalism and economism.62 The

Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy


adaptation of economic rationalism is best understood by the above-mentioned TOBATA Seiichi’s basic thought which opposes the idea of agriculture-is-the-baseism or peasantism. In short, according to economic rationalism, the agricultural issues should be examined and solved by the criteria of economic rationality within the scope of the national economy. After the economic rehabilitation of Japan, the development and internationalization of the national economy, and also the development of modern economics, spurred economic rationalism to penetrate into agricultural policies and into practical farming as well. Most leaders of agricultural organizations, however, were against such an ideology. Economic rationalism seemed for them to be the anti-protectionism of agriculture. They thought that economic rationalism should not be carried out in agriculture. Perhaps they con­ sidered that agriculture was more or less different from other industries. It is important, accordingly, to examine whether agriculture is different from other industries or not. It seems adequate in this case to compare agriculture with manu­ facturing in order to clarify the issue, because both industries produce physical goods and therefore more or less resemble each other. Besides, there is a certain interchange of goods between the two sectors, and also some goods previously produced only in agriculture are now produced in manufacture, and some substitutes of agricultural produce have begun to be produced in manufacture. If we can de­ lineate the differences of both industries, differences of agriculture from other in­ dustries will also become clear. It has been considered, of course, by many observers in our society, that there are certain differences, though the differences seem largely neglected in the U.S.S.R. and the differences seem to be in a degree diminishing in developed countries. The differences to be clarified in this context consist firstly in the comparison of family farms and manufacturing enterprises. Families are generally the basic organ­ izational units in farming, while enterprises are generally the basic organizational units in manufacture, both being in capitalistic societies. Families are sometimes entrepreneurial and contrarily manufacturing enterprises are sometimes familial. Such cases should be excluded momentarily in this comparison. The family farm usually combines the home and the farm whereas the manufacturing enterprise usually separates the home and the factory. Therefore the issues related to family farms could not be made very clear in many cases from the viewpoint of their integral role in the economy, whereas the issues related to manufacturing enterprise could be made clear in many cases only from that viewpoint. Such a difference might be largely due to the difference of social systems existing in various countries. But there is a second difference regardless of the difference of social system. Namely, agriculture is concerned with the growth of plants and animals. In other words, agriculture utilizes the growth of plants and animals on the one hand and it is restricted by the growth of plants and animals on the other hand. We can control the organism to some degree but we have yet to gain complete mastery over it.63 Such a technological difference would be important from the viewpoint of delineating, for instance, agricultural economy from general economy, but more


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

important is the following: The growth of plants and animals depends most directly on land. Therefore, the relationship of people and land is very much deeper in agri­ culture than in manufacture. The depth of the relationship is not measured in many cases only from the viewpoint of economy. The farmer is usually attached to his farmland. This attachment is often beyond economic measurement. Agricultural land is the site of living and production and also the facility of production. There­ fore, the idea of agricultural land contains various factors, such as the fertility of soil, vegetation, climate, water, latitude, elevation, area, shape, transportation facilities, price per unit, history of development, memory of ancestors, and so on. One more difference is the historical length of the two industries or the difference of historical influence upon the present situation of the two industries. History has a much stronger influence upon agriculture than upon manufacture. These differences are interdependent. For instance, the longer history of the family farm is one of the causes of the stronger attachment of the farmer to his farmland and also one of the causes of the greater difficulty in transforming the agricultural organization or land tenure. Of course such differences are usually cited in capitalist societies but might not always be universal in the world. In the scope of the economy, the deeper relationship of people and land in agriculture might be eradicated through the nationalization of land. The difference of basic organizational units in agriculture and manufacture might be removed through technological progress. For instance, agriculture in the U.S.S.R seems to be considered almost the same as manufacture, because the land has been nationalized and the state farm or the kolkhoz is extremely larger than the scale of the private farm in capitalist countries. This apparent identification of agriculture with manufacture could be based on orthodox socialism. Many countries which have followed the U.S.S.R., however, have not necessarily followed the farming organization and the land tenure system of the U.S.S.R. The fact that in certain countries socialization or nationalization of agriculture and land has not always been successful could be due to the farmers’ attachment to their land throughout their long history in peace and war as well. Their ideology might be beyond that of socialism or communism. Whether their ideology will be overcome by that of socialism or communism remains to be answered in the future. Apart from the socialist countries, there seems to be a concept of agriculture as being similar to manufacture and vice versa. The former refers to the development of agricultural technology and facilities. The automatic operation of a tractor in the field has been experimented with at a research institute of Japan. On the other hand, even in manu­ facture the amount of production is sometimes measured by the amount or the value of the shipment per hectare of industrial area. This is due to the soaring price of land in Japan. Nevertheless, the differences between the two industries still exist to a large extent. It seems to me that economic rationalism would be valid in the sphere of economy and accordingly if one wants to adopt economic rationalism, one should separate the economic aspect or essence from the cosmos constructed by various aspects

Development of Basic Thoughts on Agricultural Policy


or factors. But too often the economic rationalist dares to apply economic rationalism to the whole cosmos, and his daring does seem rational in this economically oriented society. On the other hand, the organization man of agriculture perhaps better understands the situation as it is, and insists that economic rationalism would be unable to account for all aspects of farming and should not dominate the whole of farming. Of course, economic rationalism in agriculture often means the reform of agriculture and therefore the conservative organization man of agriculture tends to utilize the fact of the cosmos consisting of multifold aspects or factors in order to maintain the status quo. In any case, economic rationalism which should have its own raison d’etre in the wide range of the economy has tended to go beyond its proper scope and to penetrate into all aspects of agriculture in spite of the noneconomic aspect of it. Meanwhile, economism, which means a viewpoint attaching decisive or principal importance to economic goals or interests, became dominant nationwide and seemingly absorbed economic rationalism. At this time, economism has permeated not only business but also politics. This seems to have been promoted by TANAKA Kakuei’s book, Building a New Japan, A Plan for Remodeling the Japanese Archipelago, publish­ ed just before his premiership.64 He stated in For the English Edition: “ I set forth (in this book) my own concrete ideas borne of my twenty-five years of service to de­ veloping our land. This vision, as well as the policy package for realizing it, has today produced a nationwide debate beyond all expectations. Over the long run, I believe such debate constitutes the primary motive force for improving the political and economic structure of our nation. . . . What I have done here is to launch a realistic action program aimed at a sweeping revision of land uses embodying as its main tools nationwide industrial relocation and the formation of national infor­ mation and communications networks, so that we Japanese may solve the immediate difficulties facing us and may be able to create a spiritually affluent life in pleasant surroundings. My book is a blueprint for this grand design.” 65 The idea behind the book stems from his personal experience as a businessman engaged in civil engi­ neering and construction work as well as his career as an influential politician. Before his prime ministership, the income tax on the land transfer was lightened for five years in order to facilitate land transfer. This special measure of the land transfer income tax and the publication of A Plan for Remodeling the Japanese Archi­ pelago during the high economic growth period stimulated the land boom further. Of course, the land boom was not only due to Prime Minister TANAKA Kakuei, but the people believed that speculation in land was encouraged by his premiership. Thus, the last years of high economic growth contributed to the transfer of land owned by family farms or rural communities to others, mostly to speculators, such as real estate agents, trading concerns and others. (Refer to Table 1-7, 1-8 and Table 2-20.) This was in a sense the loss of land owned by farmers and rural com­ munities due to their shortsighted economism, but these conditions have impeded the enlargement of farm size and the development of grassland. It was the last time that Japanese farmers and rural communities were deprived of their land since the


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

Meiji Restoration. We cannot this time, however, blame only the authorities con­ cerned, or the speculators. Journalism criticized the plutocratic character of Tanaka’s premiership after the exposure of the Lockheed payoff scandal. Originally, however, plutocracy had been thought by many to be a characteristic of the Liberal Democratic Party. Mani­ festations of popular unrest were seen over the so-called money politics during the election of the president of the party, and in the leading politicians who closely aligned the plutocracy with the government in the popular mind. Economism was fostered after the war, particularly when the national economy of high growth turned to mammonism. Farming people and farming itself also came under the influence of mammonism. A commentator on the economy said: “The people, especially the farmers, have become realty dealers.” Another said: “The people are divided into those having land and those having no land; the landless people are envious of the farmers’ luck, because most farmers have more or less some land.” In another sense, however, the most victimized industry because of the land boom and mammonism was farming. For instance, look at the decreasing tendency of cultivated land (Table 1-7) and of forest land and grazing land owned by municipal bodies, property holding wards, and family farms (Table 1-8). Historically speaking, mammonism among farmers was not born for the first time at this moment. It was after the Sino-Japanese War and before the RussoJapanese War that YOKOI Tokiyoshi complained of rising mammonism: “A big defect of our nation is money worship. Though someone says that this is due to the propagation of the American spirit, we have the defect which is stimulated by the American spirit. Japanese civilization was far behind Euro-American civilization; therefore Japan had to catch up in a hurry; namely, Japan had to be a moneymaker. . . . Now the whole country is going toward mammonism. The old saying that there is no soul above money is now pervasive. Thus rural exodus is very natural and people’s uneasiness is just as inevitable. . . . Mammonism brings about people’s uneasiness.” 66 Extreme poverty often tends to let the poor people sell their souls. Recently Japanese peasants, even part-timers, are not poor as in Yokoi’s younger days. Mammonism nurtured at the time of poverty seems to be still alive, though latent. It was after the oil crisis in 1973 and the resignation of Tanaka as Prime Minister in 1974, when the nation begun to have doubts about the adequacy of economism or mammonism. Prime Minister MIKI Takeo (1907-), successor to Tanaka, earnestly sought to bring to light the Lockheed payoff scandal and to eliminate the plutocracy of the party, but he was later obliged to resign. A sort of ideological turnabout from economism seems to be happening, but a new ideology is yet to be formulated. In my opinion, we need a renewed orientation of politics by the nation and a new science of public policy in order to establish the basic thought of public policy and related measures at this time of turnabout. The study of agricultural policy is not excepted from this idea. The study should try to turn from an emphasis only on economic aspects to an emphasis on the human and social aspect of farming also.


Chapter 2 From the Revision of the Feudal Land Tax to the Introduction of the Property Tax 2-1

The Revision o f the Feudal Land Tax

2-1-1 The Outlines of the Revision The new Government soon after the Meiji Restoration found it necessary to consolidate its financial foundation. But at the time of the Imperial Restoration, the new government thought it difficult to immediately revise the feudal land tax system, because the system had been customary for a long time and its immediate revision would cause the people much uneasiness. Therefore, the new government adopted the principle of taxation in accordance with the old tax customs of the Tokugawa era for a while. Of course the demerits of the old tax customs were well known as the origin of the old customs predated the Tokugawa era. The tax customs practiced under the direct domain of the Tokugawa Shogunate were different from those in the territories of the overlords, which were also different from each other. In addition the factors for assessment of the feudal land tax were area and fertility which had to be surveyed by officials of the overlord. Accordingly the survey of area (kenchi) and the survey of fertility (kokumori) depended not the least on either the minuteness or roughness of the survey and on either the justice or injustice of the official. Further, though land utilization changed over the years, no revision was made; accordingly there arose inequity of taxation related to the land area and fertility. Moreover, the land tax system utilized the procedure of field inspection (kenmi) which meant the estimation of the crop yield in a certain year by actual observation of the field. Since the result of the field inspection had some influence upon the amount of land tax, the cultivator or the head of the village often solicited the official to reduce the estimate. The land tax payer believed that the field inspection was a measure for imposing a heavier tax. Since land tax on paddy fields and sometimes even for upland fields and forest had to be paid in rice, in principle, the cultivator of the land had to pay tax in rice produced on his limited land and he had to buy food for his home consumption selling the other produce of forest or field. Such people were in such a miserable state that the old custom of land tax could not be continued as it was. The difficulties and demerits of a tax paid in rice also included problems in its transport, storage and marketing, and amid these processes, there were many losses and malpractices. Last but equally important, the estimation of revenue was difficult due to the fluctuation of the rice price and the crop yield. KANDA Takahira, an eminent bureaucrat of the Meiji era, proposed in June 1870 to revise the land tax system, recognizing the demerits or defects of old customs just as above-mentioned.1 His proposals contained the principles adopted later by the Land Tax Revision of the government; but the government did not yet tackle the issue, and






* I

Sj|p %




I •>


*■* if



^ 'I % gk»



f 1



% k



s *


< ■




* •

4* *

* ■ -

« •*" '0 ?;M





i& r

„........... ,

7-7 A letter from Colin Atmore, R. M. D., Otaki, New Zealand.



In Conclusion: Some Proposals on Japanese Agricultural Policy


idea nor administration for rural planning has existed. Rural planning should proceed together with the farming structural reform. In dealing with the objectives of food and agricultural policy in a usual way, the above enumeration would be enough. However, food and agricultural policy natu­ rally has a certain close relation with the farm family, rural community, and also the whole society. In other words, food and agricultural policy should have certain objectives in regard to the farm family, rural community and the whole society, which would be somewhat different from the objectives of food and agricultural policy as part of economic or industrial policy. These could be called the values rather than the objectives of food and agricultural policy. Mere food policy is less reliant on such values. It is the right time that the values necessary for the establishment of a renewed food and agricultural policy should be called for. The values would include humanity, solidarity, social justice, diligence, economy and self-reliance or professional self-confidence. These values might be universal for every public policy. The reason why they are enumerated here is that they are best restored, maintained or fostered in rural society or in farming. Certain readers might be bewildered by some of these values. It is because food and agricultural policy has been considered in recent years only from the standpoint of economics. However, it should include the more humanistic, social and spiritual aspect of farming and rural affairs. Humanity means the essential human quality, that is compassion or consideration for other human beings, which could be appreciated in a real home or in a real community. An affluent society does not always assure humanity among people. Especially, a society permeated by mammonism tends to be like a bleak desert. Therefore, the reconstruction of the home and community is urgently needed. It seems that humaneness could be conserved or recovered in the farming home or in the rural community. And for that purpose, the necessary measures should be taken. Humanity is a major aspect of human morality and also a major factor supporting human interdependencies. Solidarity is naturally solid in a rural hamlet especially among farming people because they live and farm in the same limited area, and because the principle of communal territorial solidarity in a rural hamlet is often the basis of cooperation in farming or in living. This is why we should attach much importance to the hamlet or the rural community and the cooperative group in formulating agricultural policy. Since the early establishment of rural cooperatives, coexistence and co-prosperity used to be the values of the cooperative movement. The office of every cooperative had a tablet of coexistence and co-prosperity in Chinese characters hung on the wall. The old tablet could still be seen today. Solidarity is the basis of coexistence and co-prosperity. There had been a certain strong opinion which advocated totally abolishing all manifestations of communal life. It could have had enough reason in the transi­ tional period from precapitalist society to modern society. But materialism, egoism and urbanism as well have now permeated almost the whole nation in such a way that communities conserving humanity and solidarity should not only be maintained but also expanded as a national ideal.



Not Being Overcome by a Rainy Day M1YAZAWA Kenji

In Conclusion: Some Proposals on Japanese Agricultural Policy

M I TA R A W A Kenji Not being overcome by a rainy day, Not being daunted by a windy day, Not surrendering to the heavy snowfall o f winter, Not succumbing to the heat o f summer, Not being greedy, Never being angry, One always keeps inner calm and peace. Eating every day brown rice, Miso soup and a few vegetables, Looking at and listening to all, Without taking oneself into consideration, One does understand it, And does not forget it. Living in a thatched roof cottage shaded By a forest of pine trees in a field, One goes to attend a sick child In the east, Goes to carry on his back Sheaves o f rice plants for a tired mother In the west, Goes to say “ Don't be anxious” To a dying person In the south, And goes to ask “ Why don't you stop Tour argument and make up?" O f the quarreling persons In the north. One sheds tears over a spell o f dry weather, Walks apprehensively through a cold summer And is called a country bumpkin by dll, Who can be neither praised nor called meddlesome. I would like to be a person such as that one.



Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

The third value mentioned is social justice. One of the objectives of agricultural policy, the securing of equitable income for those engaged in farming, is somewhat related to social justice. The value of social justice is derived from humanity. However, social justice has a characteristic severer than humanity. It is sometimes accompanied by struggles. For example the agricultural policy of Japan had to struggle against commercialism especially against premodern commercialism, the struggle against landlordism, and so on. In my observation the value of social justice is needed especially in dealing with landownership. Those values of humanity, solidarity and social justice are rather social ones. On the contrary, the values of diligence, economy and self-reliance seem to be rather individual ones. Diligence and economy were among the values of agricultural fundamentalism in Japan. Diligence and economy were rather more common as virtues than values. It does not seem these days that diligence and economy should be enumerated as values. This proposal is apparently reactionary. The weakening of diligence in de­ veloped countries should be reconsidered from the viewpoint of the steady and healthy growth of the national society. The lack of diligence means the decline of families, communities, or nations. The word “economy” means naturally thrift or frugality. The word “economy” in Western languages is quite similar to “economy” in Japanese (keizai). The words “economy” in Western language and Japanese both mean management of a house or a nation, on the one hand, and careful management or thrift, on the other hand. In recent times “economy” has come to be forgotten in Japan. The saying “con­ sumption is a virtue” has seemingly pervaded the nation. The saying should be reversed. “ Economy” is a virtue. In addition, “economy” should not be considered only in the monetary sense but also in the material sense or in the sense of energy. Self-reliance or self-confidence has usually been considered as characteristic of the family farmer, especially of the owner-operator in the United States and elsewhere. However, in Japan most farmers had been under paternalism due to landlordism in the prewar period for a long time ever since the feudal age. Self-reliance was not fostered under paternalism. Even today most farming people seem not to be selfreliant enough. In the postwar period after land reform, time has passed so quickly and the high growth of the economy has widened the income gap so much between farming people and urban people that self-reliance has not only failed to have been solidly fostered but also the professional self-confidence of many young farmers has been lost. Without reliance upon one’s own efforts or confidence in oneself, the future of agriculture would not be open. In a new structural policy, measures foster­ ing self-reliance or self-confidence should be taken into consideration. Related to this point, the encouragement of future farmers and the establishment of viable farmers who would be cores of the hamlet or group farming should be important issues of agricultural policy. Certain issues are yet to be discussed here, related to values or objectives. The first one is rural democratization which was a major objective of postwar rural land

fn Conclusion: Some Proposals on Japanese Agricultural Policy


reform and other agricultural reform. From the viewpoint of the present theme, namely structural reform in agriculture, we need democracy at the grass roots, in other words, the self-management of farming organization and land tenure. In this self-management, the progressive farming oriented farmers should be cores. This idea of self-management could be called a criterion rather than a value or an objective of agricultural policy. The second is related to the free market mechanism. In our observation, the free market mechanism is not always adaptable to our agriculture. State intervention in the agricultural market often has been needed. Particularly for the agrarian struc­ ture, the free market mechanism is unsuitable. Besides the framework set by the state, the cooperative and social self-management of land tenure should be sup­ plemented by economic incentives and powerful legal measures. In this context, the free market and free trade should not be an objective of policy in Japanese agricul­ ture. Rather, a mixed economy should be the criterion of our agricultural policy. From this point of view, the necessary program and measures for coordination of the free market and free trade and agricultural policy will be stated later. There remains one more issue, and that is downward transfer. It is in a sense a decentralization of power, but that is not enough to explain it. Downward transfer refers to two matters. One is to let able men go down to the countryside. Another is to transfer power downward to local organizations. In other words, downward transfer intends to strengthen organizations at the local level by means of human resources and power as well. Such downward transfer is very important in structural transformation. Governmental power and personnel, both central and prefectural, should be transferred to the local level including the hamlet and group farming. Downward transfer may not be one of the objectives but may be the proper criterion for a more democratic policy. If these values or criteria are proclaimed and transmuted into action, then agriculture would be a fundamental resource for a renewed national reconstruction. Supposing that a certain agricultural structural policy is necessary, there arises another question as to who will undertake it. The answer to the question depends on the content and character of the policy. Therefore the content and character of the policy should be clarified a little. A great deal of detail shall be stated later, but some comments could be made for reference beforehand. Japan has experienced a comprehensive agricultural structural policy in accordance with the enactment of the Agricultural Basic Law. The agricultural structural policy to be formulated from now on would confront a more difficult situation than that of the structural improvement according to the Basic Law. At the time of the enact­ ment of the Basic Law there were more young farmers who aspired to be viable farm operators and also there were more earnest rural leaders who wanted to de­ velop the rural economy. There is one more point to be considered. The new structural policy to be formu­ lated should be a structural reform rather than structural improvement, because the situation is more urgent now than at the time of the enactment of the Basic


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

Law, with the self-sufficiency of food being very much lower, the land price being much higher, consumers’ demand being stronger for better and cheaper food, and so on. Nevertheless, it seems very difficult to formulate structural reform, much more to carry it out. No political party proclaims the necessity of agricultural reform or a strong structural policy, perhaps because such a reform of policy would not be welcome to most farming people. It should be noted here that farming people have ceased to be the majority of the population engaged in industry since the 1950s. The population enaged in manu­ facture became more numerous than the population engaged in farming in 1965.4 (The other indices of the position of agriculture have been represented in Table 6-3.) Moreover, farming people themselves do not necessarily like structural policy because most of them are more landownership-oriented than farming operationoriented. Thus the social, economic and consequently political position of farming people has become weak from the standpoint of agriculture. Considering these points, it seems very difficult to formulate a solid agricultural policy. It should be noticed, however, that there are certainly farming operation-oriented farmers, even though a minority among the rural people, and a vast number of consumers desire better food at reasonable prices, and the nation itself is beginning to conserve the rural society. Accordingly there is a certain possibility for a movement for agri­ cultural reconstruction, when all concerned could unite for that purpose. 7 -2

M ixed M arket System

7-2-1 Basic Ideas on the Market System and the Price Policy The whole market system related to agriculture has attracted some attention. Neither a systematic market policy has been developed, however, nor has any proposal for such a policy been publicized so far except the reviews of price policy done by the Council on Agricultural policy. Roughly speaking, it could be said that there have been two trends confronting each other on the basic idea related to the market system of agriculture. One prefers governmental control of the market to the free market and free trade and the other prefers the reverse. Even after the rehabilitation of the national economy and after the return to the free market system from the controlled one during the wartime and postwar time, nonconfidence in or distrust of the free market system has been strong among people concerned with agriculture who have been supported by the Socialist Party. Contrarily, most modern economists and financial experts who have been supported by the industrialists have insisted on the free market and free trade system. Real policy has consisted of these two trends. Of course, either trend has been influenced by the economic situation which has often changed. Generally speaking, the trend towards the free market and trade has become stronger. However, there have been circular interdependencies among various ideas, real policy measures, and also economic and political situations. The new direction of the market system related to agriculture should be that of

In Conclusion: Some Proposals on Japanese Agricultural Policy


the mixed economy of both the free market system and a socially controlled one. The reasons are as follows: Firstly, the national market system is a free market and so whatever system is adopted in agriculture, the agricultural market system is obliged to be influenced by the national free market system. Secondly, most agri­ cultural commodities are now more or less under price control or price support by means of various systems. It is unthinkable to remove such controls or supports at once and to recover a completely free market mechanism. The central issue con­ sists in how such a mixed system would be refined and adapted to the anticipated agricultural structure and the necessity of foreign trade. According to classical economics and also to neo-classical economics, the market system of complete competition is seemingly the most desirable. Agricultural com­ modities are likely qualified as most suitable for such a market system.' Roughly speaking, during nearly the former half of the period of a little more than one hundred years from the beginning of the Meiji era until today the free market system of complete competition had prevailed, and the latter half of the period could be charac­ terized as being in a process of transition from the free market to the more or less controlled one. Agricultural products in Japan consist mostly of food. Food production fluctuates naturally according to weather conditions. The supply from outside is not always assured. Though the amount of the daily purchase of consumers is very limited, a higher price always causes the complaints of consumers. Contrarily, a lower price arouses the dissatisfaction of producers. Although the average household’s income goes up according to economic progress, the sensitivity or request of people to prices or for prices becomes apparently stronger. Naturally, the agricultural price policy tends to fluctuate from squeezing to supporting or vice versa according to the situation of supply and demand. Now the present price policy measures should be examined. In terms of period, the examination could be divided into the short term and the long term. The funda­ mental difference between the two is related to the liberalization of trade. Necessary measures for the time being do not include the liberalization of those commodities which still may not be freely imported. This does not mean that the need for free trade is unimpelling but that the necessary measures for the adjustment of the do­ mestic price system and the agricultural structure should require a longer time. Apart from the liberalization of trade for agricultural products, certain necessary improvement measures are needed as follows: Firstly, various methods of official price fixing are seemingly arbitrary differing from one commodity to another and various modifications are made almost annually in formulating official prices, especially of rice. These customs should be abolished in order to unify the methods of formulation of prices. One of the major issues in this case is to establish a balanced price relationship among farming produce. Hither­ to, attention has been directed to the parity of prices between agricultural commodities and nonagricultural commodities, and also to the parity of the estimated wage of unpaid family labor and the employed workers’ wages, but not much attention


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

has been directed to the balance of agricultural price relations among products. In order to establish well balanced price relations, needless to say, the present and future situation of demand and supply should be taken into consideration. It should be noticed that the principle of inertia often functions to keep the price high even in the case of oversupply and so there arises the insistence on the free market by nonagriculturalists. Increased production of rice in recent years was a serious conse­ quence of technological progress, land reform and land consolidation, price policy, and the farmers endeavor, and so forth. The reason why the surplus productive power of rice could not be converted into other agricultural products is partially due to the principle of inertia in agricultural policy. The next important issue is to fix the official prices at the same time in a year. Hitherto, the season for fixing the official price has been quite different from one com­ modity to another. The third important issue is related to the formula for fixing prices. It seems that the Japanese people concerned are much too scrupulous about the formula and the accounting for it. And those dealings don’t seem to be fair. Perhaps Japan has the most numerous examples of price control or support systems and accordingly the most numerous formulas for price fixing in the world. However, it is better to introduce the annual price review system such as the one which has been carried out by Great Britain. A common formula should be that of the parity of prices and wages. The agricul­ tural parity index has been calculated as an aggregate of the input prices for farming and farm households. What percentage of parity should be taken and how the parity with nonfarming wages should be taken into consideration depends on the present and future prospect of supply and demand. In this case international competitive prices and also domestic producers’ prices of importing countries should be con­ sidered. The fourth important but also difficult issue is related to feed. Feed, especially feed grains, have been considered inputs rather than a serious farming product of Japan. Moreover, there have been almost no measures for production. As a consequence, Japan has almost no production of feed grains. Ironically enough, the more animal husbandry has developed, the more the feed grain production has decreased. Such a deformed farming has come to be almost impossible to be rectified. The rectification of this needs the strongest and most consistent policy and measures. The increase of forage crop production, development of grassland, research for the development of single cell protein, improvement of feed grains varieties, and so forth, are among these measures. One more measure is a scheme of feed grains control for stabilization of prices and for stable supply. A double price system would be needed in order to keep the feed price level for animal husbandry at a not very higher level than the import price and to keep the price of domestic products at a level encouraging domestic production. In order to encourage feed grain production instead of rice growing, it should be considered to introduce the deficiency payment for feed grains. The fifth issue is related only to rice control. The present system, namely the so-


In Conclusion: Some Proposals on Japanese Agricultural Policy


called direct control one, means that all marketable rice must be purchased in principle by the government and the purchased rice must be distributed fairly to all consumers. At present the principle has been somewhat changed because of the overproduction of rice. The direct control of all marketable rice by the government would be better transformed to the so-called indirect control system. One of the measures of that system is to fix a maximum price or ceiling price and a minimum price or floor price. The government must sell at the ceiling price and buy at the floor price. This is indirect control. The sixth issue is the machinery of price fixing. In fact, the important prices are determined by consultation between government authorities and the government party. There are several official consultative committees for fixing prices. But they cannot function well. For improvement of this situation, one administrative com­ mittee empowered to recommend official agricultural prices to the government should be established. This committee would not formally determine the prices, but govern­ ment would have to obey the decision of the committee whenever government determines the official price. When government would not like to obey the decision of the committee, then government is enabled to request once only a reconsider­ ation by the committee. In addition the said annual price review stated above should be made by this committee. Considering the agricultural market system and the food price policy in the longer term, the present system should be examined at first. There are several systems. One is the governmental control of the demand and supply and of the price of the commodity. The Japanese traditional system was this kind of governmental interven­ tion in the market as seen in rice control. The second is the restriction on inter­ national trade, especially the limitation imposed on imports. In most cases, the first and the second are concurrently adopted. The third is the imposition of a variable levy on the imported commodities. This one is adopted in order to strengthen the price support, for example in the EEC. Accordingly, this is also often introduced besides the first system for the same goods. The fourth is the deficiency payment for domestic produce. This system is usually compatible with free trade. We have experienced those four kinds of systems for agricultural price policy. The most typical one in Japan, however, has been the first, that is the governmental intervention in the market by buying and selling and import restrictions. In the age of trade liberalism the second system seems to have become unsuitable especially for Japan which now has to play an important role in international trade. The first system is still valid and the commodities concerned are exempted from trade liberalization. (Refer to Table 6-31, note 2.) But the governmental intervention in the market by means of the buying and selling of certain commodities is not always smoothly carried out because of a lack of maneuverability, and it often causes a heavy financial deficit on the government. The third system which is most popular in the EEC price support policy has been introduced in Japan in rather recent years for foreign beef. The fourth system, i.e., the deficiency payment adopted for a long time in Great Britain, can harmonize the necessity of international


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

trade and the need of domestic agriculture to be protected or to be maintained. The first system calls for the sacrifice of the producers, consumers or tax payers according to the governmental operation. The second and the third system always presupposes the sacrifice of consumers and often of foreign exporters. The fourth one usually presupposes the sacrifice of the tax payers. Accordingly, the fourth system is suitable for a highly industrialized country which imports much agricultural produce and whose agricultural share in the national economy is rather small. Japan has now become such a highly industrialized country. The only demerit of Japanese agriculture from the viewpoint of the deficiency payment consists in the small-scale farming and premodern distribution of certain agricultural commodities. In the longer term, we should prepare for the introduction of a deficiency payment and trade liberalization for most of the remaining items under trade restriction. Taking into consideration the current balance in the Japanese international balance of payments and the foreign demand to liberalize or expand agricultural imports into Japan, we must establish a direction for food and agricultural policy which could be harmonized with our international trade policy. Needless to say, harmo­ nization will be achieved through structural reform as well as the deficiency payment. Whether Japanese agriculture can survive or not depends largely on this point. Agricultural trade liberalization without the agrarian reform and deficiency payment would mean the rapid decline of agriculture. We may need a timetable in order to achieve agricultural survival even after liberalization. The progress of structural reform will need more than five years, taking the experiences of the postwar land reform and the abortive agricultural reform into account. But the needed agricultural reform of today should be completed within, for example, ten years. In the meanwhile, the deficiency payment system should be largely introduced instead of the present governmental or semigovernmental control, including the control of rice and “mugi” if necessary. This system could also be adopted for dairy beef. The needed governmental expenditure might be by far much more than the expenditure for the present price policy (refer to Table 6-32), though the amount should be different according to the modality of the system, the price relationship between domestic production and importation and the supplementary measures to be taken. One of the supplementary measures is the bilateral agreement concerning the agricultural trade between Japan and the exporting countries in order to stabilize the amount and the price of imports. Another is the variable levy on the imports. This levy system can function as a control valve for the stabilization of the domestic price and as a financial resource for the deficiency payment. The expenditure for the deficiency payment, however, would gradually decrease due to the agrarian structural reform. Moreover, if the governmental budget would increase by the annual rate of about 11 per cent or so according to the trial calcula­ tion by the Ministry of Finance at the end of January 1979, the relative weight of the deficiency payment expenditure would decrease because the agricultural production share in the GNP would decrease further and the structural reform would contribute to the raising of farming productivity.

In Conclusion: Some Proposals on Japanese Agricultural Policy


Finally, before such a time when the system of deficiency payment would be introduced to rice and “mugi” instead of governmental control, these could be better controlled by the self-management of a nationwide system of agricultural cooperatives and other professional organizations, provided that the government can assist such self-management. At any rate the consumer’s price of rice should be lowered, if the growers would like to maintain the demand of rice. Also, the producer’s price should be relatively lowered as compared with other grains and pulses. If not, the other grains or soybeans, and so on, could not be commercially planted and also rice production would decline. The difference between the producer’s price and the consumer’s price and the relative price adjustment between rice and other crops would be paid by means of the deficiency payment and the production subsidies for other important crops during the number of years necessary for farming improve­ ment and structural reform. 7-2-2 Land Issues Land has three factors. One is land itself as given by nature. It is in a sense an original factor. Secondly is the individual factor, the improvement or development of land by individual human beings who invest capital and/or labor in land. Thirdly is the social factor, which is the result of social investment or social development, but not the result of private investment or individual endeavor. However, it is not easy to separate those three factors in specific terms. Anyway, this is the first characteristic of land which is noteworthy. Land has other characteristics of location, area, limitation, existence and fertility. The location of a piece of land is never movable. Even when a piece of land is con­ sidered as a commodity, its nature of immobility is quite conspicuous. Houses are considered immovable but houses could often be moved out if necessary. Especially, wooden houses in Japan are comparatively easy to move out. “Area” is another characteristic which is shared only by a building. It is going too far to say that the area of land, different from that of a building, could inimitably be divided, because certain kinds of land utilization such as the site of a factory, a road, and so forth, need a certain area which could not be divided further. However, as far as agricultural land utilization is concerned, especially in the developing family farming structure, the area of land seems to be able to be inimitably divided. In some cases, the area was also inexorably divided because of a geographic situation. As examples, we can see terraced paddy field scenery in mountainous areas of Japan, of Luzon Island of the Philippines, and of Java and Bali Island in Indonesia. There is an expression in Japan saying “the moon is mirrored on every paddy field” . It means that we can look down to see many moons mirrored on as many terraced paddy fields filled with water when we walk around. This evokes a somewhat poetic image. But there is another expression in Japanese, a pejorative one, namely, “a piece of land as small as the forehead of a cat” or “a piece of land so small a straw raincoat could cover the whole surface” . Related to the latter expression, there is a story telling about a farmer looking around his paddy plots who



“A Thousand Paddy Plots” (“Senmaida” in Japanese), Wajima area, Ishikawa Prefecture.

In Conclusion: Some Proposals on Japanese Agricultural Policy


missed one plot, but when he picked up his straw raincoat to go back home, he found the missing plot under the straw raincoat. This characteristic has played a very important role in some countries of the structure of developed family farming [1-2] like Japan and the structure of less developed family farming [1-3]. There, even a small piece of arable land could, per area, produce as much as a larger piece of arable land. In addition, fertilizer, either of manure or chemicals, and water, could infinitely be divided into small amounts but a draft animal or a machine could not be divided, though a bit smaller size could be got. In the feudal age and in the early Meiji period of more or less one hundred years ago, Japanese farming had no machines and only a few draft animals and also the Japanese economy was characterized by a supply of surplus labor until the early 1960s. These characteristics of land, paddy farming, fertilizer, water, machines and animals, and labor supply have brought out one major characteristic of Japanese agriculture, namely small-scale farming. Once small-scale farming has been established, serious difficulties arise to change the system into large-scale farming. Besides location and area, land has another important characteristic, namely limitation. Except for the mythological age or the aggrandizements of war, limitation cannot be denied if land is considered from the viewpoint of a country. From the viewpoint of the whole world, limitation may be more clear. Limitation means in other words that human beings can seldom produce original land. Accordingly, it does not deny that improved land could be in a sense produced. Therefore the supply of improved land could be increased, if there is much of an underdeveloped area, and the price of improved land goes up. However, in the present world there should be a narrow limit on the reclamation of land. In many countries, including Japan, the possibility of the development of an arable land area is becoming marginal except, for example, in Brazil, at least at this stage of historical development. There was more or less uncultivated land to be developed in the feudal age of Japan before the Meiji era, and even in the Meiji era there was certain uncultivated land to be reclaimed or upland fields to be converted to paddy fields, and feudal lords, landlords or rich merchants often undertook the reclamation or the con­ version. Nowadays there are some disputes about how many hectares are able to be reclaimed into agricultural land including grassland. However, it seems at present that there is almost no uncultivated land which could be developed easily into paddy fields or upland fields. Even if there is some possibility to convert upland field to paddy field, the productive power of paddy rice farming exceeds the domestic demand of rice and the domestic price of rice is too high to export. The government does not want to give any assistance to such conversion. At present, certain industrialists and economists say that even cultivated land is far inferior to land for manufacturing use in productivity, and the domestic agri­ cultural prices are far higher than those for imported produce and therefore the viability of Japanese agriculture is very dubious. This character of land conditions a country’s agriculture and even deprives it of most of its agriculture. In this sense


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

the limitation of land in Japan may deprive Japan of its agriculture. This statement is greatly exaggerated but it could surely be a warning for the agriculturalists as well as for the nation. Of course, the limitation of land presupposes a certain usefulness of land. Even if land is geographically limited, however, land utilization could be socially expanded. Japan’s land utilization could be developed in the future beyond the present limitation. Therefore, the limitation of land is not dealt with only from the geographical consideration. Another characteristic would be timelessness. Land is deteriorated somewhat by rain, snow, wind and even sunshine, to say nothing of natural calamities such as landslides. Land, however, seems to be easier to keep than other commodities. And land seems to exist eternally. In other words, land seems impossible to disappear except for small pieces at a time of natural disaster. These characteristics, namely limitation, usefulness, and timelessness, make land a preferable object of speculation. These are also related to the market system of land. There is one way of thinking that land is not always adapted to the free market system at least in a country such as Japan where land is overcrowded. Even where there is a possibility of reclamation for grassland, private capital could not be easily invested in it. The needed capital for it should largely be provided by public funds as in Japan. In such a country where land suitable for farming and dwelling is seriously limited, much capital investment could also not be expected for agricultural reclama­ tion except by the government, because capital investment for agricultural land reclamation does not pay in most cases. The development of highways and urbaniza­ tion, and so forth, has caused the rise in the land price. This has made capital invest­ ment in agricultural land all the more difficult. Such a situation of Japan has become more serious than the countries of entrepreneurial farming structure or even severer than most countries of the developed farming structure. There should exist a case for social or public landownership. One more characteristic is the fertility of land. Usually land can be the only source of a site, that is, a combination of location and area. The land site is an inevitable factor of every industry, including agriculture. But agriculture does not utilize land only as a site of production but also as a source of biological production. It means in short that agricultural land has more or less the fertility of soil. Fertility of soil is determined by various factors, both natural and artificial. Artificial factors mean labor and capital investment in order to keep or raise the level of fertility. Turning to credit or capital for the improvement or consolidation of land raises some issues for further discussion. The major one is the profitability of investment as above-mentioned. In Japan, before the Pacific War, especially during the period of developing landlordism, the landowners were able to get credit necessary for land improvement or their private capital had often been invested in land improve­ ment or land reclamation. As a result of capital investment, they could usually get a higher rent because land productivity was increased, they could often expand cultivated land because of the consolidation of small parcels and of small farm roads, they could often get really more cultivated land area confirmed by a new


In Conclusion: Some Proposals on Japanese Agricultural Policy


survey than the area of the cadastre, and thus they could get opportunities to extort more rent from tenants because of the really expanded area, and finally they could usually expect a higher price for the land. However, the situation has changed with the times. The abolishment of landlordism after the Pacific War especially has brought about a big change. Initiative in capital investment by landowners or farmers has rarely been seen. Farmers had difficulty in getting credit from a private bank. The agri­ cultural cooperatives were mostly unable to give long term credit. Therefore, a public finance mechanism was needed and was established. (Refer to Chapter 5-2-5.) Nowadays, the land price is not always the capitalization of rent, and the price of land has come not to have much relationship to new investment. Some part-time farmers do not want to invest more for land improvement. Probably more and more of the percentage of necessary capital should be charged to the public authorities, especially the Central Government, if she wants to increase national food production or to improve the living conditions of farm people. All these issues together with the matters analyzed in Chapter 6-2-2 are related to the land tenure system. The future direction should be to expel some factors of the free market system from land and construct a new land tenure system suitable for agricultural development. However, it seems that there are in Japan no political parties having platforms including the reform of the agricultural land system, much less the nationalization or socialization of it. Protection of the landownership of family farms seems to be a common principle of all political parties of countries of the structure of entrepreneurial farming and the structure of developed family farm­ ing. Nevertheless, a new land tenure is an urgent need for Japan’s agriculture. One who is earnest to enunciate the need of thinking about land problems and to insist on public ownership of land is a famous novelist, SHIBA Ryotaro (1923-). He says in his book, Tochi to Nippon-jin {Land and Japanese), as follows:1 “ What is lacking the most among Japanese is sufficient thinking about land. 1 think that all Japan could be ruined because of a lack of thinking about the land problem. . . . Strange phenomena have arisen causing land to become the object of speculation, even though land is the foundation of production, of the existence of society, and fundamental to human existence. The anxiety about land leads to a basic uncertainty that the human being could not feel secure in the society to which he belongs, and this has ruined an important part of our spirit. My apprehension that I could not live easily trusting in society has led me to examine the problem of land.” A younger novelist, NOSAKA Akiyuki (1930-) stated in the dialogue with SHIBA Ryotaro as follows:2 “Certainly, the land problem is basic in examining the agricultural problem. The people concerned, however, discuss only trifles, either forgetting it or giving it up. Particularly the symptomatic treatment of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is fraught with danger, I suppose.” It seems to me extremely strange that there are almost no politicians, economists or administrators who express the necessity of agricultural reform including the

Can Japanese Agriculture Survive ?


land matter. I can hardly understand their ideas if they could believe the possiblity of agricultural development or the survival of agriculture in Japan without a certain reform of land tenure and of the farm organizations. The literary artists such as SHIBA Ryotaro and NOSAKA Akiyuki would be more earnest and sincere in trying to cure this social virus. My own idea on the land issue will be stated later, but what I would like to comment on here relating to the criticism of those two literary artists is as follows, in short: The land tenure of agricultural land should be cooperative and social. Even if private landownership should be maintained, the utilization should be cooperative and social. In this sense, private and individual ownership should be subjugated to the exigencies of cooperative and social utilization. Rent for tenancy should be controlled so that the actual farmer could pay rent which would be interest on the individually invested capital which has a still discernible effect on farming. In other words, interest on the original land factor, and on the socially added value of land, should not be included in the amount of rent. 7 -3

Policy Directions Related to the Agricultural Organizations

It would be better to transfer as much as possible the agricultural administration downward, from the central government to prefectures, and from prefectures to municipalities. For instance, jobs of an advisory or encouraging character in the municipalities could be transferred to the latter from a higher governmental level. Some jobs of an authoritative character could be transferred to the mayor as far as the jobs are within the area of the municipality. Land consolidation or agricul­ tural insurance and other such jobs have been carried on by the agricultural organ­ izations at the rural level, for example, by land improvement districts and asso­ ciations of agricultural mutual insurance. Recently, however, a certain number of municipalities are undertaking the handling of agricultural mutual insurance and other agriculturally related assignments. The job which is familiar to the market mechanism or the undertaking which needs many economic dealings is better run by agricultural organizations. In recent years, however, municipalities sometimes undertake such jobs. It seems that a certain control of outsiders in marketing vegetables, fruits or animal products is often needed. At present there is no organization suitable for such control of outsiders and it does not seem that there is much demand for such control. Need­ less to say, in the case of land consolidation and agricultural mutual insurance the participation of qualified persons is obligatory under certain conditions. In this part of the chapter, the themes are mainly limited to the general cooperative and the agricultural committee. As far as administration is concerned, besides the reorganization from the viewpoint of downward transfer, the importance of a stable food supply and concerted action in an international context should be noticed. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries should be transformed into the Mini-

In Conclusion: Some Proposals on Japanese Agricultural Policy


stry of Food and Agriculture (including Forestry and Fisheries). It intends to streng­ then food policy in order to cover well food consumption, nutrition and international food policy. The latter should include measures for the importation of foreign foodstuff and feedstuff, the cooperation for development of overseas agriculture and fisheries and for multinational schemes on international food schemes. 7-3-1 Roles of General Cooperatives Agricultural cooperatives, especially general cooperatives, have a dual character. One is of a professional character and the other is of a territorial character. Their purpose of organization in recent years has brought out some contradiction between this dual character. At the time of the enactment of the Agricultural Cooperative Law (1942) the professional and functional character was emphasized. Even at present some people attach much importance to the said character. According to them, it seems to be doubtful whether the present system of general cooperatives could tackle the difficult problems of agriculture. This is because farming itself is usually not so profitable and tackling farming by general cooperatives seems to be unremunerative. Therefore, they consider that general cooperatives, or at least some of them, would not be willing to increase agricultural production or to develop viable farms, and they propose that the present system of general cooperatives should be divided into two systems. One is the system of the territorial general cooperatives, and the other is that of the true agricultural general cooperatives. The former is due to the principle of territory. According to the principle of territory, it would be better to consolidate agricultural general cooperatives, fishing general cooperatives and associations of forestry into one system of territorial general cooperatives. In such a case, present associate members of general cooperatives should be proper members of the new cooperatives. The latter system of true agricultural general cooperatives should be organized exclusively by farmers. The qualification of farmers would be strict so as to exclude small part-time farmers. My proposal is a little bit different from the aforementioned one. It is a necessary social consequence that agricultural general cooperatives have tended to have a stronger territorial character. Therefore, certain measures would be needed to adjust the present legislation to such a tendency. However, it is not suitable to organize separately new agricultural general cooperatives. Of course the need of a new organ­ ization for farming should be recognized. The new organization would not be the general cooperatives but should be the organization of group farming. The activities of group farming are different from the general cooperatives, and the area covered by group farming and the number of itsm embers are far smaller than that of the general cooperative. Of course, the organization of group farming is expected to join the general cooperative and the necessary coordination of the activities is also expected. Group farming will be discussed later in detail. Another problematic matter is related to the activities of the so-called guidance of cooperatives, mostly of farming, in not a few cases of home economics. There is


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

another system of advisory service, the so-called extension service provided by prefectural officials. In addition, other technological officers can be seen in the rural area, for example, officers for plant protection. It should be more efficient and effective to coordinate at least these guidance activ­ ities, or services, at the rural level. The function of coordination should be conferred on the City or the District Chamber of Agriculture, as is stated later, under the direction of the prefectural governor. In addition, the diversification of activities of leaders or workers for guidance or extension should be useful. One such diversifica­ tion is to engage themselves in, for example, group farming due to the principle of “down to the countryside.” Another is to organize services of helpers for both farm­ ing and home economics. The structural problems of agricultural cooperatives are not limited to a rural or local level. This is especially because the three tiered system should be rectified in order to secure democracy at the grass roots level and to carry out business efficiently. Two ways could be considered in the long run to tackle the problem. (Refer to the Chapter 4-1-4.) One is the participation of farmers in national federations and another is the participation of unit cooperatives in the national federations. In the former case the ultimate direction may be the reorganization of the whole system of cooperatives for national unit cooperatives. This direction seems to mean the aboli­ tion of the present prefectural and national federations or the consolidation of them into national unit cooperatives, and this direction seems to presume the entrepre­ neurial or commercial farming structure. Therefore, this way is not adequate for the agricultural structure of the present day or for the near future in Japan. According to the second way, the ultimate posture should consist of the two-tiered system, that is the prefectural or local unit cooperatives and national federations. This posture needs to consolidate or reorganize the present unit cooperatives and prefectural federations. In order to achieve such consolidation or reorganization, further amalgamation of unit cooperatives should be promoted. Comparatively speaking, the latter way is, if anything, a shade more realistic and practical than the former. Anyway, direct participation of farmers in the prefectural federation or direct participation of the present unit cooperatives in the national federation may be an approach to the solution of the structural problems of the agricultural cooperative system. 7-3-2 The Reorganization of Agricultural Committees Certain persons who recollect the agricultural association system which represented agriculture together with the rural cooperative system are thinking about the recon­ struction in varying degrees of certain agricultural organizations similar to the agricultural association system. There are also other persons who are considering a certain need for establishing an organization which could submit the proposal related to agriculture to the government, represent agriculture to the public, safeguard agriculture, and so on. Those two groups might coincide with the idea that the present municipal agricultural committee would be reorganized and could be the base of the

In Conclusion: Some Proposals on Japanese Agricultural Policy


new organization. In my observation, however, the municipal agricultural com­ mittee is not suitable as the base of the new organization, though the reorganization of the committee would be needed. It would be better to transform the character of the agricultural committee from an administrative one to an advisory one attached to the municipality. At the same time, most of the jurisdiction of the committee according to the Agricultural Land Law and others should be transferred to the mayor. The agricultural conference of the prefecture which is now qualified as a legal person, should also be transformed into an advisory committee attached to the prefecture. The committeemen of the advisory committee of the municipality are to be nine and are to be selected by the mayor with the consent of the assembly. Two of them are representatives of the public interest, three are the representatives of full-time farmers, two are the representatives of agricultural landowners or part-time farmers and the remaining two are the representatives of agricultural organizations. The com­ mitteemen of the prefectural committee should be selected in a similar way by the governor. The national chamber of agriculture should be abolished or transformed into a new one as stated below. After the transformation, a new system of the chamber of agriculture should be taken into consideration. The system is organized at three levels, namely at the level of the city or district, at the level of the prefecture and at the level of the nation. The chamber of agriculture of the city or district is organized by farmers and representa­ tives of agricultural organizations, the chamber of agriculture of the prefecture is organized by the chambers of agriculture of cities and districts and prefectural agri­ cultural organizations, and the national chamber of agriculture is organized by prefectural chambers and national agricultural organizations. In addition, each chamber has its own area. For instance, the prefectural chamber’s area is the area of the prefecture concerned. The area of the chamber of the city, is decided by the area of one city, and the area of the district chamber is decided by the area of several towns or villages. The chamber of the city or district could be established by only one in the area concerned, the chamber of the prefecture by only one in the area of the prefecture, and the national chamber by only one in the country. The establishment of the chamber of the city or district should be approved by the governor concerned and the establishment of the chamber of the prefecture, and the national chamber should be approved by the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. The activities of the chamber of the city and district are as follows: (a) Fostering viable core-farmers, (b) Encouragement of the familial agreement and its registration, (c) Encouragement of group farming, (d) Fostering and training of managers of group farming, (e) Co­ ordination of the advisory service for farm management, (f) Supporting work for, or entrusting work related to, the scheme of agricultural and tenure rationalization, (g) Research activities related to the above-mentioned activities. The activities of the chamber of the prefecture are as follows: (a) Supporting works for the chamber of the city and district, (b) Scheme of agricultural land tenure rationalization, (c) Public


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

relations for agriculture at the prefectural level, (d) Research activities related to the farming structure. The chamber of the prefecture should be enabled to succeed to the scheme of agricultural land tenure rationalization, which is stipulated in the Agricultural Land Law as a business entitled as the legal person for the rationalization of agricultural land tenure. Related to the scheme of agricultural land tenure rationalization, the chamber of the prefecture should be enabled to execute the right of preemption of agricultural land, and to expropriate uncultivated land suitable for agricultural development. The activities of the national chamber are as follows: (a) Supporting works for the chamber of the prefecture, (b) Formulating works for proposals on farming policies, (c) Public relations for agriculture at the national level, (d) Consulting works for the regional agricultural structure improvement, (e) Research activities related to agri­ cultural policies. The national chamber is enabled to amalgamate the National Association of Agricultural Land Rationalization, which is in fact the federation of legal persons for the rationalization of agricultural land tenure. The expenditures of these activities of the chambers should be paid mostly by the fees of members and through a subsidy of the prefectural and central governments. Prefectural governors should be enabled to dispatch for a certain period some of their staff to the local chambers in order to assist their activities according to the demand of the said chambers. It would be better to stipulate by law that the chambers should not engage in any political activities such as the support of any particular political party or any partic­ ular candidate for dietman or mayor.

7 -4

Structural P olicy o f Farms

7-4-1 Viable Family Farms and Cooperation in Farming The Agricultural Basic Law enacted in 1961 enumerated both viable family farms and cooperation in farming work as two aims concerning farm organization. The situation of both viable family farms and cooperation in farming or group farming could be seen in Chapter 6-2-2 and 6-2-3. It could be said in short that encouragement of viable farms has not been successful so far and cooperation in farming by various organizations has not always been successful either though a certain amount of development has been recognized. And, moreover, the future prospect is not so promising. The reasons for this should be as in the following. (a)

Viable farmers should earn farming income equal to or more than the nonfarm­ ing workers’ wage income. This condition, however, had clearly become difficult to fulfill because of the annual high increase of wages.1 Now that economic growth has turned to a slower pace than before 1973 that condition has become a little less formidable.

In Conclusion: Some Proposals on Japanese Agricultural Policy


(b) To say nothing of nonviable farms of agriculture depending on open land, even viable farms of this type should mostly enlarge the scale of farming as far as they want to be continuously viable, but the enlargement of land tenure is very difficult because the landowner seldom dares to transfer the land to which the owner has traditionally been attached and the price of which has soared up annually. The landowner who does not want to do farming operations by himself seldom dares to lease cultivated land because he could not easily take the land back when he wants to take it back. (c) The owner-operator who does not want to cultivate his arable land any more and who even does not want to transfer or lease the land could contract with other farmers to cultivate his land. And thus, the said owner-operators could earn enough de facto rent. The Agricultural Basic Law has not considered that the agriculture of Japan could be dominated by only viable family farms. According to the implication of the Law, even if it were hopeful that viable family farms would dominate as a Trager (carrier) of agriculture, cooperation in farming among farms including viable farms should manifestly be necessary. In other words, even viable farms could not be completely independent and so should often depend on cooperation in farming. Viable farms which occupy the position of a nucleus in a farming cooperation group can often be found. It could also be expected that viable farms could improve and expand their operation through the process of farming cooperation. In short the Law has con­ sidered that viable family farms and cooperation in farming could go together side by side. In this case the term “cooperation in farming” includes both cooperation in farming activities and cooperation in farming management. At the time of the enactment of the Basic Law, there was little cooperative farming especially in farming depending on open land. Even in Japan where the number of viable family farms is far less than in West European countries, the position of viable farms is far stronger than cooperative farms. Yet cooperative farms could exist and attract much attention from farmers and nonfarmers. There exist a number of cooperative farms in France where viable family farms are more prevalent than in Japan and also in Spain where large farming estates of landlords are existing. It would be interesting to note that attention was directed to cooperative farms at about the same time in Spain, Japan, and France as well. Of course, the participants in cooperative farms in those countries are mostly medium or small sized farms. Contrary to those countries, cooperative farms are not encouraged in West Germany and Austria in spite of being in the same category of structure, but a kind of farming partnership, namely, machinery rings (Maschinenringe) or producers’ groups (Erzeugerringe) are somewhat encouraged in both countries. Cooperation in farming or group farming except for cooperative farms inclines toward pursuing economy of scale by cooperation, thus escaping difficult land tenure problems. Neither the development of viable farms nor cooperative farms, however,


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

especially for agriculture depending on open land, could escape the land tenure prob­ lem. It might be said that where some cooperative farms are established, many viable farms or even entrepreneurial farms could possibly be established. But, the converse is not true. Where the mobility of landownership is feeble, from the viewpoint of structural policy it is perhaps more difficult to establish viable farms or entrepre­ neurial farms than to establish cooperative farms. Accumulation of land necessary for cooperative farms would be more easily justifiable than for individual viable farms or entrepreneurial farms. Confrontation between viable family farms and cooperative farms has often been accompanied by disputes coming out of ideological differences, or by disputes over visions related to farm organization. The vision of the viable family farms is rather classical in capitalist countries, especially in those of the individualistic agricultural structure of developed countries, whereas, in some countries of socialist agricultural structure or of premodern agricultural structure cooperative farms or state farms are preferred. There is also a way of thinking which prefers cooperative farms to viable or entrepreneurial individual farms, setting cooperation or socialism against individualism which has been transmuted into egoistic materialism. 7-4-2 Fostering of Viable Core-farms Viable farms occupying the position of a core in a farming organization or in a rural community could be called viable core-farms. The position of the core in a farming organization or in a rural community acts as a “Trager” (carrier) for farming cooperation and rural reconstruction. Leaders or managers could be found among viable core-farmers. Viable farms are not always viable core-farms because viable farmers are sometimes egotistic. Public policy, though, need not foster egotistic viable farmers, but rather viable core-family farms which incarnate human­ ity, solidarity, self-reliance and diligence, and enjoy an improved level of living through better farming. Fostering future viable core-farms should be emphasized in structural policy. This must be quite a big job, because there are so many uncertainties and difficulties in the future of farming and of rural life. In recent years only a very few graduates from schools went into farming. It seems that farming was given up by many able rural youth as a result of its uncertainty and difficulties. It’s all the more reason why drastic and radical measures should be taken. Of course, the true cause of troubles lies in farming itself which could not promise a good future for the youth. The answer to this should be made by referring to the whole of this study. Measures for fostering future viable-core farmers should cover three fields, namely education, familial agreement and inheritance.1 (1) Education Recently the importance of manual labor has been neglected. Education for industrial production has been despised also. Education by manual labor and for industrial production, however, is important for all boys and girls, youth and adults.

7-14 The Monument to One Hundred Bales of Rice. The Monument States: KOBAYASHI Torasaburo 1828-1877 He studied under SAKUMA Shozan and became one of the two eminent disciples of Shozan. The other was YOSHIDA Shoin. After the civil war between the pro-emperor clans and the pro-shogun clans, he became the managing official of the Nagaoka clan which was one of the pro-shogun clans whose capital town, Nagaoka, was burnt down due to the lost war. The Mineyama branch clan sent to the Nagaoka clan one hundred bales of rice in order to assist the latter in distress. Kobayashi, however, did not gratuitously distribute the rice among the domain’s families. Instead, he intended to establish the Kokkan School using the fund from the rice, and he succeeded in persuading the samurai. It was truly the basis for the rehabilitation of Nagaoka. The deed was broadly diffused through YAMAMOTO Yuzo’s drama, One H undred Bales o f Rice.

August 24, 1975. The Mayor of Nagaoka City KOBAYASHI Kohei


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

Agricultural education could not be achieved without practice. Such practice is difficult to be carried on in the school. Therefore, there are some countries in which higher agricultural education needs a certain experience in farming as a con­ dition of entrance or graduation. For future viable core-farmers, not only agricultural sciences but also cultural sciences are needed. Especially, the importance of farm management, farming organ­ izations, cooperation in farming or cultural pursuits and the values to be pursued in rural community should be stressed. The establishment of a new system of agricultural colleges should be taken into consideration. This college is in a sense a unification of senior high school (three years education after junior high school) and junior college (two years education). It seems that the yearly new entries into farming after graduation number more or less 10 thousand, and considering the recent situation, most of them are high school graduates.1 Because of the low rate of economic growth in the future the number of entries might increase a little. Anyway, at least one fifth of the new entries in farming life should be graduates from a college or university. In response to one part of such need there should be several agricultural colleges. (2) Familial agreements on farming The term “familial agreement” is often used in recent years among the people concerned with farming structure. It includes contracts between father and son. Even before the War the practices of the U.S.A. were introduced. In recent years, some officials of local autonomous bodies, of pre­ fectures and of the national organization of agriculture, namely the National Chamber of Agriculture, promoted contracts without much success. I myself participated in their study and promotion. There are some reasons for that fruitless result. One old way of thinking considers any contract, between father and son, for ex­ ample, to be contradictory to the familial relationship. In other words, this way of thinking does not like the change “from status to contract” , at least within the family. Another reason consists in legal matters. Some stipulations of the Agricultural Land Law and of the Income Tax Law seemingly are not suitable for a contract between father and son. The amendment of the law concerning the family in the Civil Code soon after the War has abolished the system of the patriarchal family and the system of primo­ geniture as well. Since then the old systems of patriarchal family and of primogeniture continued to exist de facto for a while. But now the old systems are going to fade out. Yet a new custom does not seem to have been formulated. Such a situation is not tolerable for future farmers. There are several types of contracts between father and son, namely contracts of wages (which should be paid to the son by the father), contracts on the division of farming between father and son, joint farming by father and son, entrustment of farming to the son by the father, contract for sharecropping between the father and son, lease of the farm between them, and contract on the donation of the farm. According to the experience in Japan, the duty of supporting the parents is very

617 7-15, 16 With Arthur Pine and His Mother, 1976.


With Arthur Pine and his mother in her garden. Arthur Pine is a part owner and part tenant in Beaman, near Conrad Town, Iowa, U.S.A. The landowner is his mother. She lives in a house next door to Arthur Pine’s across the garden. Her house and garden seemed finer than her son’s.

7-16 The house of Arthur Pine’s mother.

618 7-17, 18 Phillip Mayr’s House, Dirshhofen Kreis, Schroben Hausen, West Germany, 1976.


Phillip Mayr’s house and cattle shed. He is the manager of Schroben Hausen Machinery Ring. He is also a part-time farmer but is hardly engaged in farming labor which was carried out by the helpers under contract through the machinery ring. The building on the right was a cattle shed but he gave up keeping cattle.


The left side of Phillip Mayr’s house, which is used as the office of the machinery ring.

620 7-20-23

Shefawwim Kibbutz, near Tel Aviv, Israel, 1966.


A dairy farm in Shefawwim Kibbutz.


An orange orchard in Shefawwim Kibbutz.


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

important in the contract between the father and son. In the case of a lease, it is possible that the son takes the duty of support instead of paying rent. A similar clause could be inserted in the case of donation. Related to the lease or the donation, it is necessary to refer to the transfer of farm management. According to the Institution of the Farmers’ Annuity established in 1971, there is a system of annuity for the transfer of farm management. The retiring farmer who has participated in the institution can decide on either his child or another farmer to whom he shall transfer the usufruct or the ownership of all his agricultural land. In fact, he will usually choose his heir as the counterpart of the transfer stipulated by the system. In such a case, legislation concerning contract between father and son or familial agreements would be very useful. There are other types of familial agreements. For example, a farming contract between husband and wife, the father and son’s incorporated partnership, etc., can easily be seen in the United States. In Japan the legal persons organized by one family sprouted up one or two decades before. This was mainly due to the lightening of the income tax but it contributed to the modernization of the familial relationship. Contracts between the father and son or familial agreements could encourage fu­ ture farmers, especially future viable core-farmers, because enough independence or some degree of independence is needed even before the succession. Therefore, it is extremely desirable to amend the legal stipulations related to familial agreements in order to enable the smooth conclusion of the contract or the agreement. The administration concerned, if necessary, should be carried out at the rural community or village level according to the principle of downward transfer. (3) Succession to the farm The matter of succession is an uncertainty for a future viable core-farmer. It is an uncertainty for the parent as well. It sometimes causes conflicts between co-successors. The equalized succession according to the new Civil Code is not yet prevalent enough in rural areas, on the one hand, and there is almost no custom of a will, on the other. It does not seem that a new custom of succession to the family farm has been established since the amendment of the Civil Code. Soon after the postwar amendment of the Civil Code, a special bill concerning the succession to farms was twice drafted when I was the chief of the Agricultural Administration Section which took charge of the drafting of special measures related to the succession of assets for farming. The first bill was elaborated with the colla­ boration of WAGATSUMA Sakae (1897-1973) and KATO Ichiro (1922-). The former was then professor and the latter was then assistant professor of the Jurispru­ dence Faculty of Tokyo Imperial University, and Kato was well acquainted with the Land Reform Law. He later became the president of Tokyo University. MURAKAMI Tomoichi (1906-) assisted us well as the then Director of the Civil Affairs Bureau. He later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. After the abortion of the first bill in 1947, the second bill was drafted, weakening the succession right of the suc­ cessor of assets for farming and was presented to the Diet in 1949 but once again, in vain.2 The collaborators for the drafting of the bills as staff members of the

In Conclusion: Some Proposals on Japanese Agricultural Policy


Agricultural Administration Section were TKEDA Toshiya (1910—), NAKANO Kazuhito, OKAWARA Taichiro (1921-) and late NAITO Takashi (1926-1973). Naito was very sharp and able, but passed away in his prime. At any rate, the legisla­ tion concerning the succession of farms was interesting and also controversial from the standpoint of agricultural structure as well as from the legal point of view con­ cerning the Civil Code and the Constitution of Japan. It seems extremely important to consider that farmland including forestry should be assets entrusted by the society and the ancestors to those who have the title of ownership. Most farmers who are worthy to be called farmers must have in mind at least that their farmland is property in trust and they are trustees of the trust from their ancestors. They know that the farmland is full of the sweat and tears, the joys and the sorrows of their ancestors. This should be remembered at the time of discus­ sion on the succession to farms. The landlords who were obliged to sell their land to the government in the postwar land reform should not be forgotten either. It is not reasonable to keep in mind only the articles of the Civil Code or Constitution. Spe­ cifically, in recent times when the price of land has skyrocketed, the principle of equalized succession and the continuation of viable farms is in a dilemma. Naturally, special legal measures are needed to solve this dilemma. The outline of such legal measures should be as follows: (a) The succession to a farm by only one person is in many cases the most desirable because almost all farms are too small to be divided in Japan. When co-successors cooperate to run a joint farm, those persons could succeed to the farm. In the case of a division of the legacy, the assessment should be made on the basis of capitalizing a reasonable rent available from the farm. (b) The successor to the farm should be decided by the will of the predecessor, or in the case of the nonexistence of the will, through consultation with the co­ successors. The successor has the privilege of a special share of the inheritance right. The special share should be half of the value assessed on the farm. (c) When the assessment on the farm exceeds the ordinary share and the special share of the successor to the farm, the said successor should pay the amount in excess by means of yearly installments, or another such way to the co-suc­ cessors. (d) When the successor of the farm gives up farming on the said farm within ten years or so after the succession, he should pay back the value corresponding to the special privileges to the co-successors.

7 -5

Development o f Group Farming

7-5-1 Meaning of Group Farming In order to refer to the contents mentioned about the organization of agricultural production in Chapter 6-2-3, the term of “group farming” (agriculture de groupe) might be better than the term of organization of agricultural production, as stated


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

before. The latter term is misleading in that it might mean either an organization for production on a farm or an organization for production in an area. It does not necessarily imply a group or association. Perhaps, the term “group farming” has its own defect, too. Because, the term could be used to indicate only a voluntary joint venture of farming, thus excluding not only the kolkhozes of the Soviet Union and the like, but also all cooperation in farming work other than the joint management of farming.1 In this study the term “group farming” is used in the broad sense, including working together, the joint use of machines or facilities, agreement on farming work, cooperative farms, and so on. At any rate, it is an organization of solidarity, economy and humanity, aiming at a better level of farming.2 Group farming could be classified into three types from the standpoint of the rela­ tionship between the group and the members, namely partial group farming, inten­ sive group farming and integrated group farming. The first one is formed for the study of farming technology, performing the unification of a variety of crops, standard­ ization of fertilization, adjustment of the time of farming works or the joint use of machines and facilities. The group agreement on rice-paddy farming belongs to this type. Erzeugerringe or Maschinenringe in West Germany also belongs to this type. In the case of intensive group farming, any participating farmer as an inde­ pendent individual farmer ceases to do any major farming work concerned with the group farming of the crop, but he still remains as an individual farmer because he usually does a little of the farming work and carries individually the responsibility of farming management and the farming risk. Integrated group farming assumes the risk of farming by the group itself. The members of the group participate in the management of the group and most or some of them also participate in the farm­ ing work of the group. In group farming as well as in individual farming, four factors are very important, namely land, capital, labor and management. In the case of group farming the factor of management is especially important. From the viewpoint of management, three kinds of group farming could be distinguished. One organization is where manage­ ment has more importance than capital, land or labor. Another one is where land and/ or capital, namely machines or facilities, are the most important. The third one is where land, capital and labor are as important as management. The first could be called a software organization, the second an organization of hardware and the third an organ­ ization of both hardware and software. Organizations for group agreement on rice paddy farming and agricultural study groups in Japan, Maschinenringe (machinery rings) and Erzeugerringe (producers’ groups) in West Germany, Maschinen und Betriebshilferinge (machinery and management-help rings) in Austria belong to the organizations of software. The main functions of these are to accumulate knowledge, to improve technology or to collect information and to make programs. Each member of the group works according to the program. It might be worthwhile to mention that the machinery bank or producers’ group has little machinery or facilities of its own. In addition, the producers’ group is somewhat similar to the organiza­ tion for group agreement on paddy rice farming in Japan.



Group farming in common (G A E C ) of Berthousis near Lapte, Haute Loire, France. Members: 4 persons. Division of farming assets: Dairy farming of 60-80 dairy cows, hog raising of 60-70 sows and heifer raising of 80 heifers.


Group farming in common (G A EC ), Les Mezerais, Cotes-Du-Nord, France. Members: 3 persons. Division of farming: Plant production of wheat (5 ha), oats (1.5 ha), barley (6 ha), potatoes (2.5 ha) and corn and grass (27 ha), and animal production of dairy cows (43 head), sows (50 head), etc.


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

On the contrary, the organization of hardware is such a small group having one or two machines in common. There were many organizations of hardware at the early stage of mechanization in Japan after the War because the Government gave low interest rate credit or subsidies to the group of farmers in order to encourage mechanization. The organization of both hardware and software owns its machines or facilities and sometimes holds a piece of land and carries out activities centered on such machines, facilities or pieces of land. The example of an organization doing activities on a piece of land would be the common raising of rice seedlings or the common utilization of grassland. In Japan the term “cooperation in farming” has been used to mean group farming by hardware. However, before the war, or soon after the war, the term had meant “working together for manual labor” . This latter terminology implies group farming as software. In the traditional case of working together for manual labor, managing or programming had been the part-time job of the elder or notable person in the rural community. In contrast with this, the encouragement of postwar mechanization by the Government of Japan has hitherto been through the establishment of an organ­ ization stressing hardware. The cooperative for utilization of agricultural machines (icooperative de Vutilisation des machines agricoles) in France belongs to this type of organization. Recently, group farming has developed in various fields of farming. This is due to the partial disruption of traditional mutual aid, intra-familial or inter-familial, and at the same time to the overall necessity of the modernization of capital equip­ ment. This situation seems to be common to the countries of the developed family farming structure. In other words, there may not be much group farming in the countries of the entrepreneurial farm structure [I—1]. Instead, familial corporations or contracts between father and son have developed. In countries of the developed family farming structure [1-2], the market mechanism of land does not function as well as in those of the structure [I—1]. Therefore, the structural policy in the coun­ tries of structure [1-2] has proposed to intervene in the market mechanism of land either directly or indirectly in order to establish viable or entrepreneurial farms. This policy, however, has not always been so successful in those countries, and much less so in Japan so far. Perhaps due to this situation, group farming has attracted attention in the field of agricultural policy in Japan for group farming has come to be considered as an important countermeasure to the structural problem. In fact, the cooperation of farming or group farming is expanding by various organizations and in various fields of farming. It could be said that in Japan there should be almost no family farm which does not participate in some group farming. Though most group farming might be partial, intensive ones should not be neglected. If the way from partial group farming to intensive group farming is called the progress of group farming, the way from partial group farming to an integrated one would be called elan vital. If such a development and elan vital would be possible, the agricultural structure could be reformed. However, as stated in Chapter 6-2-3, group farming is not always

In Conclusion: Some Proposals on Japanese Agricultural Policy


successfully developing. There should be some measures in order that group farming may be an important countermeasure for the structural problem of this country. The Asahi Newspaper Co. perceiving this point has undertaken a scheme for award­ ing prizes to eminent organizations of group farming every year since 1963. The prize winners in 1978, for example were as follows: Honno Association of Interior Tree Production (Mobara City, Chiba Prefecture) Partial cooperative production of interior trees. Yokosuga Dairy Association (Osuga Town, Shizuoka Prefecture) Cooperative land utilization for feed crop production and cooperative silage. Waji Association of Horticulture in Facilities (Atsumi Town, Aichi Prefecture) Cooperative and democratic management of common activities in the category of individually owned glass houses. Kanayama Control Center of Tangerine Orchards (Kanayama Town, Mie Pre­ fecture) Cooperative tangerine orchards of the integrated group farming type. Kawaji, the Second Association of Sericulture (Iida City, Nagano Prefecture) Cooperative activities for the farming of mulberry fields and the raising of cocoons. Nyuzen Town Agricultural Cooperative for Dairy Farming (Nyuzen Town, Toyama Prefecture) Cooperative activities of dairy farming and cooperation between the dairy farmers and the rice growers Hanyu Production Association of Layer Farms (Miyama Town, Fukui Prefecture) Intensive group farming for the Layer Farms The Japan Socialist Party has always supported agricultural production coopera­ tives. The recent draft on the Reform Plan of the Japanese Economy (provisory title) of the Party’s Policy Committee states:3 Our proposal does not deny the endeavor to enlarge the scale of individual farms but the short cut for the enlargement of farm size is the joint farming of production cooperatives adapted to the reality of localities such as hamlets, federations of hamlets, previous towns or villages, etc. . . . The state gives preferential credit and reduction or exemption from taxes in order to stabilize the joint farming. The agricultural cooperative should also collaborate with the production cooperative on the improvement works on management, technology, marketing, etc., so that the production cooperative could function well as such. The state and local autonomous entity lease preferentially arable land and grazing land developed by them to the production cooperative, but for the time being the paddy field which is not planted in winter, unplanted arable land, and so on should be used by the production cooperative, the full-time farmer or the farm which wants to cultivate it. In my observation, the measures concerning land tenure for fostering the production cooperative are so weak that the development of joint farming on a cooperative basis


Yokosuga Dairy Association, Osuga Town, Shizuoka Prefecture, Japan, 1978.


Waji Association of Horticulture in Facilities, Atsumi Town, Aichi Prefecture, Japan, 1978.


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

does not seem promising. This is because the proposal does not deal with the reform of the private land proprietorship from the viewpoint of the production cooperative or integrated group farming. There is an opinion according to which group farming is so transitional that the group gradually is dissolved into landed laborers or landless laborers and viable or entrepreneurial farmers. On the contrary there is another opinion which insists that the agriculture of Japan could not continue to exist without group farming, especially an intensive or integrated one. Either opinion is concerned with the perspective in the long term. Apart from whether or not either opinion is correct, the following two issues should be taken into consideration for the moment. One is the price of arable land which went up so highly that farmers can not earn enough income to compensate for the land rent or the interest of capital invested in the land. In other words, the land price has stood much higher than the price of capitalization on farming profit or rent. Since 1974 the land price has become more or less stable for a while, but the present situation of farming profitability is almost the same as before. Moreover, the mobility of land either by transfer or by tenancy has been very weak until now, in spite of the con­ tinuing exodus from farming. The degree of exodus may not be so large, however, as during the high growth of the economy. These two issues should continue to exist and do not at least seem about to dis­ appear in the near future. Due to these two issues, farming people are going to be further divided into many landownership oriented nonfarming people and a few farm­ ing operation oriented people. Some may consider that viable farms or commercial farms necessarily develop in such a situation. Though this perspective has a certain reason, the problem still remains to be solved. The price of land or the land rent may be a heavy burden on the future viable farms or commercial farms. The development of a certain kind of group farming and the establishment of measures for rent control must be a countermeasure for this matter. 7-5-2 Conditions of Group Farming (1) Technology Technology is one of the important limiting factors on the size of farms or the amount of farming work. Hitherto, technology has developed more rapidly in the case of agriculture in facilities such as poultry farming or hog raising than in the case of agriculture depending on open fields, such as paddy farm­ ing, upland farming or horticulture such as in fruit growing. Recently, however, the technology enabling a realization of the merit of size even in the case of paddy farm­ ing, upland farming, grassland farming and fruit growing has developed regarding mechanization, growing, rearing and raising and the consolidation of the agricultural infrastructure. The existing size of farms in Japan could not be adapted to such a technological development. The need for an increase of productivity has promoted group farming in order to introduce measures, machinery and facilities recently developed. The same need has necessitated the consolidation of the farming infra-

In Conclusion: Some Proposals on Japanese Agricultural Policy


structure, especially the enlargement of the size of parcels, the leveling of fields, and the separation of irrigation systems and drainage systems in the paddy fields. Amal­ gamation of parcels should be necessarily done on the basis of the area of group farm­ ing though it is done on the basis of the individual in the case of individual farming. Another factor to be taken into consideration is the combination of field farming and animal husbandry. Before the war and soon after the war, animal husbandry had been combined with crop farming in many ways, for instance, the utilization of residues of farming as feedstuffs, the use of feces and urine as manure, and the cultivation and transportation by draft animals. Modernization or industrialization in a way, however, has brought out a monoculture that is the separation of animal husbandry from upland field farming or paddy rice farming. And as the scale of animal husbandry enlarges, problems and disputes on pollution are arising throughout the country. On the other hand, most soil specialists are pointing out the decrease of soil fertility. Confronting such a situation, a new combination of animal husbandry and field farming should be considered. Such a reconsideration can be individually realized in family farms, for instance, in the U.S.A. In Japan, however, such a com­ bination of feed crop farming, disposition of feces and urine and fertilization of soil could be mostly realized through group farming. Certainly, a lot of capital is necessary to introduce most of the new technology because technology is not only knowledge but is also in material form as chemicals, machinery and facilities. There are now some measures to provide such needed capital by means of credit or subsidy but the central issue lies in the farming organization or the scale of farming rather than in technology or capital. (2) Psychological attitude The social estimation of farming as an occupation seems to be lower in most countries, especially in those of the structure of developed family farming and of the structure of less developed family farming. Before World War II, especially before World War I, there were in Japan large landowners who farmed one part of the land and rented the other to many tenants. They were often called wealthy farmers or gentlemen farmers (“gono” in Japanese) and attracted social esteem. There was a ladder of agriculture, though in limited scope, that allowed a little social vertical movement from tenants to owner-operator, owner-operator to landowner. Now land reform has been carried out so there are neither large landowners nor the former agricultural ladder. For a while soon after World War II, especially during the period of food shortage, owner-operators including a large number of those established by the land reform applauded their prosperity. Then came rehabilitation and the high growth of the economy. They found themselves far behind other workers in terms of farming income, especially compared with off-farm wages. According to the enactment of the Agricultural Basic Law some strata could hope to be viable farmers. The viable farmer could have a reliant pride in being a farmer. The possibility to be a viable farmer, however, has been very limited. But, besides viable farms, a farmer could be confident of his occupation in group farming.


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

In the case of group farming, especially of the intensive kind, a psychological atti­ tude different from individual farming should be needed. That is to say, a mind of cooperation is needed. A mind of cooperation comes from the ties of neighborhood, the ties of blood, or the ties of comradeship. Economic incentives of union are the merits of larger scale production and marketing, benefits of the division of labor, and the diversification of risk. Getting special credit or a subsidy provided by agricultural policies may be another incentive for the union of group farming. This latter kind of union could not always be successful, though. Contrarily, the union of group farming in order to cope with marketing often develops to intensify the cooperation of farm­ ing activities.4 Of course, economic incentives are necessary but these should not deny other social and even human factors. Safeguarding agricultural production by means of group farming in spite of the rural exodus, creating job opportunities in the area of group farming, unifying land and man in group farming and thus maintaining a restoration of humanness in farming, should be incentives of union. There are many cases where the mind of cooperation exists before the formation of group farming, and the activities of group farming are due to the already existing mind of cooperation. There are also other cases where the existence and activities of group farming contribute to strengthening the mind oi cooperation among members. (3) Managers and leaders One important characteristic of group farming is more or less the independence of farming management. In small group farming, management could be achieved by a member of a group as a side job. Even in such a case management should be paid by members. Intellectual or managerial services have not been well enough paid in Japan, especially in rural regions. Hardware is well evaluated but software is not well evaluated. This mental prejudice should be wiped out. In the organization of software, management is so important that the manager is the real core of the organization. In the organization of both software and hard­ ware management is no less important than in the former. It is not easy, however to get an able manager whether he works part-time or full-time. Therefore, there is a great deal of need to foster the manager. The viable core-farmer could be a part-time manager of small group farming. It should be taken into consideration that farm advisers or extension workers of cooperatives or prefectures should be trained as managers of group farming and should be dispatched to organizations of group farming in order to assist them. A so-called Hsia-Fang (in Chinese) or a “down to the countryside” movement is sometimes very important. Although Hsia-Fang has declined since the purge of the Gang of Four, the downward transfer is certainly needed in such a country like Japan where politico-economic power as well as intelligent human resources are highly centralized in spite of the postwar political, economic, and educational democratiza­ tion. Besides managers, leaders are demanded for group farming in order to guide, advise

In Conclusion: Some Proposals on Japanese Agricultural Policy


and encourage them. Group farming should be in a sense a movement which shapes the dynamics of the agricultural structure. This movement also needs leaders. There are two kinds of leaders, namely leaders of the in-group and those of the out-group. Leaders of the in-group are usually members of the group but are able to contribute to the group. Now there seems to be emerging leaders of the in-group but there are new leaders of the out-group. In order to motivate and activate the movement of group farming there should be enough leaders of both the in-group and the out-group. There are four types of in-group leaders. The first type is the man of renown. Before the war there were a certain number of this type, for instance landowners, former teachers of school, and so on. They are not necessarily farmers nor managers of organ­ izations. But they can orient and lead the organization. The second type is a man of business who is acquainted with the practice of business and able to lead the organ­ ization. Most of them have long experience in the organizations concerned. The third type is the local politician who can contribute to the group by his political activities. He often utilizes this position for his political career. The fourth type is the viable core-farmer who can lead group farming and at the same time carry on his farming. Which type of leader is most desirable depends on the stage of development or the scale of organization. In the case of small group farming the fourth type of leader who could also be a manager should be desirable. In the case of large group farming, a first or a second type of leader would be needed, besides a manager.4 (4) Activities The organization of group farming should act according to the ideal of humanity, solidarity, diligence, and economy. Group farming is in short not only to achieve economy or better levels of farming but also to promote partnership or cooperation in the production process of farming. The partnership or the cooper­ ation could be classified into three types according to the scope or degree of partner­ ship or cooperation of farming, as stated above. The first type is cooperation of one part or one phase of the production process, the second is the almost total partner­ ship of the whole or major production process of one crop, and the third is joint farming management constituting one farm of one or more crops. Whatever group farming is, group farming should belong to one of those three types. Next to the partnership or the cooperation of the production process of farming the farming group is enabled to contract farming work or farming management for member farmers. This contracting may be considered as an auxiliary but this is a proper activity of the second or the third type of partnership, that is intensive or integrated farming. The third is related to marketing. Marketing comprises selection, adjustment, processing, storage and packing besides the development of the market. Often group marketing can be seen especially in the fields of horticulture or animal husbandry. As to rice or wheat, marketing is mostly carried on by general agricultural coopera­ tives. That group marketing is not naturally group farming, though it is a very useful activity of farming. Group marketing, however, calls for the unification of crop


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

variety within crops, adjustment of the planting season, control of growing or raising, adjustment of the utilization of land and water, and so on, in order to standardize commodities, improve quality and adjust the marketing date, rn this case group marketing turns into group farming of the first type.5 Related to group farming there may be a need for the group purchasing of inputs. The need, however, is usually satisfied by cooperatives. In Japan the marketing of outputs and the purchasing of inputs are usually carried on by agricultural coopera­ tives. During the period of the high growth economy cooperatives have expanded their marketing activities into horticulture and animal husbandry. Until then, except for special cooperatives, general cooperatives had not done much marketing of products of this kind of farming. General cooperatives’ activities have now expanded from staple food such as rice to other products as well so that the marketing or purchasing by farming groups often causes conflicts with cooperatives. Therefore, in order to avoid such conflicts eventually necessary group marketing and group purchasing is usually linked with the marketing and the purchasing of cooperatives to which members of group farming belong. The fourth activity would be the self-management of arable land and water in the area of the group. This activity could be characterized as self-management of the land by the group. In this activity the establishment of viable core-farms could be in­ cluded. Further explanation of this activity will be made later. Fifthly, the farming group could improve or consolidate the agricultural and rural infrastructure, if necessary. Of course the organization is enabled to carry out activ­ ities or establish facilities necessary to prevent pollution or to alleviate it. These measures would allow the production of unpolluted food. Activities related to the conservation of natural resources and better living condi­ tions and environment in the rural community should be within the scope of group farming. Last but not the least would be such activities which create in the area of group farming new job opportunities compatible with farming. Historically, modernization and specialization have had the consequence of depriving farmers of various auxiliary jobs of farming. Modernization and specialization have now developed so much that reconsideration has become necessary. Restoring lost jobs or creating new jobs is feasible, if technology could be arranged or developed to be adaptable to rural people. Rural people, for their part, should be trained to acquire technology in certain fields according to their capability and hopes. Work for land consolidation, repair of farm homes, and establishment of farming facilities may be within the ability of farmers if they are trained. If some accom­ modations are added, boarding and breakfast service in farmhouses may be parttime jobs for farmers’ wives. If a little necessary technique is acquired, rural old men or women could make certain local handicraft articles. Riding clubs for rural and urban people could be formed by the organization of group farming as a side job. (5) Organization

There is such a variety of legal and social forms for group


In Conclusion: Some Proposals on Japanese Agricultural Policy

farming that each group or organization can choose any form according to its need. Examining the forms in a little detail, however, it seems that the existing forms are not always suitable in view of the promotion of group farming. Firstly, the organization for group farming should be a kind of cooperative. It is desirable, however, to be more flexible, without being too standardized, as present agricultural cooperatives in Japan are. It seems to be convenient, moreover, that three types of group farming, namely partial, intensive, and integrated would be included in one unified law so that the development of group farming could be within one system. Secondly, the system should be such that the three types of group farming could choose any type of organization adapted to their aim and activities. Differences of organizations are related to the aims of the activities, the qualification of members, the responsibility of members, and so forth. Those who are engaged in the activities of either group farming or group manage­ ment and who are contributors of land may be qualified as members. The group could limit the qualification of members. The responsibility system could be classified into three types: limited responsibility, limited responsbility with a certain surety, and unlimited responsibility. There should be one more organization in which members have no responsibility whether limited or unlimited but in which the members would pay a certain annual fee. That last one may be suitable for the organization of software. An organization of unlimited responsibility may fit a small group not having much capital. The area of group farming is mostly the district of the hamlet or the old village. The area of organization of software or of partial cooperation, however, can be wider. The relationship between the area and the members is either the dwelling of members or the location of their land. The number of members may not be limited but in the case of intensive group farm­ ing the need to limit the number of members may arise. All members should be quali­ fied to participate in general meetings. The right to elect or to be selected or to vote is in principle equally open to all members. There may be some discriminative exception according to the participation in farming work or to the contribution of land. At any rate, every member has at least one vote, and the upper limit of the number of votes which one member may have should be determined by the articles of the group. These are rather liberal and democratic principles of cooperation. But there are one or two important issues to be taken into consideration. Activities of the group in general are to promote the interests of its members. Among these activities certain are also related to the public interest. For example, the standardization of commodi­ ties, the betterment of quality or the stabilization of delivery is very important for the interest of consumers or for the public. The recycling of resources, the production of unpolluted food or the conservation of natural resources is another example. Utilization of land and water, the management of land or the improvement of the rural infrastructure, are also not denied a double character. These are the activities

In Conclusion: Some Proposals on Japanese Agricultural Policy


of double character which are the proper jobs of farming groups, and which are in accord with the public interest at the same time and most of which could not be achieved without the cooperation of all the people concerned in an area. There often arises the necessity to require nonmembers to participate in the activities. Suppose, for instance, a certain farming group of which the number of members is more than half of the people qualified or of which the members’ land area is more than half as well. Such a farming group should be enabled to request a certain kind of cooperation of the nonmembers by virtue of the new legislation. And such a farming group of which the members exceed two-thirds of the people qualified in the group or of which the members’ land area exceeds two-thirds of the area of the group should be enabled to impose certain obligations on nonmembers having the qualification of members or to request them to participate in the group. 7-5-3 The Cooperative and Social Land Tenure (1) Some basic ideas and principles The land tenure system of the owneroperator who owns scattered small parcels of land is not adaptable to the cooperative utilization of machinery or to the contracting of mechanized work or to the efficient utilization of land. It is clear that land tenure as such should be transformed in order to promote not only intensive or integrated group farming but also partial group farming. Now we must return to the basics of the postwar land reform. The primary principle of the land reform had been “cultivated land to the tillers who cultivate it” . There has been another principle as a premise of the first principle. This other principle is “cultivated land should be cultivated by the holder of the land” . This second principle has been implicitly or indirectly expressed thereafter in the land reform and Agricultural Land Law. Of course, the postwar agricultural policy including the land reform had not intended to establish only small proprietors on cultivated land but had also been designed to establish viable developing family farms. These aims had been achieved to a large extent. Since then, however, the situation has changed. Especially, a too high economic growth has brought a significant impact upon the agrarian structure. As a consequence, most owner-operators have turned from the operation-oriented type to the ownership-oriented type. This means that the second principle has been forgotten by most owner-operators. One of the essential issues today so far as the agricultural structure is concerned, is the recovery of the second principle, namely, owners of cultivated land have a social responsibility for the socially effective utilization of their land. There is one more issue which should be taken into consideration. Just at the time of the pressing world food crisis and of finding a surprisingly low ratio of grain self-sufficiency in Japan, food production policy has been reconsidered by the Gov­ ernment. As a result, the outlines of food production policy and the targets of the self-sufficiency ratio of food commodities have been formulated in 1974. It is rather strange, however, that one can not find any policy orientation or measures related to land tenure in the outlines of food production policy.6


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

Considering the supply and demand situation of food and the size of the population and land area, the basic matter of the food problem in Japan is related to grains and grass which are foodstuff and feedstuff, though grass could be consumed only by herbivores. Both grains and grass are, of course, products of agriculture depending on an open field. Accordingly, in order to challenge the food problem, it is essential to deal with the land tenure system in which the private ownership of land does not necessarily secure efficient utilization and the interest on the land price suffocates farming. Even under the national economy which is expected to grow at a stable but lower rate than before 1973, the burden of the land price on farming will become more and more heavy. Even if farmers or landowners want to pass the burden onto the price of products or prevail upon the government budget, consumers or tax payers could not bear the heavy load. , In conformity with such a basic idea, the leading principles of the land tenure system as they should be are as follows: Firstly, it should be remembered that land has been entrusted from society and ancestors to those who have the title of ownership. Therefore land is not as such a matter which the holder of a title deed could manage at his will. Certain social obligations are implicit in the concept of trust from society and ancestors. Such social obligations should be clarified in a positive law. Realization of this idea would be to socialize landownership but not to expropriate the present landowners. Their title deed should be respected. Socialization of landownership means the realization of the principle that landownership accompanies social obligation and should be controlled by the society. In this context, the society is mainly the rural community, that is the hamlet or certain kinds of group farming in the framework set by the nation. Secondly, the unification of ownership and operation has been desirable as the land reform has realized, but the separation of ownership and operation now seems to be necessary in order to utilize land efficiently and to promote group farming. It should be remembered that the operation and management of farming is more important than ownership. The ownership of land should be subjugated to the farming operation. In other words, rent should be squeezed as much as possible. It might be the one way remaining for us to help Japanese agriculture survive. Rent is divided into three parts, first for the original land, second for the improvement of original land by the owner or the user, and third for the added value by social development. Rent for original land and for added value by social development of the environment should be mostly eliminated. In the postwar land reform, the rent to be paid for the tenant­ ed land was considered as a residue of gross farming income minus various costs and profit other than rent; the idea of the land reform should be restored in one sense or another. One part of rent should be returned back to the people. Of course, the fact that public funds also have been invested for land development or improvement should be taken into consideration. Related to this issue, the transfer of the tenancy right for counter value should be prohibited. The claim of the tenant for compensation for his return of the tenanted

In Conclusion: Some Proposals on Japanese Agricultural Policy


land to its landowner should also be prohibited. Instead, the tenant should be able to claim the compensation of beneficial expenses invested by him in the field.7 Thirdly, the price of agricultural land should be stabilized at the level of capitaliza­ tion of the farming rent squeezed out as above-mentioned. Now the level of the land price is so high that nobody could earn enough interest on the value of the land by means of farming. Speculative capital gain in land should be eliminated by socializa­ tion of land or income taxation. Fourthly, the measures necessary for implementing the before mentioned principles or ideas involve much regulation besides that of the present Agricultural Land Law. The necessary regulation, however, should not be centralized by bureaucracy but it should be decentralized and self-managed as much as possible by the group farming organization or the hamlet. For instance, the jurisdiction over the permission of transfer of ownership for farming purposes and over the creation of tenancy should be transferred to the group farming organization or the hamlet. Fifthly, though the present Agricultural Land Law mainly deals with cultivated land, the new land tenure legislation should cover not only cultivated land but also forest land and grazing land which extend near the hamlet and are to be utilized or owned by the people of the hamlet. In the mountainous areas, forest or grassland is necessary for farming and living. In this respect, the principle of agricultural land tenure legislation should be applied correspondingly to the before mentioned forest land and grazing land. In accordance with such ideas and principles, the framework of the new land tenure system should be considered. This new land tenure system would be called a cooperative and social land tenure system which ensures the cooperation of the landowner and the land operator, in other words an adjustment of ownership and the operation of land, to facilitate group farming and finally to enable the survival or reconstruction of agriculture in Japan. (2) Certain points on the specific terms Whether such a new land tenure would need a kind of land reform, for example, a land reform of the third stage, seems to be a problem. To tell the truth, a certain reform of farm organization and land tenure is urgently needed as far as future agricultural development and domestic food supply are concerned. “ Rural people of the depopulated villages in the mountainous areas of the Chugoku and Shikoku regions came to nearby Osaka as casual laborers; they didn’t transfer their arable land even though the land is covered by wild grasses. . . . If land could be owned by the public, the rural community could organize certain agricultural establishments and they could trust the land to those who would like to live in the rural community and to engage themselves in farming.” 8 This is the cause of Shiba Ryotaro’s opinion on public landownership. Though his opinion on public landownership is too imaginative to be fully represented here, just as was the socialization of cultivated land proclaimed by the Japan Peasants’ Union in the Taisho era, his idea of public landownership could be in one way presented in specific but moderate terms on certain points as follows:


7-31 DANNO Nobuo, a veteran agricultural journalist, an ex-editori' alist of the Asahi, and an earnest advocate of group farming.

7-32 SHIBA Ryotaro, born FUKUDA Teiichi, a famous historical novelist who has insisted on the public ownership of land.

In Conclusion: Some Proposals on Japanese Agricultural Policy


The group farming organization or the hamlet should be enabled to preempt ownership or the usufruct of agricultural land (including uncultivated land) in the hamlet or should be entrusted with the trusteeship of the said land. Members of the integrated group farming organization should contribute either the ownership or usufruct of agricultural land owned or occupied by members accord­ ing to the articles of the organization. The qualified group farming organizations should be enabled to request or to impose a contribution of the usufruct of agricul­ tural land where it is necessary to consolidate the piece of land or to carry out effective farming. Joint farming work but not joint farming management also often requires such consolidation. In this case, a group farming organization can reallo­ cate the land of which the usufruct is contributed for group farming, to members who would like to manage the farms with the cooperation of the farming work of the group. The land which the contributor does not like to farm by himself would be added to the reallocation. From the standpoint of the organization of group farming, ownership is most preferable because of the stability of farming based on ownership but the acquisition of ownership may become a heavy financial burden. A compromising device could be taken as follows: the organization acquires stable usufruct of the land by the joint contribution of landowners. According to this method, landowners are able to reserve ownership of the land for themselves and to become members of the organ­ ization at their will. One more important task of the farming group should be the stabilization of the land price, although this task is so big and difficult that even the nation could not manage it well. If policy orientation is made with a firm resolution, however, the group farming organization would be able to manage some parts of the measures for land price stabilization. At first, the diversion of agricultural land should be more strictly limited. Loose management of the law as to diversion has definitely caused the high price of agri­ cultural land having almost no prospect for diversion. It has also caused unfair redistribution of the national income. Therefore even when diversion is inevitable, the price of diverted land should not influence the price of other land. For the sake of this, the group farming organization or the hamlet should be enabled to evaluate the difference between the real price of diverted land and the price of the capitalization of farming rent of the said land and to collect the amount of the difference. The amount should be reserved as a land fund which would be managed for land improve­ ment or structural improvement. The above-mentioned points are lukewarm from the standpoint of the needed struc­ tural change in agriculture and are still not always easy to carry out. In order to carry out a thoroughgoing structural reform in accordance with the ideas and principles already developed, a further strong institutional framework is needed for implementing the cooperative and social land tenure system. The framework would consist of the following several terms: Firstly, the transfer of agricultural land usu­ fruct to the hamlet or to the group farming organization should be encouraged and


Can Japanese Agriculture Survive?

facilitated by the authorities concerned. The transfer should be voluntary in general but compulsory in certain cases; even in those cases the hamlet or the group farming organization should respect the landownership title deed of the transfer. Secondly, the management of land tenure of the hamlet should be self-managed by the hamlet or the group farming organization; bureaucratic control such as the Agricultural Land Law should be eliminated. The transferor of usufruct is enabled to participate in the management of land tenure by the hamlet or the group farming organization, even if he does not participate in farming. Thirdly, if the majority of farmers mainly engaged in farming in the hamlet would agree to the cooperative and social land tenure, the owner or usufructuary in the hamlet is obliged to transfer the usufruct to the hamlet or to the group farming organization. When the intensive or integrated group farming organization asks the transfer of usufruct to the farmer mainly engaged in nonfarming jobs and the proposal is reasonable, the hamlet is authorized to sanction the transfer. Fourthly, the transferor is enabled to participate in group farming or to share the benefit of farming or to receive rent according to the regulation and the agreement between the transferor and the hamlet or the farming groups. The establishment of such a framework might be a real reform of agricultural land tenure and the scale of farming. If so, it would not be realized separately from other necessary reforms such as urban land reform, and so on.9 Though it is not within the scope of this book to study the other reforms, certain necessary reforms were sug­ gested in the earlier chapters as far as some focal points of agricultural policy are con­ cerned. (3) A final remark Lastly, there is the problem of whether the question in the book’s title can be answered in a nutshell. What this book has attempted to do is to provide the reader with enough information to judge for himself the prospects of Japanese agriculture’s survival. Surely, it is clear by now that the author feels agri­ culture is essential to the nation, even though the topic of its essentiality was not the subject of the book. With this book, however, the reader can have a basis for his own judgment on how well Japanese agriculture can survive. The author dares to say, for his part, that Japanese agriculture will survive, but only with great difficulty. This book has suggested certain policies concerned with agricultural product prices, agrarian organization and structure, and particularly the development of group farming and the establishment of cooperative and social land tenure. But in the final analysis, the whole issue of whether Japanese agriculture can survive depends upon the will of the nation.



NOTES Chapter 1-1 • 1 See R. P. Dore, L a n d R eform in Japan, p. 56, Oxford University Press, London, New York and Toront, 1959. 2 The “origin” as the meaning of “hon” reminded me of Thomas C. Smith, The Agrarian Origin o f M odern Japan, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, 1959. Perhaps in the future “Nohon-shugi” or agriculture-is-the-base-ism could be used as the term designating such a doctrine as developed in Smith’s book. In Japanese the book is entitled Kindai Nihon no Noson teki Kigen (The R ural Origin o f M odern Japan), translated under the supervision of OTSUKA Hisao, Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo, 1970. The word “kigen” in the title means “origin”. “Kigen” is one of the meanings of “hon”. For reference, please see Johnson D. Hill and Walter E. Stuermann, R oots in the S oil —A n Introduc­ tion to the Philosophy o f Agriculture, Philosophical Library, New York, 1964. The first part of the title Roots in the Soil signifies the idea of a complex superstructure of a sophisticated, technological civilization, which rests upon workers who handle the soil which contains nature’s resources and who are, therefore, an indispensable link between the higher level of industrialized, urban civilization and the resources of nature from which human culture springs (op. eit., p. xi). This book tries to establish a philosophy of agriculture from both the historical viewpoint and according to a human program for agriculture. Although the Japanese translation of this book is entitled N ogyo no Tetsugaku teki H aikei (The Philosophical B ackground o f A griculture), the title would have been better if it had employed “An Introduction to Agriculture-is-the-base-ism—Nohon-shugi”.) 3 See Lauren Soth, Farm Trouble, p. 39, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1957, and Theo­ dore Schultz, Transforming Traditional Agriculture, pp. 112-3, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1964. 4 Refer to NAKAMURA Kichiji, Nippon K eizai Shi Gaisetsu ( General H istory o f Japan’s Eco­ nomy), p. 405, Nihon Hyoron Sha, Tokyo, 1941. 5 Op. cit. p. 400. 6 SAKURAI Takeo, Nippon N ohon-shugi (Japan's Agriculture-is-the-base-ism ) , p. 74, Hakuyo Sha, Tokyo, 1935. 7 MIYAZAKI Yasusada, N ogyo Zen-sho ( A Comprehensive B ook on A griculture), p. 21, Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo, 1977. 8 Op. cit., p. 29. 9 Op. cit., p. 346. 10 MONO Shigekuni (OGYO Sorai), Sei-dan (T a lks on Politics) carried in Nippon Keizai Sosho (Series o f Japanese E conom y) Vol. 3, pp. 345, 360 and 427, Nippon Keizai Sosho Kanko Kai, Tokyo, 1924. The Sei-dan seems to have been written during the Kyoho era (1716-1736). 11 NAKATA Kiminao, S A T O Nobuhiro no N osei Gakusetsu (T he Doctrine o f S A T O Nobuhiro's Agricultural P olicy), p. 151, Yuhikaku Shobo, Tokyo 1915. 12 Op. cit., p. 152. 13 YAMAGATA Banto, Yume no Shiro ( A Substitute fo r A N a p ), 1820, carried in Nippon Keizai Sosho, Vol. 25, p. 301, Nippon Keizai Sosho Kanko Kai, Tokyo, 1916. 14 “The might of the feudal lord, like that of the sovereign, depended not on the length of his rent roll, but on the number of his subjects, and the latter depended on the number of peasant proprietors” —Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, The Process o f Capitalist Production, translated from the third German edition, by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling, p. 789, Charles H. Kerr & Company, Chicago, 1919. In addition refer to TAKAHASHI Kohachiro, Kindai Shakai Seiritsu Sh i Ron (A Treatise on the H istory o f the Formation o f M odern S o ciety), p. 49, Nihon Hyoron Sha, Tokyo, 1947. 15 FUKUZUMI Masae, Ninom iya O Yawa ( Sage N inom iya'sEvening T a lks), pp. 167-9, published by NAKAGAMI Kisaburo, Shizuoka City, 1905; it was originally published in five volumes in 1884-1887. FUKUZUMI Masae was a disciple of NINOMIYA Sontoku. 16 Louis Bromfield, O ut o f E arth, p. iix, Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York, 1950. L. Bromfield is in a sense an agricultural fundamentalist. He notes in another book: “The book is a personal testament written out of a lifetime by a man who believes that agriculture is the keystone of our economic structure and that the wealth, welfare, prosperity and even the future of this nation


Chapter 1-1

are based upon the soil”—Louis Bromfield, Pleasant Valley, p. vii, Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York and London, 1943. The statement of Marquis de Mirabeau, quoted by L. Bromfield is also found in French on the back page of Arthur Young, Travels in France, During the Years 1787, 1788 105 SSR> 95 SSR>85 andcllO and 67,500=> 0.48 India 598,309 165,070=) 0.28 13,000=) Japan 109,670 5,615 0.05 242 Korea, Republic of 33,977 2,421 0.07 18d> Australia 13,340 3.37 44,980=.=> 454,000b> Note: a) Reindeer grassland is excluded. b) Unofficial figure. c) FAO estimate. d) Refer to agricultural holdings only. e) Out of this acreage, 27,087,000 ha is cultivated grassland. Source: FAO, Production Yearbook, 1975, pp. 3-22, 29-31.

Per capita acreage (ha) 0.78 0.26 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.20 1.49 1.11 1.04 1.18 0.02 0.00 0.00 34.03

718 Table 3-37.

Demand and Production of Agricultural Foods other than Grains and Pulses 1985

1972 Domestic SSR Domestic consumption production (%) (1,000 tons) (1,000 tons) 104 95 91 Tea 15,837 99 Vegetables 16,041 6,420 81 7,894 Fruits 20 3,052 621 Sugar 352 23 1,533 Oil and fat Milk and dairy products 5,719 4,944 86 2,147 1,730 81 Meat 367 290 79 Beef 793 90 Pork 883 640 96 668 Chicken 7 3 Others 229 98 1,848 1,811 Eggs Note: See Table 3- 30 for grain and pulses. Source: C hoki M itdshi.

Table 3-38.

Domestic Domestic consumption production (1,000 tons) (1,000 tons) 129 125 20,136 20,136 10,416 8,789 3,821 1,064 2,240 370 8,142 7,680 3,193 2,747 625 508 1,335 1,325 915 914 318 2,206 2,205

SSR (%) 97 100 84 28 17 94 86 81 99 100 100

SSRs of Feed

Supply rate of roughage roughage supply \ , total feed supply )


SSR of feed concentrates Produced by imported materials considered domestically produced

Produced by imported materials not considered as domestically produced

Out of which SSR of grains

Feed SSR*

Feed SSRt

13.7 20.3 51.2 39.0 36.3 (3.0) (45.9) (37.2) (29.7) (13.8) 3.8 50.6 39.4 12.2 1985 31.0 28.3 Note: Figures in parentheses represent the case where surplus rice is excluded from calculation. * Produced by imported materials considered as domestically produced, t Produced by imported materials not considered as domestically produced. Source: C hoki M ildshi Kanren Shiryd. 1972


71 9

Table 3-39.

Feed Demand and Supply Balance (on TDN base)

Unit: 1,000 tons

Supply Feed demand

Roughage Total

1972 20,253 1985 29,878 1985/ 147.5 1972(%) Sources: C hoki

Table 3-40.

Good Poor quality quality

4,737 9,269 195.7

2,907 7,648 263.1

1,830 1,621 88.5


15,516 20,609 132.8

With materials ■ domesti­ Total cally produced 3,153 2,511 79.6

Materials imported Imports

12,363 18,098 146.4

2,475 3,326 134.4

9,888 14,772 149.4

Marine Product SSRs 1972


(1,000 tons) 11,252

(1,000 tons)

1985/ 1972 (%) 131.1


2,429 10,376 101% 35.7 kg

4,001 11,953 95% 42.4 kg SSRs are given on aggregate basis in price terms.

Table 3-41.


M itoshi Kanren Shiryd.

Demand Portion of demand intended for feed and fertilizer Production SSR Per capita net food per year Note: Source:

Feed concentrates

Annual fluctuation (%) 2.1

164.7 115.2

(3.9) 1.1



C hoki M itoshi.

Japan’s Shares in World Trade of Major Grains Unit: 1,000 tons, million $ I960 Volume 67,273 4,362 6.5 31,634 2,678 8.5




Volume Value Volume 4,750 102,390 7,654 112,102 287 10,262 761 15,578 6.0 10.0 9.9 13.9 a 2,225 55,554 3,970 54,943 b 177 3,652 251 4,685 8.0 6.6 6.3 8.5 a 12,110 712 23,824 1,590 29,042 b 1,354 81 3,434 231 6,018 11.2 11.4 14.4 14.5 20.7 a 5,151 474 6,629 771 12,234 b 1,128 107 1,847 226 3,244 21.9 22.6 27.9 29.3 26.5 Note: For wheat, “Wheat and Flour in Wheat”. Grains (Total) do not include soybeans. Source: FAO, Trade Y earbook ; 1965, 1971 and 1975.

Grains (total)

World Japan b/a (%) World Wheat Japan b/a (%) World Maize Japan b/a (%) World SoyJapan beans b/a (%)

a b


Value Volume


8,514 159,195 1,023 18,855 12.0 11.8 3,937 74,586 318 5,654 8.1 7.6 2,009 51,477 407 7,470 20.3 14.5 1,353 16,259 366 3,334 27.1 20.5

28,438 3,125 11.0 13,609 1,117 8.2 7,853 1,138 14.5 4,169 942 22.6


Table 3-42.




Grain sorghum

Unit: 1,000 tons

Sources and Volumes of Japan’s Agricultural Imports 1972




Total USA Canada Australia Others USA/total (%)

5,148 2,545 1,236 1,367 0 49.4

5,377 3,025 1,488 830 34 56.3

Total Canada Australia Others Total USA South Africa Thailand Others USA/total (%)

1,004 666 333 5 6,052 3,398 1,175 862 617 56.2

5,386 3,616 1,450 183 137 67.1 1,322 859 267 196 7,771 6,539 591 387 254 84.1

1,418 716 619 83 7,940 6,169 361 909 501 77.7

5,654 3,004 1,476 1,174 0 53.1 1,598 978 619 1 7,470 5,354 918 778 420 71.7

Total USA Australia Argentina Others USA/total (%)

3,505 2,049 717 522 217 58.5

3,742 2,733 463 504 42 73.0

4,474 2,831 721 795 127 63.3

3,794 2,012 777 833 172 53.0

3,244 3,334 3,635 3,396 Total 2,924 3,041 3,210 3,126 USA 232 240 226 254 China Soybeans 44 82 15 185 Brazil 9 6 14 1 Others 91.2 88.3 90.1 92.1 USA/total (%) Source: Japan Tariff Association, The Sum m ary R eport, Trade o f Japan, December 1972, December 1973, December 1974 and December 1975.

Table 3-43.

Japan’s Dependence on the US for Grains and Pulses

Japan’s total import (1) From USA (2) USA/Total (%) (2)/(l) Source: Table 3-42.

Unit: 1,000 tons







19,105 11,118 58.2

21,856 16,098 73.7

22,453 14,949 66.6

21,850 13,411 61.4

21,138 14,055 66.5

21,316 13,894 65.2

721 Table 3-44.

Share of the USA in the World Export of Major Grains Unit: 1,000 tons 1970


World (A) USA (B) Canada Argentina Australia B/A (%)

114,691 119,084 40,392 36,046 Total 14,896 18,201 10,218 9,823 8,365 11,827 35.2 30.3 World (A) 57,145 58,497 USA (B) 19,085 17,536 Canada 11,494 13,635 •S Wheat France 4,453 4,475 2 Australia 7,310 9,484 o USSR 5,922 8,513 Argentina 2,415 987 B/A (JO 33.4 30.0 World (A) 29,432 30,965 USA (B) 14,402 12,884 Maize Argentina 5,233 6,128 France 2,455 4,121 South Africa 1,201 1,468 Thailand 1,371 1,806 48.9 41.6 B/A (50 World (A) 12,621 12,282 USA (B) 11,839 11,521 Soybeans Brazil 290 213 China 410 460 93.8 93.8 B/A (50 Grains and World (A) 127,312 131,366 Soybeans USA (B) 52,231 47,567 B/A (%) 41.0 36.2 Source: FAO, Trade Yearbook, 1975.

Table 3-45.




134,638 52,474 19,639 5,754 12,112 39.0

164,493 82,407 16,417 9,855 7,474 50.1 81,570 38,445 12,914 8,372 5,627 5,051 3,109 47.1

149,145 65,166 13,233 11,043 7,245 43.7

17,228 13,940 2,730 375 80.9

165,201 80,659 15,493 8,285 11,307 48.8 79,749 38,292 11,648 7,838 8,201 3,456 1,879 48.0 51,659 33,503 4,001 2,552 3,218 2,400 64.9 16,459 12,496 3,334 360 75.9

166,373 79,106 47.6

181,660 93,155 51.3

64,942 22,612 14,633 6,765 8,712 4,433 1,784 34.8 37,396 22,386 3,005 3,481 3,155 1,758 59.9 13,817 11,993 1,037 370 86.8 148,455 64,467 43.4

65,329 26,047 10,690 8,940 5,330 6,502 1,834 39.9 49,638 29,868 5,525 3,835 2,163 2,190 60.2

48,059 33,196 4,033 3,420 1,317 1,306 69.1 15,626 13,222 1,786 321 84.6 180,119 95,629 53.1

Share of US Grain Exports to Japan

Wheat and wheat flour Maize (excluding seeds) Grain sorghum (excluding seeds) Soybeans Total Source:


Unit: %





Volume Value 12.9 12.8 15.1 15.5

Volume Value 11.9 11.9 19.3 20.1

Volume Value 9.8 10.5 20.0 21.9

Volume Value 11.0 17.9

11.6 17.7

48.1 46.9 55.1 54.0 51.7 52.1 41.5 43.0 25.5 25.7 24.9 22.0 20.7 19.6 21.5 22.1 20.1 20.2 18.8 — 17.6 — — — U.S., Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Trade Statistical Report, 1976.


Table 3—46.

Beef Production of which Dairy Beef

of which dairy beef Total



Beef & Veal




of which dairy

Grand of which dairy total


(Production—l,000m.t. & %*>) 1.0( 0.5) 43.1(23.2) 1963-67 185.8 1968-72 254.0 37.8(14.9) 77.2(30.4) 1973-77 312.3 89.5(28.7) 99.3(31.8)

44.1(23.7) 115.0(45.3) 188.8(60.6)

6.9 6.8 3.4

5.8(83.9) 6.4(95.3) 3.2(94.1)

192.7 49.9(25.9) 260.8 121.4(46.6) 315.7 192.0(60.8)

Note 1): Grand total=Dairy beef and veal + Beef and veal from beef breeds= 100. Tables 3—46~3—51 have been arranged by MAKINO Tadao. Source: Livestock Bureau, MAF, Japan, M ea t Statistics in Japan, pp. 18-9, Japan Meat Conference, 1977.

Table 3-47.

Yield of Dairy Beef

Unit: kg Per cow

Per farmer Average yields Beef 1963-67 115.4 1968-72 385.6 1973-77 1,131.5 Source:

Veal 15.1 21.6 24.4

Total 130.5 407.2 1,155.9

Index number

Average yields

Index number

Beef Veal Total Beef Veal Total Beef 39.2 100 100 34.7 4.5 100 100 70.3 192 143 312 66.6 3.7 334 97.0 275 162 886 95.4 1.6 981

Veal 100 82 36

Total 100 179 247

Op. cit., pp. 4 and 18-9.

Table 3-48.

Production of Beef from Beef Breeds Beef cattle raisers (1,000)

Production of beef and veal (1,000 m.t. %«)

Beef cows (1,000)

Index number

Beef Veal Total Veal Total Beef 100 100 100 141.7(73.5) 1.1(0.6) 142.8(74.1) 1963-67 1,427.8 1,313.5 27 98 98 139.0(53.2) 0.3(0.2) 139.3(53.4) 1968-72 877.6 1,089.5 87 18 87 123.7(39.2) 1973-77 495.0 960.3 123.5(39.1) 0.2(0.1) Note 1): Total beef production = Dairy beef and veal + beef and veal from beef breeds = 100. Source: Op. cit., pp. 4 and 16-7.

Table 3-49.

Per farmer Beef Veal 1963-67 99.2 0.8 1968-72 158.4 0.3 1973-77 249.5 0.4 Source:

Unit: kg

Yield of Beef from Beef Breeds Index number

Total 100.0 158.7 249.9


Beef 100 159 252

Veal Total 100 100 38 159 50 250

Op. cit., pp. 4 and 16-7.

Per cow Beef Veal Total 107.9 0.8 108.7 127.6 0.3 127.9 128.6 0.2 128.8

Index number Beef Veal 100 118 119

100 38 25

Total 100 118 118

723 Table 3--50.

Number of Milk Cow Raisers and Milk Cows Number


1949-52 1953-57 1958-62 1963-67 1968-72 1973-77 1978 Source:

1,000 150.4 261.1 398.5 381.9 298.2 166.9 129.4

Table 3--51.


M.C. Milk cow R. 1,000 1.50 225.3 1.67 437.2 2.07 823.1 1,271,7 3.33 5.79 1,726.3 1,803.6 10.81 1,979.0 15.29 Statistics, p. 270. M eat Statistics; ibid.,

Raiser 100 174 265 254 198 111 86 p. 4.

Index Number Milk Milk cow cow Raiser 1949-52=100 100 100 194 111 138 365 222 564 766 386 800 721 878 1,019

Milk Production and Average Milk Yield per Raiser and Milking Cow Index number Ave. yield

Ave. yield Prod.

Cow Cow Raiser Raiser 1949-52=100 m.t. kg. kg. 100 100 1949-52 1,852 100 417,181 2,774 128 1953-57 248 143 1,033,128 3,957 2,363 127 465 175 1958-62 1,940,164 4,869 2,357 136 302 1963-67 8,367 2,513 766 3,195,391 145 1968-72 55.9 4,626,923 15,516 2,680 1,109 155 1973-77 1,117 5,169,433 2,866 1,239 30,973 Source: Statistics (and Information) Department, MAF, Statistics o f Livestock Production and Statistics o f M ilk and D airy Products, 1978. Table 3--52.

1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 Source:

The Percentile Breakdown of the Animal Husbandry Output by Sectors Layers Total Beef Dairy and Others Hogs output cattle cattle broilers 16.9 17.6 15.1 13.7 15.3 12.9 12.3 11.5 11.2 12.8 11.4 9.3 8.4 8.2 8.6 9.0 8.5 10.3 10.7 7.7 9.6

17.9 19.2 21.8 21.5 20.3 21.8 22.4 22.9 21.9 23.0 22.0 23.1 25.1 26.2 26.4 26.2 25.6 24.9 25.9 24.7 24.8

Basic Statistics, Revised, p. 15.

13.3 15.0 15.7 16.6 19.4 19.2 17.1 18.3 20.7 19.6 21.3 25.3 22.6 24.4 24.2 23.4 25.8 25.4 22.6 25.3 27.4

46.1 43.0 41.8 43.5 41.1 41.4 44.0 43.5 42.7 41.2 41.6 39.2 40.8 38.0 37.4 38.2 37.5 36.8 38.4 40.2 35.9

5.8 5.2 5.6 4.7 3.9 4.8 4.2 3.8 3.5 3.4 3.7 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.2 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.1 2.3

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 3-53. Changes in Beef Prices in Recent Years and in Recent Months Producer’s price alive per 10 kg Japanese beef cattle (wagyu) Female

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1977, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1978,1 2 3 Source:

Wholesale price of carcass, per kg

Dairy steers Japanese beef cattle steers (medium)


4,568 4,651 5,229 8,040 7,947 9,252 10,440

4,328 4,659 5,326 8,113 7,485 8,658 7,523

3,936 5,922 4,743 6,555 7,218

10,660 10,560 10,420 10,490 10,410 10,430 10,270 10,280 10,170 10,390 10,330 10,190 10,010 10,050 9,819

9,559 9,506 9,476 9,632 9,697 9,645 9,414 9,596 9,597 9,637 9,577 9,530 9,419 9,306 9,215

6,818 6,875 6,796 6,708 6,654 6,841 6,769 7,017 7,002 7,053 6,837 7,007 6,879 6,924 6,672

— —

759 778 848 1,283 1,153 1,433 1,696 1,618 1,735 1,680 1,618 1,637 1,633 1,585 1,539 1,676 1,592 1,580 1,557 1,653 1,500 1,507 1,483

Dairy steers (medium) 617 658 705 1,022 850 1,234 1,359 1,265 1,296 1,274 1,223 1,226 1,246 1,244 1,243 1,290 1,278 1,281 1,258 1,301 1,231 1,247 1,171

Unit: yen For reference Retail price per 100 grams (medium)

Japanese calves (wagyu calves) (6 months)

Dairy male Calves 7 days after the birth (per head)

Fattened for 1720 months (per 10 kg)

Heifer (per head)

Male (per head)

137 147 151 198 245 271 316

83,779 107,623 143,911 301,800 236,100 207,800 225,100

87,320 114,861 141,786 272,000 173,300 180,300 235,500

4,994 6,234 12,390 42,890 7,602 11,100 15,526

3,936 5,922 4,743 6,553 7,092

320 320 322 316 314 314 312 312 312 313 312 311 315 310 309

234,200 237,900 232,900 237,800 229,500 228,100 237,400 234,100 242,400 254,700 255,100 260,200 250,600 240,600 233,000

244,900 255,600 255,000 255,800 254,900 255,300 251,900 250,400 249,900 258,200 256,900 257,000 244,000 244,200 231,000

13,537 13,080 13,190 13,619 13,764 13,960 14,660 14,550 14,849 15,320 15,616 14,690 15,330 15,530 16,710

6,818 6,875 6,796 6,708 6,654 6,841 6,769 7,017 7,017 7,002 6,837 7,007 6,879 6,924 6,672

Livestock Bureau, MAF, Chikusan K ankei Shiryo (D ocuments R elated to Livestock Industry ), May, 1978, pp. 17, 22-23.

— —


Table 3-54.

Beef Prices Released by the Vice-Premier of Australia Channel of Beef


Farmer’s price in Australia Export price (FOB) Import price (CIF) Purchase price of the Corporation including tariff Sales price of the Corporation Retailer’s price

140 440 494 617 1,267 about 4,000


Farmer’s price in Australia is the price of the carcass while the export and import price, etc., are the prices of chilled beef. Considering the margin of 25% for the retailer and other sundry charges, about 4,000 yen of the retailer’s price is quite unreasonable. Source: The A sahi, March 15, 1978.

Table 3-55.

Net Consumption of Meat per Capita according to the Demand and Supply of Meat Total Per Per year day

Per year

Beef Per day

Pork Per Per year day

Chicken Per Per year day

Whale Per Per year day

Others Per Per year day

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970

kg 2.3 3.2 5.0 8.8 12.7

g 6.3 8.3 14.2 24.3 34.6

kg 0.7 1.1 1.1 1.4 2.0

g 1.9 2.9 3.1 4.0 5.5

kg 0.5 0.7 1.1 2.7 4.7

g 1.5 1.8 3.1 7.4 12.8

kg 0.1 0.3 0.8 1.9 3.7

g 0.3 0.8 2.3 5.2 10.1

kg 0.8 0.2 0.4 2.1 1.2

g 2.2 0.5 1.2 5.7 3.3

kg 0.2 0.9 1.6 0.7 1.1

g 0.4 2.3 4.5 2.0 2.9

1971 1972 1973 1974 1975

14.6 15.4 16.2 16.2 17.9

39.4 42.3 44.6 44.4 48.8

2.3 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.6

6.2 6.5 6.4 6.5 7.0

5.1 5.6 6.4 6.4 7.3

14.0 15.5 17.5 17.6 19.9

4.3 4.7 5.0 5.1 5.3

11.6 12.5 13.8 14.0 14.4

1.3 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.9

3.4 3.2 3.1 3.3 2.6

1.6 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.8

4.2 4.2 3.8 3.3 4.9

Note: Okinawa Prefecture included since 1972. Source: Basic Statistics on D em and o f Food', Shokuryo Jukyu H y d fo r 1974 and fo r 1975.

Table 3-56.

Comparison of Beef Prices between Japan, the United States and Australia: Wholesale Prices (average of 1976)

Wholesale price Note:


Japan (a) yen/kg

U.S. (b) yen/kg


Japan (c) yen/kg

Austlaria (d) yen/kg








(a); (b) (c) (d)

Price of Tokyo market, dairy beef steers, medium grade. ; USDA Livestock and Meat Situation, Steer choice, class of 600-700 pounds. ; Price of Tokyo market, average of medium grade dairy female beef price. ; A.M.B., The Meat Producer and Exporter, 1-2 class grade of steers and heifers; Melbourne market. Livestock Bureau, MAF, Japan, Shokuniku no Jukyu, K akaku, Ryiitsu to K ankei Shiryo— G yuniku o Chushin to shite, p. 28, Sept. 1977.

■ k

726 Table 3-57.

Retail price Note:

Comparison of Beef Prices among Japan, the United States and Australia; Retail Prices (average of 1976) Japan (a) yen/kg

U.S. (b) yen/kg

Australia (c) yen/kg






(a)/(c) 5.61

(a); Average medium price in Tokyo and Osaka, Family Income and Expenditure Survey, Statistics Bureau of the Prime Minister’s Office. (b) ; USD A, Livestock and Meat Situation, grade of choice. (c) ; Weekly Marketing Note, Department of Agriculture (New South Wales), average of Blade and Chuck from Jan. to Oct. Source: Op. cit.

Table 3-58. Consumption Trend of Meat, Eggs and Milk in Family Expenditure in Recent Years (per member of all households surveyed, per annum)

1965 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977


Total expendi­ tures (yen)

Total (yen)

Value (yen)

Quantity (g)

Value (yen)

Quantity (g)

136,327 239,791 265,076 293,208 344,091 418,535 487,349 546,220 597,983

4,598 8,504 9,513 10,906 13,243 15,936 18,799 21,385 39,325

1,454 2,071 2,361 2,763 3,312 4,039 4,773 5,599 5,985

1,963 1,704 1,829 1,961 1,803 1,903 2,001 2,095 2,194

1,355 2,388 3,231 3,647 4,514 5,396 6,487 7,359 7,446

2,065 3,518 3,822 4,031 4,440 4,759 4,683 4,887 5,087




Chicken Value (yen) 646 1,406 1,507 1,674 2,041 2,521 2,929 3,415 3,538

Quantity (g) 1,101 2,174 2,222 2,438 2,617 2,683 2,859 3,075 3,192

Value (yen) 2,031 2,499 2,493 2,599 2,833 3,666 3,878 3,623 3,806


Quantity (g) 971 1,128 1,133 1,132 1,104 1,125 1,097 1,110 1,083

Value (yen) 1,752 2,934 3,011 3.141 3,462 4,394 4,866 5,453 5,590

Note: The total of meat includes other meat than beef, pork and chicken, and ham, bacon, etc. A bottle of milk contains 180 cc. Source: Livestock Bureau, MAF, Documents related to Livestock Industry, 1978, pp. 8-9.

Quantity (bottle) 82.2 110.5 102.7 102.3 102.3 106.4 110.7 114.2 118.4


Table 3-59.

Unit: yen/kg

Retail Meat Prices

Retail Beef price 1955 56 57 58 59 1960 61 62 63 64 1965 66 67 68 69 1970 71 72 73 74 1975 76 Source:



Beef Compari­ son with previous year

Retail Pork price

Compari­ son with previous year

96 501 97 445 93 464 101 449 102 474 98 441 97 461 103 454 107 491 102 465 131 642 118 549 96 615 116 637 93 569 110 702 127 724 107 748 753 104 107 804 745 99 106 854 93 694 123 1,050 103 714 118 1,240 119 849 1,420 115 113 960 95 1,350 95 909 101 1,370 102 930 107 1,470 107 992 103 1,510 113 1,120 131 1,980 111 1,240 124 2,450 125 1,550 111 2,710 108 1,680 117 3,160 Documents of Livestock Bureau, MAF, Dec. 1, 1977

Retail Chicken price

Compari­ son with previous year

435 430 470 471 472 483 502 686 718 721 718 724 728 744 748 767 712 724 801 960 1,000 1,110

95 99 109 100 100 102 104 137 105 100 100 101 101 102 101 103 —

102 111 120 104 111

Table 3-60.

Monthly Expeditures for Animal Origin Foodstuff and the Percentages

4 4 3 3 2 1 yen yen I III V I III V % 3.89 Pi 1.59P2 3.82Pi 1.50P2 Pi P2 157,982 166,032 Total expenditure 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Food 50,479 49,828 30.0 41.0 33.4 21.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1975 Fresh fish 4,433 4,169 2.5 3.5 2.7 1.8 8.4 8.7 8.3 8.4 Dried & salted fish 1,808 1,744 1.0 0.7 1.4 1.1 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.5 Meat 6,025 5,862 3.5 4.5 3.9 2.7 11.8 10.9 11.7 12.3 Milk and eggs 3,327 3,434 2.0 2.9 2.3 1.4 6.9 7.1 7.0 6.4 3.98 1.64 3.90 1.55 Pi Ps Total expenditures 78,289 82,098 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Food 26,764 26,500 32.3 37.9 33.6 27.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 107.0 1970 Fresh fish 2,007 2,133 2.4 2.9 2.5 2.2 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.9 Dried & salted fish 871 845 1.0 1.2 1.1 0.9 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Meat 2,735 2,694 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.2 10.2 8.9 9.8 11.4 Milk and eggs 2,065 2,116 2.6 3.0 2.7 2.2 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.8 4.25 1.65 4.12 1.52 Pi P2 Total expenditures 47,111 48,765 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Food 18,065 17,633 36.2 42.3 37.7 31.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1965 Fresh fish 1,313 1,204 2.5 2.9 2.5 2.3 6.8 6.9 6.6 7.1 Dried & salted fish 478 460 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.8 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.7 Meat 1,550 1,496 3.1 2.7 3.0 3.3 8.5 6.4 7.9 10.4 Milk and eggs 1,488 1,517 3.1 3.2 3.2 2.9 8.6 7.5 8.4 9.0 4.28 1.66 4.16 1.53 Pi P2 Total expenditures 43,422 44,121 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Food 16,603 15,948 36.1 42.1 38.0 31.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1963 Fresh fish 1,135 1,013 2.3 2.7 2.3 2.0 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.6 Dried & salied fish 427 403 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.8 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 Meat 1,432 1,351 3.1 2.7 3.0 3.3 8.5 6.4 7.9 10.4 Mild and eggs 1,366 1,368 3.1 3.2 3.2 2.9 8.6 7.5 8.4 9.3 Note: Pi=Number of household members: P2 =number of person engaged. 1= Average of all household; 2 = Average of workers’ households. 3 = Average of workers’ households. 4 = By yearly income quintile. Refer to the note of Table 3-61. 1963 covers cities with population of 50,000 or more. Source: MIYAZAKI Keiko, “Kakei no naka ni okeru Niku no Shohi ni tsuite” (“Consumption of Meat in the Household Expenditure”) carried in Food Policy Stu d y , 1977-IV, No. 12, p. 133.

r~< So


Table 3-61

Annual Expenditures by Meat Items V= 100

Income quintile I 49,579 Meat 10,861 1. Beef 2. Pork 18,190 7,924 3. Chicken 903 4. Whale 1975 5. Other meat, chilled 2,067 or frozen 4,145 6. Ham 2,745 7. Sausages 647 8. Bacon 9. Other processed meat 2,096 21,942 Meat 4,627 1. Beef 2. Pork 7,666 3,815 3. Chicken 706 4. Whale 1,158 1970 5. Other meat, chilled or frozen 2,029 6. Ham 1,088 7. Sausages 187 8. Bacon 9. Other processed meat 667 Meat 1. Beef 2. Pork 3. Chicken 4. Whale 1965 5. Other meat, chilled or frozen 6. Ham 7. Sausages 8. Bacon 9. Other processed meat

III 72,159 16,852 25,474 11,408 1,047 2,266 6,549 4,244 1,081 3,238 31,665 7,389 10,710 5,206 744 1,286 3,154 1,746 319 1,112

Unit: yen and %

V 90,608 23,928 31,022 13,840 1,024 2,106 8,511 4,835 1,696 3,646 45,125 11,472 15,364 7,116 807 1,246

9,512 2,902 2,636 1,592 606

18,695 5,534 5,827 2,395 735

4,564 2,297 576 1,683 30,893 9,120 9,799 3,738 632

414 822 299 59 182

651 1,959 1,058 149 387

566 3,410 2,168 402 1,058

Percentage by items

III I 54.7 79.6 45.4 70.4 58.6 82.1 57.2 82.4 88.2 102.2

V III I 100.0 100.0 100.0 21.9 23.4 26.4 36.7 35.3 34.2 16.0 15.8 15.3 1.1 1.4 1.8

98.1 107.6 48.7 76.9 56.8 87.8 38.1 63.7 57.5 88.8 48.6 70.2 40.3 64.4 49.9 69.7 53.6 73.2 87.5 92.2 92.9 103.2

2.3 4.2 3.1 9.4 8.3 9.1 5.9 5.3 5.5 1.9 1.3 1.5 4.0 4.5 4.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 21.1 23.3 25.4 34.9 33.8 34.0 17.4 16.4 15.8 1.8 3.2 2.3 2.8 5.3 4.1

44.5 47.4 32.5 39.6

9.2 10.0 10.1 5.1 5.5 4.9 1.0 1.3 0.9 3.7 3.0 3.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 30.5 29.6 29.5 27.7 31.2 31.7 16.7 12.8 12.1 3.9 2.0 6.4

30.8 31.8 26.9 42.6 95.9

69.1 76.0 55.4 66.1 60.5 60.7 59.5 64.1 116.3

73.1 115.0 24.1 57.4 13.8 48.8 14.7 37.1 17.2 36.6 22.9 53.8 21.6 53.8 22.4 54.3 20.6 48.7 81.1 90.8

4.3 8.6 3.1 0.6 1.9

3.5 10.5 5.7 0.8 2.1

1.8 11.0 7.0 1.3 3.4 100.0 29.5 29.8 12.1 2.7

100.0 100.0 6.514 15,287 28,399 Meat 27.8 29.5 1,809 4,515 8,385 1. Beef 29.2 30.1 1,900 4,599 8,473 2. Pork 10.9 10.9 708 1,670 3,428 3. Chicken 9.4 4.5 757 687 4. Whale 614 1963 5. Other meat. 2.7 3.5 44.6 68.9 5.3 535 776 chilled or frozen 346 1,771 19.2 49.6 10.5 11.6 12.6 3,570 685 6. Ham 7.1 4.9 6.7 15.9 51.0 322 1,029 2,016 7. Sausages 0.8 0.8 117 0.9 58 239 24.3 48.9 8. Bacon 2.4 2.7 1.1 755 9.5 48.2 9. Other processed meat 72 364 Note: The table is calculated by the Annual Report on Family Income and Expenditure Survey, Bureau of Statistics, Office of the Prime Minister, Japan. According to the income quintile groups, the first group is the lowest and the fifth group is the highest; V=100 means differentials of the first and the third group from the fifth groups=100. 5) others means the other meats; 9) others means the other processed meat. As income quintile groups are not classified in 1965 survey, each of I, II and III is grouped as follows in the table: 1= ¥300,000—¥400,000 11= ¥700,000—¥800,000 IH= ¥1,400,000—¥1,600,000 As income quintile groups are not classified in 1968 survey, each group of I, II and III is grouped as follows in the table 1= ¥200,000—¥300,000 11= ¥600,000—¥700,000 111= ¥1,200,000—¥1,400,000 Source: Op. Cit., Food Policy S tudy, 1977-IV No. 12, p. 133.

731 Table 4-1.

1896 Number Member Assets (yen) 1898 Number Member Assets (yen)

Cooperatives at the Beginning of the First Phase Credit coop.

Purchasing coop.)1*

101 18,749 412,617

21 4,459 15,956

Production coop.)2*

Marketing coop.

Utilization coop.)3*

8 691

80 11,568 23,916

9 366

144 39 14 141 8 21,645 8,733 1,068 3,153 32,561 922,396 3,016 2,000 40,729 Note: 1) Coop, purchasing in common materials, tools, machines and livestock necessary for members, not including consumer’s coop. 2) Coop, producing in common agricultural products, manufacturing goods and marine products. 3) Coop, utilizing common tools, machines and livestock necessary for business. Source: MITSUMA Hikotaro, ed. ,Nippon Sangydkum iai Shi, pp. 31-2.

Table 4-2.

Number of Industrial Cooperatives by Business and by Liability By business

By liability

Credit & Credit & Business one or two other or other three businesses businesses businesses other than credit

Total number


1900 1901 1902

21 263 512

13 191 331

— —

— —

1907 1912 1917 1922 1925 1927

3,363 9,683 12,025 14,047 14,517 14,186

1,543 2,673 3,092 2,442 2,573 2,556

1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942

14,352 14,651 14,815 15,028 15,460 14,512 15,328 15,232 15,101 14,724 14,235

2,051 1,756 1,511 1,313 1,117 895 749 706 667 613 567

Limited liability

Unlimited Guaranteed liability liability

8 72 181

... ...

... ...

... ...

343 4,437 6,287 7,783 7,146 6,450

29 626 1,111 2,253 3,161 3,437

1,448 1,947 1,535 1,569 1,637 1,743

1,499 6,105 8,393 11,331 12,391 12,475

1,788 3,368 3,376 2,454 1,867 1,464

76 210 256 262 259 247

5,663 4,693 3,961 3,188 2,485 1,488 1,118 951 795 607 526

4,497 6,062 7,206 8,430 9,831 10,362 11,671 11,839 11,968 11,999 11,878

12,968 990 2,141 394 2,140 8,363 1,182 5,106 2,137 971 7,871 5,973 • 2,097 4,499 934 9,595 2,027 3,062 934 11,464 1,767 830 724 12,958 1,790 728 809 13,791 726 1,736 775 13,731 13,637 1,671 731 733 1,505 702 705 13,317 631 1,264 670 12,934 Note: Businesses of industrial cooperatives were legally divided into four, namely, credit, marketing, purchasing and utilization. Unitil 1906 credit cooperatives were not able to carry on other businesses. Liability systems of industrial cooperatives were legally divided into three, limited, unlimited or guaranteed liability. Source: Basic Statistics, Revised, pp. 586-7.

732 Table 4-3.

The Weight of the Activities of the Industrial Cooperatives (1928) _________________________________________Unit: % Item


Ratio of number of cooperative members to the total number of households 41.0 Ratio of deposits in the cooperatives to the total deposits in the financial institutions 7.3 Ratio of marketing through the cooperatives to the total amount of of rice sold by farmers 8.0 Ratio of marketing through the cooperatives to the total amount of cocoons sold by farmers 0.8 Ratio of marketing through the cooperatives to the total production of raw silk 3.0 Ratio of purchasing through the cooperatives to the total consumption of commercial fertilizers 20.0 Ratio of purchasing through the purchasing cooperatives to the total consumption of rice 3.0 Note: Ratios are calculated by quantum terms, except for the deposit and the fertilizer consumption. Source: NASU Shiroshi and TOBATA Seiichi, K yodokum iai to N ogyo M ondai ( The Co­ operative and the Agricultural Problem ), pp. 315-6, Kaizo Sha, Tokyo, 1932.

Table 4-4.

Members of the General Agricultural Cooperatives Number (1,000)

Members (1)i Households of the members Associate members (2) Total (1 + 2)

Index (1960=100)









1960 100















756 6,536

953 6,790

1,387 7,276

1,899 7,672

100 100

126 104

183 111

251 117

Note: The member of the agricultural cooperative should be a farmer, either full-time or part-time. The nonfarmer is admitted as the associate member. Source: Agricultural Cooperative Section, MAF, N okyb-Seido M ondai K enkyukai Kankei Shiryo (Documents o f the Agricultural Cooperative System Study Group), pp. 38-9, Tokyo, 1977.

Table 4-5 . Number of the General Cooperatives Year


Index 1960=100

102 1955 12,335 100 1960 12,050 61 1965 7,320 50 1970 6,049 40 4,803 1975 40 4,763 1976 Note: The term “General Cooperative” means the municipal multipurpose cooperative carrying on various businesses including credit. Source: Op. cit. (Source of the Table 4-4), p. 200.

733 Table 4-6.

Number of the Prefectural Federations of Agricultural Cooperatives Business year

Kind of Prefec. Federation


Central Association Credit Federation Marketing & Purchasing Fed. Mutual Relief Fed. Medical Federation Sericulture Federation Livestock Industry Federation Dairy Farming Federation Chicken Industry Federation Vegetable, Fruit & Special Crop Federation Others Total

46 46

1965 46 46

1970 46 46

1975 47 47

1976 47 47

47 46 22 30

47 46 20 28

47 46 19 26

48 47 22 24

48 47 22 22

41 15

22 29

18 36

15 32

15 32





6 79 332

7 9 10 72 43 40 321 291 287 Note: 1) Total does not include the central associations. 2) These figures concern only the prefectural federations of which districts are the same as the prefecture concerned. Apart from the figures in the table, there were 488 federations of the cooperatives in 1971 in the whole of Japan, of which districts are narrower than the prefecture cencemed. These are of importance far inferior to the prefectural federations. Source: Op. cit. (Source of the Table 4-4), p. 66. 5 74 321

Table 4-7.

Number of the Miscellaneous Agricultural Cooperatives

Kind of Cooperative


Business year

Sericulture Livestock Dairy farming Chicken Horticulture & Special crops Reclamation Pasture mangement Rural industry Farming broadcasting Others Total

1960 6,293 1,182 774 —

679 4,789 1,096 597

1965 4,324 807 764 294 676

1970 1975 1977 2,557 1,590 1,355 644 577 544 715 676 659 288 272 263 571 578 571

Index (1960= 100) 1960 100 100 100 —


1965 69 68 99 100 100




41 54 92 98 84

25 49 87 93 85

22 46 85 89 84

4,438 3,484 615 524 100 93 73 13 11 1,141 1,023 901 905 100 104 93 82 83 496 334 248 243 100 83 56 42 41 — — 183 169 129 120 100 92 70 66 1,436 884 319 390 264 100 62 22 27 18 16,846 14,007 10,104 5,976 5,448 100 83 60 35 32 Note: Some mistaken figures in the source are corrected. The table does not include the general agricultural cooperative. Source: Op. cit. (Source of the Table 4-4) pp. 58-9. As to the figures of 1977, MAF, Showa 52-nendo N dgyd-kydddkum iai Genzai-su Tokei (Statistics on the Num ber o f Agricultural Cooperatives and Others), pp. 14 17, 1978.

734 Table 4-8.

Agricultural Cooperative Credit Business Utilization by Farm Households Unit: YIOO.OOO.OOO

Deposit or debt of the farm households (a) Deposit 1960 1965 1970 1975


Of which deposit or debt of the farm households to the agri. coop. (b) Deposit


2,857 6,695 11,871 6,750 19,067 8,411 16,278 32,589 23,188 38,442 46,743 73,555 76,827 112,936 46,628 186,898 Source: See the Source of Table 4-4, pp. 118-9.

Ratio of credit business of the agri. coop, to farm household’s deposit or debt (b)/(a) Deposit % 56.4 58.5 63.5 60.4

Debt % 42.3 51.7 60.3 60.7

Table 4-9.

Utilization of Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Business by Farm Households Unit: ¥100,000,000 Of which through the agricultural cooperatives (b)

Amount of sales of the farm households

(a) Rice Vegetables Livestock wheat & & products barley fruits 1960 1965 1970 1975 Source:

6,653 10,158 13,659 28,017

2,244 5,066 10,227 19,449

2,391 5,652 10,712 21,400

Utilization ratio of the agri. coop, by farm households (b)/(a)

Total 13,849 24,738 39,927 78,466

See the Source of Table 4-4, pp. 120-1.

Vegetables Livestock Rice & wheat & products fruits barley 4,141 7,898 11,123 21,882

464 1,425 3,754 9,042

484 1,955 3,998 9,779


5,999 12,425 21,088 45,167

Vegetables Rice Livestock & wheat & fruits products barley % % % 62.2 77,8 81.4 78.1

20.7 28.1 36.7 46.5

20.2 34.6 37.3 45.7

Total % 43.3 50.2 52.8 57.6


Table 4-10.

Utilization of Agricultural Cooperative Purchasing Business by Farm House­ holds Unit: ¥100,000,000

Purchasing amount of the farm households (a) Goods Farming for materi- livelihood als 1960 1965 1970 1975


Of which through the agricultural cooperatives (b) Goods Farming for materi- livelihood als

2,133 668 4,189 23,837 28,025 4,543 1,299 8,201 41,679 49,880 2,871 8,851 13,939 78,178 92,117 30,672 159,071 189,743 8,807 21,525 Source: See the Source of Table 4-4, pp. 124-4.

Total 2,801 5,842 11,722 30,333

Utilization ratio by farm housholds (b)/(a) Farming Goods materi­ for als liveli­ hood v/ o % 50.9 2.8 55.4 3.1 63.5 3.7 70.1 5.5

Total % 10.0 11.7 12.7 16.0

Table 4-11.

Number of the Technical Staff Members of the Agricultural Association Town and City Prefectural County village agricultural agricultural agricultural Total agricultural association association association association Number Number Number Number Number Technical staff1’ 3,562 5,187 1,471 28 1914 126 6,653 1917 138 1,758 43 4,714 4,206 141 2,313 48 6,708 1920 10,217 2,945 119 6,704 1925 449 2,545 177 8,158 11,326 1928 446 1,770 8,674 10,984 1932 326 214 10,390 14,050 571 2,711 378 1935 2,184 493 11,213 14,624 1939 734 Number Number Number Number Number Agr. association2’ 6,067 6,733 1925 47 554 65 1928 47 555 80 6,989 7,671 1932 47 535 89 7,584 8,255 47 547 109 9,146 9,849 1935 47 9,712 1939 551 135 10,445 Note:

1) Number of the technical staff members employed by the association. 2) Number of the agricultural associations employing one or more technical staff members. Source: Teikoku N o ka i S h i K o, Shiryo-hen, p. 758.

737 Table 4-12.

Number of the Municipalities City

1883 1889

19 39



12,194 59,284 15,820

For Reference

Total 71,497 15,859

1908 1930 1945 Oct. 1953 Oct.

61 109 205 286

1,167 1,528 1,797 1,966

11,220 10,292 8,518 7,616

12,448 11,929 10,520 9,868

1956 Apr.





1960 Apr. 1963 Apr.

555 553

1,922 1,978

1,049 892

3,526 3,423

1965 Apr.





Enforcement of the City Institution and of the Town and Village Institution

Enforcement of the Law of Town and Village Consolidation Promotion Enforcement of the New Municipality Establishment Promotion Enforcement of the Law Concerning Special Cases of the City Consolidation Enforcement of the Law Concerning Special Cases of Municipal Consolidation

1970 Apr. 2,027 3,280 564 689 1975 Apr. 640 3,257 643 1,974 1978 Apr. 630 3,256 645 1,981 Note: Okinawa Prefecture returned to Japanese administration on May 15, 1972. Source: Chiho Jichi Kenkyu Shiryo Senta, ed., Chiho Jichi Nertkan ( Yearbook o f Local A utonom y), Tokyo, 1978.1 2

Table 4-13. Family Farms and Land in Rural Communities1)’3^ Table 4-13-i. Percentage Distribution of Rural Communities by Number of Households Unit: %

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980

Under 19

2 0 -4 9

5 0 -9 9


150 and over

Reference Number of rural communities

14.0 12.8 15.2 15.0

47.1 42.1 41.5 37.7

25.3 25.8 24.4 23.7 22.6

6.9 8.3 8.1 8.5 8.4

6.7 11.1 10.8 15.1 18.0

152,431 150,326 142,699 142,092 142,384


1) The term o f “rural community” is defined as a group of farm households which cooperate in agricultural operations most closely. In other words, the rural com­ munity is a local society which has been formed for agricultural operations as a part of cities, towns and villages, and orginally, it has been a natural basic unit of society in rural areas (Statistics and Information Department, MAF, S ta tistic a l Y ea rb o o k o f M A F , Japan, 1 9 7 4 -7 5 , p. 50). From the viewpoint of rural socio­ logy, this definition, used in the survey o f rural communities, may arouse some dissent. 2) Excluding Okinawa Prefecture. Source: T he Censuses o f A gricu ltu re: A d v a n c e R e p o r t o f th e 1 9 8 0 Census, [ I I ] , p. 9.

738 Table 4-13-ii.

Percentage Distribution of Rural Communities by Number of Farm Households Unit: %

Per rural community ------------------------------Number o f Number o total farm households households Number 64 86 81 118 141

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 Source:

Percentage of rural communities by number of farm households f ------------------------------------------------------------------100 and Under 9 1 0 -2 9 3 0 -4 9 5 0 -9 9 over

Number 39 38 37 35 33

2.9 3.6 5.4 7.8 9.8

30.7 28.7 27.6 26.2 24.5

44.5 45.3 46.1 46.7 48.2

17.8 18.1 17.0 15.8 14.4

4.3 4.3 3.9 3.5 3.1

T he Censuses o f A gricultu re; th e 1 9 8 0 Census, [ I I ] , p. 10.

Table 4-13-iii. Percentage Distribution of Rural Communities by Ratio of Farm Households to all Households Unit: % Under 10%

1 0 -3 0

2.9 3.4 6.8 10.1

13.6 8.3 8.8 11.4 13.2

3 0 -5 0

80% and over

5 0 -8 0


1960 1965 1970 1975 1980

46.6 (1) 29.3 27.5 28.5 29.4

9.7 9.4 11.0 12.1

39.8 (2) 49.7 50.9 42.2 35.2

(1) is 5 0 -9 0 %, and (2) is 90 % and over. Source:

The Censuses o f A gricu ltu re; th e 1 9 8 0 Census, [ I I ] , p. 11.

Table 4-13-iv. Percentage Distribution of Rural Communities by Size of Total Land Area Unit: %


All Japan of which Hokkaido

1980 All Japan Source:

Under 30 ha

3 0 -5 0

5 0 -1 0 0

10 0 -2 0 0

2 0 0 -5 0 0

500 ha and over



















The 1 9 7 5 Census o f A gricu ltu re; A d v a n c e R e p o r t o f th e 1 9 8 0 Census, [I I ],

Table 4-13-v. Percentage Distribution o f Rural Communities by Cultivated Land Ratio Unit: % Under 10%

1 0 -3 0

3 0 -5 0

5 0 -8 0

80% and over

All Japan o f which Hokkaido











All Japan o f which 1980 Hokkaido













Percentage o f the number of total rural communities with cultivated land. Cultivated land ratio = Cultivated land area of the rural community/Total land area of the rural community.


The 1 9 7 5 Census o f A gricu ltu re; A d v a n c e R e p o r t o f th e 1 9 8 0 Census, [ I I ] ,

739 Table 4-14. Living Environment in Rural Areas (1975) Table 4—14—i. Percentage Distribution of Rural Communities by Main Source of Drinking Water Unit: % From wells From spring water From tap water From Powered Human Small power Storage r£ £ ' Water water Directly water 1 works supply in tank drawn system 1970 1975

23.1 33.2 Source:

P o ck et E dition,

Table 4—14—ii.


Table 4—14—iii.


By chartered bus


1-3 35.8




S ta tis tic a l Yearbook o f M A F ,

Under 1 km




1976, p. 150; S ta tis tic a l Y earbook o f M A F , 1974-75, p. 61.

By bus




Percentage Distribution of Rural Communities by Kind of Transportation Mainly Used Unit: %

By train

On foot

11.2 5.1


27.9 28.8



By bicycle or autobicycle




op. cit., p. 60.

Percentage Distribution of Rural Communities by the Distance from Medical Facilities Unit: % 30 km 20-30 3-5 5-7 7-10 10-20 and over 23.1






Op. cit., p. 60.

Table 4-15.

Number of General Cooperatives (%) by Number of Farm Advisers Unit: Number

Total number of cooperatives surveyed

Farm advisors None /o

1 person %

2-4 %

5-10 %

Over 11 person %

Number of farm advisers

Number of home advisers

_ 9,696 18.4 41.5 1960 10,769 40.1 13,163 1,148 31.7 34.9 33.4 7,308 1965 15,512 1,735 28.6 29.9 11.5 4.6 1970 5,996 25.5 2,052 6.7 16,244 24.4 33.0 15.0 4,765 20.9 1975 2,137 7.1 16,826 19.7 24.7 32.7 15.8 1976 4,716 Source: Agricultural Cooperative Section, MAF, S ta tis tic s on A gricultu ral C ooperatives — 1975 Business Year, pp. 12, 20, and S ta tis tic s on A gricultu ral C ooperatives —1976 Business Year, pp. 15, 19 and 20.

I Table 4-16. Real Distribution of Taxes between Central Government and Local Governments Table 4—16—i. By Value of Yen

1935 1941 1957 1958 1959 1962 1966 1967 1971 1976

Local taxes

Total amount of taxes1* (A)


18 58 17,290 17,347 19,833 34,474 54,316 65,463 126,797 263,704

12 49 12,018 11,908 13,724 23,907 36,630 43,968 84,439 168,063



1) 2) 3) 4)


Grand total of local taxes and amount allocated by central government

Amount allocated by central government to local governments2*

Of which Fiscal Year

Unit: Y 100,000,000

Pre­ fectures (C)

Munici­ palities (D)

2 2 2,302 2,274 2,638 5,226 9,112 11,310 22,832 45,029

4 7 2,970 3,165 3,471 5,341 8,574 10,185 19,526 50,612

Total (E)

Local alloca­ tion tax

— 6 43) 9 5,272 2,0324) 5,439 2,2405> 6,109 2,591s* 10,567 4,8757> 17,686 8,298s* 21,495 9,850s* 42,358 19.79910* 95,641 38,733n >

National Local treasury Pre­ transfer disburse- fectures taxes ments f — —

293 324 327 308 592 692 1,258 3,027

3 6 3,214 3,502 4,136 7,081 12,628 14,065 25,660 66,772

8 4,197 4,586 5,359 9,438 15,381 17,446 30,349 66,260

Total Munici­ palities g —

2 1,342 1,480 1,695 2,826 6,137 7,161 16,368 42,272

Total h

Prefec­ tures C+f

Munici­ palities D+g

Grand total E +h

3 10 5,539 6,066 7,054 12,264 21,518 24,607 46,717 108,532

2 10 6,499 6,860 7,997 14,664 24,493 28,756 53,181 111,289

4 9 4,312 4,645 5,166 8,167 14,711 17,346 35,894 92,884

9 18 10,811 11,505 13,163 22,831 39,204 46,102 89,075 204,173

Including the payment of the state monopoly to the government and various taxes of special accounts. Excluding the local costs returned to the central government. Local transfer tax. Rate of local allocation tax: 26%, (5): 27.5%, (6): 28.5%, (7): 28.9% (8): 29.5, (9), (10), (11): 32.0%. Yearbook o f Local A utonom y, 1978, ibid., p. 667, and other documents provided by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

741 Table 4-16-ii. By Percentage

Fiscal year

Total amount of taxes (A)

National taxes among total amount of taxes (B)/(A)

1935 1941 1947 1958 1959 1962 1966 1967 1971 1976

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

66.7 84.5 69.5 68.6 69.2 69.3 67.4 67.2 66.6 63.7

Real distribution to Prefectures among total amount of taxes C+f/(A)

Municipalities among total amount of taxes D+g/(A)

11.1 17.2 37.6 39.5 40.3 42.5 45.1 43.9 41.9 42.2

22.2 15.5 24.9 26.8 26.0 23.7 27.1 26.5 28.3 35.2 Note: A, B, C, D, f, g and h should be referred to Table -4—16—i. Source: See the Table 4—16—i.

Prefectures and Municipalities among total amount of taxes E+h/(A) 50.0 31.0 62.5 66.3 66.4 66.2 72.2 70.4 70.3 77.4

Table 5-1. Ratios of Owner-operated Cultivated Land and Tenanted Cultivated Land ___________________ Unit: % Owner-operated Tenanted Total cultivated land cultivated land About 18731> 79 31 100 about 18872> 66 34 100 about 19053) 55 45 100 19144> 54.5 45.5 100 Source: 1) Tenanted land was estimated at 31.1 per cent in 1873 by H irano Yoshitaro, Nippon Shihonshugi Shakai no K iko (M echanism s o f Japanese Capitalistic Society), Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo, 1934, p. 78. 2), 3) M eicho shu, vol. 9, p. 86. 4) One H undred Years o f Agricultural Statistics, p. 120.

Table 5-2.

Rent of Paddy Field per 10 Ares (1885-1920)

Upper class Lower class of of paddy field paddy field 1885

koku 1.26

koku 0.86

Average koku 0.970

Index (1885 = 100)


Ratio to yield °/ /o 58 Ratio to yield

Paddy field Paddy field of of one crop double crop koku koku 0.898 1.156 1908-12 1916-20 0.972 1.195 Note: Koku=approximately 150 kg. Source: Ogura, Tochi Rippo, p. 300.


Index (1885=100)

koku 1.027 1.084

105.9 111.8

Paddy Paddy field of field of one crop double crop °/ /o % 54 57 51 55

Table 5-3.

Number and Scale of Tenancy Disputes Of which cause is


Total number

1917 1920 1923 1926 1929 1932 1935 1938 1941

case 85 408 1,917 2,751 2,434 3,414 6,824 4,615 3,308

a poor crop because of bad weather, insects, pests, etc.

related to the tenancy right or reversion of the leased land to the landowner





Number of participating landowners

Number of participating tenants

Area of related land


Average per dispute


Average per dispute


Average per dispute







5,236 32,712 39,705 23,505 16,706 28,574 15,422 11,037

12.8 17.1 14.4 9.7 4.9 4.2 3.3 3.3

* 34,605 134,503 151,061 81,998 61,499 113,164 52,817 32,289

84.9 70.2 54.9 33.7 18.0 16.6 11.4 9.8

27,390 89,080 95,652 56,831 39,028 70,745 34,359 21,898

67.1 46.5 34.8 23.3 11.4 10.4 7.4 6.6



102 1,232 1,957 1,232 1,057 2,451 896 665

25.0 64.3 71.1 50.6 31.0 35.9 19.4 20.1


14 316 704 1,520 3,031 2,562 1,447

0.7 11.5 28.9 44.5 44.4 55.5 43.7

Note: * The figure shown in Basic Statistics is 3,465 but it is corrected as shown in the table. Source: Basic Statistics, p. 107.

743 Table 5-4.

Real Rent Paid per Tan (1921-1945) Upland field

Paddy field Year

Upper class

Medium class

Lower class

Index in value terms 1934-36 = 100 (%)

Upper class

Medium class

Lower class

Index 1934-36 = 100 (%)

yen yen yen koku koku koku 12.23 148.9 25.57 18.75 116.5 1.17 0.88 1.44 158.5 19.96 12.89 139.9 26.91 0.81 1.34 1.09 149.2 12.31 26.26 18.78 1.02 0.79 125.0 1.26 126.6 10.06 96.0 22.11 15.94 0.75 1.03 1.26 86.7 10.92 6.92 15.21 74.5 1.25 1.02 0.74 110.4 8.80 13.90 107.8 19.29 1.03 0.75 1.26 10.82 134.6 16.94 23.19 0.78 129.9 1.29 1.06 160.0 13.88 26.26 20.14 162.1 0.97 0.74 1.17 198.8 25.03 17.28 1043.3 34.06 1.02 0.76 1.22 (1) One tan is approximately 10 ares=0.245 acre. (2) One koku is approximately 150 kg. (3) Index (1934-36=100) is related to medium class of paddy field (1.03 koku) or upland field (¥12.59). But index of paddy field rent is shown in terms of value which is calculated according to the price of spot trading at the Fukagawa market. Source: Basic Statistics, pp. 122-3.

1921 1924 1927 1930 1933 1936 1939 1942 1945 Note:

Table 5-5

Scattered Plots of Cultivated Land

Classification of rural community by land use

Per chobu of paddy field Number of scattered plots

Total one way distance

Per chobu of upland field Number of scattered plots

cho With paddy field more than 70% With paddy field of 30 to 70% With upland field more than 70% With mulberry gardens more than 30% Note:

Total one way distance

Number of


plots per family farm

of one way per family

Paddy field

Upland field

Paddy field

Upland field









Area of 1 plot

Farming area per family farm













































(1) This table is based on the survey of one rural community for each of 1,490 towns and villages nationwide in 1940. (2) Hokkaido and Okinawa are not covered. (3) 1 cho is a distance of 109.08 m or 59.64 feet. 1 tan is an area of 9.917 ares or 0.245 acres. 1 chobu is area of 99.17 ares or 2.45 acres. (4) One way is the distance to a plot from the farm household. Source: Basic Statistics, p. 65.

745 Table 5-6.

Index Number of Plant Production (1925-1929=100)

Year 1879-1882 1883-1887 1888-1892 1893-1897 1898-1902 1903-1907 1908-1912 1913-1917 1918-1922 1923-1927 1928-1932 1933-1937 1938-1942 1943 1944 Note:

Total of plant sector


Grain other than rice

53.5 2)70.7 3)72.4 4>69.6 76.9 81.7 89.1 97.9 102.7 98.2 101.2 109.0 112.7 107.8 101.1

52.1 56.8 65.4 63.4 73.4 77.9 85.1 92.9 99.1 97.6 101.7 106.6 106.8 105.8 98.5

57.2 65.7 69.5 88.2 96.9 91.3 104.0 111.8 108.4 97.0 94.8 104.4 114.3 90.0 111.5


Total agricultural product


133.4 139.9 157.6 160.1 112.9 91.2 89.6 84.3 87.6 68.1

5)104.5 112.4 115.7 107.4 95.7

1) 2) 3) 4) 5)


Table 5--7.

Figures include Okinawa Prefecture except 1944. 1887. 1892. 1894-1897. 1930-1932. Basic Statistics, p. 220.

Production of Paddy Field Rice (1883-1955) (Index: 1934-1936=100) Planted area

Year cho 2,588,582 2,703,937 2,721,746 2,760,532 2,806,416 2,863,192 2,929,169 2,980,355 3,017,680 3,094,440 3,060,076 3,041,143 2,853,078 2,897,428 2,910,483

Yield per tan

koku Index (% ) koku Index (%) 33,596,641 58.4 1,298 69.1 38,621,117 67.1 1,428 76.0 37,307,231 64.9 1,371 73.0 41,849,234 72.8 1,516 80.7 45,621,285 79.3 1,626 86.5 49,648,978 86.3 1,734 92.3 53,991,235 93.9 1,843 98.1 57,425,707 99.8 1,927 102.6 56,659,998 98.5 1,878 99.9 59,139,394 102.8 1,911 101.7 61,452,009 106.8 2,008 106.9 62,142,208 108.0 2,043 108.7 55,509,980 96.5 1,946 103.6 62,681,060 109.0 2,163 115.1 63,281,033 110.0 2,174 115.7 Note: 1) One cho is approximately one hectare. 2) One tan is approximately ten ares. 3) One koku is estimated at about 140 kg in 1880-1900, about 145 kg 1910-1920 and 150 kg in recent years. Source: Basic Statistics, p. 226.

1883-1887 1888-1892 1893-1897 1898-1902 1903-1907 1908-1912 1913-1917 1918-1922 1923-1927 1928-1932 1933-1937 1938-1942 1943-1947 1948-1952 1953-1955

Index (%) 84.6 88.3 88.9 90.2 91.7 93.5 95.7 97.4 98.6 101.1 100.0 99.3 93.2 94.7 95.1

Production (Brown rice)

746 Table 5 -8 . Land Acquired by the Government for Redistribution through Rural Land Reform (As of Aug. 1, 1950) Total Paddy-fields Upland-fields (cho)* (cho) (cho)__________ (%) Purchased by the government (90.12% of the grand total) Tenanted Land: Land owned by absentee 276,630.3 629,756.1 353,125.8 landlords Land owned by 301,329.3 791^409.9 resident landlords 490,080.6 Land owned by corporate bodies, shrines, temples 39,500.8 31,329.1 70,829.9 and churches 77,755.8 115,295.1 Others 37,539.3 Land which had been the 2,692.0 5,305.8 object of emphyteusis** 2,613.8 Land submitted voluntarily 53,528.2 92,336.8 38,808.6 by landowners 976,388.5 728,545.1 1,704,933.6 Total (a) Owner-farmer land: Badly managed land belonging 1,031.5 1,571.2 2,602.7 to individuals 712.7 963.1 1,675.8 Sham owner-farmer land Badly managed land belonging to corporate bodies: shrines, temples and 383.1 707.0 churches 323.9 958.9 1,612.2 Other 653.3 Land surrendered voluntarily 9,859.8 by landowners 9,501.3 19,361.1 12,222.7 13,736.1 25,958.8 Total (b) 3,258.3 7,803.9 11,062.2 Non-cultivated land, etc. (c) Total (a + b + c) = (A) 991,869.5 750,085.1 1,741,954.6 Transferred from other ministries and offices (9.88% of the grand total) Land surrendered as property tax in kind by: 70,085.3 14,018.0 84,103.3 Resident landowners 85,499.7 71,645.8 13,853.9 Absentee landowners Land formerly used for military purposes (excluding undeveloped 592.1 5,163.8 5,755.9 land) 142,323.2 33,035.7 175,358.9 Total (d) Other national land under the jurisdiction of: 661.1 536.9 1,198.0 Ministry of Finance 7,482.0 Ministry of Education 1,035.3 8,517.3 Ministry of Agriculture 597.0 4,159.8 4,756.8 and Forestry 68.4 1,071.0 Forestry Agency 1,002.6 21.2 152.8 131.6 Others Total (e) 2,383.0 13,312.9 15,695.9 Total (d + e) = (B) 144,706.2 191,054.8 46,348.6 Grand Total (A + B)____________ 1,136,575.7 796,433.7 1,933,009.4

36.15 45.43 4.07 6.62 0.30 5.30 97.87 0.15 0.10

0.04 0.09 1.11 1.49 0.64 100.00 44.02 44.75

3.01 91.78 0.63 4.46 2.49 0.56 0.08 8.22 100.00

* One “cho”(“chobu”) is equal to 99.1736 ares, almost one hectare or 2.47 acres. ** Permanent tenant rights. Source: Agricultural Land Section, MAF, N o ch i-to K aih d Jisseki Chosa (S u rvey o f Actual R esu lts o f E m an cipation o f A gricu ltu ral Land, e tc .), as of August 1, 1950, Agricultural Land Section, MAF, Tokyo, 1956.

747 Table 5-9.

Public Expenditures for Rural Land Reform1’ Unit: yen

Organizations which spent the expenditures

Expenditures of central government

Financial source Prefectural Municipal expenditures expenditures


Current price — 380,595,913 380,595,913 — Central government — 1,692,814,047 1,422,388,715 270,425,332 Prefectures 11,063,130,363 8,520,349,077 297,002,121 2,245,779,165 Agr. land committees 13,136,540,323 10,323,333,705 567,427,453 2,245,779,165 Total 1947 price21 — 241,331,031 241,331,031 — Central government — 1,040,721,562 873,503,505 167,218,057 Prefectures 7,455,710,867 181,442,932 1,357,970,830 5,916,297,105 Agr. land committees 8,737,763,460 348,660,989 1,357,970,830 7,031,131,641 Total Note: 1) Total of fiscal years (Apr. to Mar.) of 1946,1947, 1948,1949 and 1950, excluding those related to uncultivated land. 2) Price index used for 1947 price is as follows: For 1946 fiscal year, 33.0 (Aug. to Mar.); for 1947, 100; for 1948, 168.8; for 1949, 196.5; for 1950, 189.1 Source: Nochi Kaikaku Kiroku Iinkai, N ochi K aikaku Tenm atsu Gaiyd ( The Outline oj Rural L and R eform Proceedings), p. 1196-7, Nosei Chosa Kai, 1951, Tokyo.

Table 5-10.

Ratio of Financial Sources and Ratio of Expenditures Spent by Public Organi­ zations for Rural Land Reform Central government


Agricultural land committee


°/ /o 4.0 11.9

% 15.5 85.3

% 100.0 100.0

% Provided by 80.5 2.8 Spent by Source: Op. cit., p. 1197.

Table 5-11. Changes in the Amount of Agricultural Land Cultivated by Owner-Farmers and Tenants (Unit: 1,000 ha) Owner-farmed Land

Tenanted Land 2,368 (46%) 515 (10%) 272 ( 5%) 297 ( 6%) 245 ( 5%)


5,156 (100%) (1945) 2,787 (54%) 5,200(100%) (1950) 4,685 (90%) 5,091 (100%) 4,819(95%) (1965) 5,156 (100%) (1970) 4,859 (94%) 4,783 (100%) 4,538 (95%) (1975) Source: For 1945 and 1950: Agricultural Land Bureau, MAF, Statistics on the Results o f the L and R eform . For 1965, 1970, and 1975: MAF, The Censuses oj Agriculture.

Before reform After reform Thereafter

748 Table 5-12.

Changes in the Number of Farm Households by Type of Land Tenure Unit: 1,000 households


Mainly ownerfarmer, part tenant

Mainly tenant, part ownerfarmer


1,114 1,102 1,729 (20%) (20%) (31%) 1,591 411 (1950) 3,821 After reform (62%) (26%) ( 7%) 857 157 Thereafter (1965) 4,538 (80%) (15%) ( 3%) 117 4,126 599 (1975) (84%) (12%) ( 2%) Note: (1) The definition of types of management is by total farmed area, as follows: Owner-farmer: over 90% Mainly owner-farmer, part tenant: 50-90% Mainly tenant, part owner-farmer: 10-50% Tenant: less than 10% (2) Excludes Okinawa Prefecture. Source: The Censuses o f Agriculture. Before reform

Table 5-13.

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975




5,537 1,574 18 (100%) (28%) (0%) 312 6,176 41 (100%) ( 5%) 0 %) 100 12 5,665 (100%) ( 2%) (0%) 4,905 11 53 (100%) (0%) ( 1%) per cent of owned land in the

Changes in Rent (Japan excluding Hokkaido) Average rent paid Rent as % to gross (per farm household) agricultural income of (yen) farm households 509 0.27 0.27 964 1,158 0.34 2,300 0.55 4,500 0.48 12,500 0.63

Rent per 10 ares (yen) 565 1,252 1,628 3,382 6,250 16,447

Note: The rent is the average for rent on paddy, upland, and other land. Source: MAF, N dka Keizai Chosa (Farm H ousehold Economy Survey ) for each year. Table 5-14.

Distribution of National Agricultural Income before and after Land Reform Income from rent %

Before reform 1934 1935 1936 After reform: 1950 1951 1952 Source:

Capital income %

Labor income %

Rate of reservation %

Rate of flow away from the farm %

36.94 34.89 32.45

7.83 6.84 6.26

55.23 58.27 61.29

76.01 76.44 77.95

23.99 23.56 22.05

4.05 3.22 3.71

6.81 6.56 7.80

89.14 90.22 88.49

96.59 96.97 96.46

3.41 3.03 3.54

BABA Keinosuke, “Distribution Structure of Agricultural Income,” N ogyo Sogo K enkyu, vol. 9, No. 3, published by the Research Institute of Agricultural Economics, MAF.

749 Table 5-15.

Improvements in the Standard of Living of Farmers

Adjusted farm household income (yen) Before reform 1934-36 After reform 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 Source:

Adjusted disposable income (yen)

Consumption standard




840 912 974 985 953 1,045

758 832 892 907 874 958

98.6 109.4 122.3 127.9 128.5 131.2

MAF, Growth and Structural Change o f Agriculture A fter the War , 1957.

Table 5-16.

Changes in Fixed Agricultural Investment after Rural Land Reform Unit: ¥100,000,000 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 Land 165 233 317 504 796 704 613 Buildings 108 178 279 362 468 519 459 Farm machinery 142 179 189 301 426 461 461 Plants 16 17 27 51 70 86 97 Animals 150 142 202 253 184 276 282 Total agricultural investment 581 749 1,014 1,471 1,944 2,046 1,912 Total converted into 1952 prices 725 1,023 1,044 1,471 1,741 1,752 1,699 Source: MAF, Social Accounting o f Farming and Farm Households.

Table 5-17.

Number of Extension Specialists and Workers Unit: Person


Extension for farming improvement Specialists

1948 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1977

316 577 584 633 677 673 654

Workers 5,828 9,394 10,750 10,818 10,672 10,436 9,697 9,475


Extension for home life improvement Specialists


9,710 16 689 11,327 89 1,476 11,402 92 1,820 11,305 233 2,207 11,113 224 2,171 10,370 183 2,025 10,129 169 1,998 Note: From 1948 to 1955, as of the end of the calendar year. From 1960, as of the end of the fiscal year (March 31). Source: MAF, A nnual Report on Agricultural Extension Services.

Grand total

Total 705 1,565 1,912 2,440 2,395 2,208 2,167

5,828 10,415 12,892 13,314 13,745 13,510 12,578 12,296


Table 5--18. Index of Investment in Goods for Agricultural Production (1934-1936=100) Total 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1962 1964 1965



Agricultural machines & implements

Agricultural chemicals 190.0 319.1 505.2 618.0 678.8 824.1 1,041.7 1,270.0 1,479.0 1,740.0 2,078.0 2,641.0 3,278.0 3,835.0 4,523.7

212.5 42.9 79.6 106.4 261.8 58.1 93.2 123.9 290.3 81.5 104.7 151.8 293.3 112.2 86.1 174.6 320.5 94.9 122.8 190.1 315.5 114.0 128.3 197.5 492.5 98.9 136.0 191.2 544.9 101.6 199.0 141.2 595.1 li9.5 148.6 224.1 689.8 150.0 157.0 262.1 975.0 192.0 157.9 276.1 1,000.1 252.1 172.0 340.2 1,139.0 179.0 312.5 380.5 1,385.0 187.6 372.0 439.0 1,568.1 398.6 196.6 467.1 N ote: The index figures have been arrived at by converting the average investment per household to base-year prices by means of the appropriate price index. Source: Calculated from The Farm H ousehold Economy Survey and The R ural Price Indices, MAF.

Table 5-19.

Relative Productivity of Agriculture before and after the Enactment of the Agricultural Basic Law

Real national income per employed person (1000 yen) ---------------------------------------------------------------Agriculture Manufacturing Non­ agriculture (A) (B) " (Q 254.7 76.7 263.1 263.1 266.9 79.9 256.7 264.8 86.4 299.9 316.8 90.1 338.6 374.2 99.3 378.8 404.9 101.9 405.2 394.1 114.5 440.7 428.8 123.6 454.6 473.8 136.5

Relative productivity of agriculture (%) (A)/(B)


29.1 29.9 33.6 28.5 26.5 25.2 28.3 28.0 28.8

30.1 30.3 32.6 30.1 29.3 26.9 29.1 28.8 30.0

1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 Note: The figures are based on the prices in 1960. Source: MAF, Annual Report on Agricultural Situation in 1965, p. 36.

751 Table 5-20.

Comparisons o f Farm s’ Household Economy before and after the W ar (in ¥ )

Average 1934-1936 1961 Owners t Returns Agricultural < Expenditures l Income

840 248 593

Tenants 773 412 361

979 478 501



Nonagricultural income Total r Taxes and imposts Expenditure { Rent l Interest Disposable income Domestic expenditures Surplus

170 531 19 (223) (17) 512 489 23 87 5.6

804 67 (16) (ID 737 637 99

796 1,297 103 (3) (10) 1,194 1,133 61

81 85 Cultivated Area (ares) 5.6 5.2 Number of persons in family Note: Converted to 1934-1936 prices. The sums included in rent, taxes and imposts, agricultural expenditure, domestic expenditures, etc., are given twice. Hokkaido not included. Source: Calculated from The Farm H ousehold Economy Survey, quoted from OUCHI Tsutomu. “The Japanese Land Reform”, Developing Economies, vol. IV, p. 142, The Institute of Asian Economic Affairs, Tokyo, June 1966. Table 5-21.

Number of Powered Agricultural Machines Owned per Farm Household (Unit: 1,000)

Powered Powered Engines threshing Powered Rice Powered machines sprayers planters cultivators — 1951 18 382 972 20 — — 1956 141 1,476 2,210 — 1961 1,020 1,673 2,702 232* — — — 1966 2,764 717 — — 1971 3,469 1,149 77 — — 1976 3,904 1,325 1,046 1,247 1977 4,015 1,382 — Note: *1960. Powered cultivators include agricultural tractors. Source: Basic Statistics, Revised, pp. 168-9. Statistical Yearbook, of MAF, 1976--77, pp. 72--3. Table 5-22.

Combines, auto-threshers — — — —

84 428 530

Recent Transition of Agricultural Capital Investment 1960


Unit: 100 million yen 1970 1975 9,036 4,168 5,090 4,488 3,951 8,531 597 729 909 510 24,293 13,715 13,857 13,715

Land 1,082 2,254 Buildings 1,628 536 Farm machinery 1,266 2,404 131 390 Plants Animals 162 287 3,177 6,963 Total agricultural investment Total converted into 1970 prices 5,062 8,933 Note: This table is not a continuation of Table 5-16 because the definition of terms and the statistical method are different. Source: MAF, Social Accounting o f Farming and Farm Households.


Table 5-23. Relative Productivity of Agriculture (1960-1979) (Unit: ¥1,000, %) Net national product per employed person ¥1,000 (nominal) Fiscal Year 1960 1965 1970 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 Note:

Agriculture (A)

Manufacturing (B)

Non-agricul­ ture (C)

95.7 185.7 341.4 941.1 996.6 1,026.5 1,038.5 1,089.0

473.7 728.6 1,513.8 2,631.7 3,080.7 3,496.3 3,661.4 4,001.2

379.0 661.6 1,352.0 2,529.4 2,818.4 3,066.8 3,311.5 3,476.5

Relative productivity 70

(A) / (B)

(A) / (C)


25.3 28.1 25.3 37.2 35.4 33.5 31.4 31.3


22.6 35.8 32.3 29.4 28.4 27.2

1) Since the estimation method for national accounts has been changed, the previous table 5-23 is replaced by this new one. 2) Fiscal year (From April to March).

Source: Table 5--24.

A n n u a l R ep o rt on the A gricultural Situation in 1980 (The Agricultural White Paper. 1980), p. 59.

Annual Growth Rate of Agricultural Production Unit: % Agricultural Production2*

GNP (real)1' 8.7 9.7 9.4


2.1 1955-60 2.2 1960-65 2.2 1955-65 2.4 11.6 1965-70 1.0 5.3 1970-75 A2.5 5.7 1976 2.2 10.0 1955-70 1.9 8.8 1955-75 1.7 8.7 1955-76 N ational Incom e based on 1965 1) Economic Planning Agency, A nnual Report on prices.

2) MAF, Index Num ber o f Production o f Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Table 5-25. Agricultural Production Index Number (1970= 100; 1975 = 100) Total crops



54.7 71.9 79.5 89.0

72.8 91.1 97.3 96.3

79.1 97.2 100.9 97.7

25.4 32.7 56.6 69.3










100.0 122.8 100.0

97.3 104.8 106.0 106.2

94.4 101.9 100.7 99.4

Total agriculture

Year 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 Source:





96.4 91.5

97.4 105.0

Animal products 10.5 25.5 36.4

68.0 100.0 112.6 100.0 104.8 113.5 120.9 125.1

Statistics (and Information) Department, MAFF, Index-N um bers o f Agricultural Production.

753 Table 5-26.

Price Relationship Price Index of Terms of trade

1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965

Agricultural products (A) 97.2 94.7 96.2 93.3 94.9

Material for agricultural production (B) 98.9 98.8 101.9 97.9 96.4

Industrial products (C) 105.9 105.7 107.4 104.0 100.5






Iraq 1971

Austria 1960

United Kingdom 1970

Italy 1970 Poland 1970 France 1970 Yugoslavia 1970 Portugal 1968 Germay F.R. of 1960 Netherlands 1971 Norway 1969 Spain 1972 Sweden 1971 New Zealand 1971/72

Oceania Note:


1) Excluding holdings with less than one hectare. 2) Cultivated area. 3) Excluding provinces situated south of the Colorado River. 4) Farm households only. 5) Excluding Goa. 6) Excluding area of holdings in Sabah. FAO, Production Yearbook , 1976, p. 26.

Australia 1970


Table 6-2.

Agricultural Area and Number of Socialist Farms Year: 1974 Agricultural area (1,000 ha)

Bulgaria1* Czechoslovakia East Germany Hungary Poland Rumania U.S.S.R. Note:


State farm

4,911 5,599 5,613 5,514 3,260 10,107 527,358

961 1,436 452 860 2,984 2,057 338,883

Coopera­ tive farm 3,950 4,163 5,161 4,654 276 8,050 188,475

Number of units State farm 148 290 489 150 3,069 370 17,705

Coopera­ tive farm 696 3,619 7,565

2,201 1,066 4,420 30,045

Average agr. area per unit (ha)2* State farm

Coopera­ tive farm

6,493 4,952 924 5,733 972 5,559 19,141

5,675 1,150 682 2,114 259 1,821 6,273

1) Figures of 1972. The organizational distinction has lost its original meaning because of the establishment of the “Agro-Industrial Complex”. 2) The averages are calculated by the author for reference. Source: Translated and arranged from Communist Economic Conference, Statistical Year­ book 1975 (Russian edition) by Y amauchi Takeo, Senior Researcher, Institute of Developing Economies (Tokyo).

T a b le 6 - 3 . P o s itio n o f A g ricu ltu re in th e N a tio n a l E c o n o m y

Personal consumption expenditure (billions of yen) Share of expenditure for food and drink (%) Net domestic product (billions of yen) Share of agricultural products (%) Total amount of exports (millions of dollars) Share of agricultural products (%) Total amount of imports (millions of dollars) Share of agricultural products (%) 0 Population engaged in industry ( 10 ,0 0 0 persons) Share of population engaged in agriculture (%) Total amount of gross domestic fixed capital formation (billions of yen) Share of total amount of agri­ cultural fixed capital formation (%) National budget of general account (10 0 millions of yen) Share of agriculturally related budget (%) 1) Source:









































4,055 4.1 4,419 19.7 4,465 26.8

5,048 6.6

17,652 7.9

8,452 1.8

8,169 23.7 4,754 20.6

9,910 7.4 37,447 9.2

Excluding cotton, wool and natural rubber. Statistical A n n e x fo r 1980, pp.10—11.

19,318 1.9 18,881 17.2 5,109 15.9

26,684 3.8 82,131 10 .6

55,753 0.7 57,863 16.7 5,240 1 1 .2

49,341 4.5 208,302 9.6

67,225 0.5 64,799 15.1 5,282 10 .8

52,709 5.0 246,502 8.8

80,495 0.5 70,809 14.7 5,358 10 .6

57,480 5.4 293,466 7.9

97,543 0.5 79,343 14.3 5,427 10.5

64,187 5.0 344,400 7.7

103,032 0.7 110,672 12.7 5,493 9.9

71,542 4.9 396,676 7.5

Table 6-4.

Composition of Expenditure for Final Consumption of Foods Unit of amount: 100 million yen Unit of ratio: % 1960

Expenditure for final consumption of foods 1. Value of agricultural products Domestic agricultural products Imports 2. Value of marine products Domestic fishing products Imports 3. Expenditure for distribution Expenditure for commerce Expenditure for transportation 4. Expenditure for food processing 5. Services for meals outside












45,251 17,314 15,976 1,338 2,441 2,416 25 8,635 7,658 977 14,000 2,861


80,229 29,058 26,080 2,978 4,355 4,283 72 18,132 16,124 2,008 23,233 5,451


145,873 44,624 39.732 4,892 7,977 7,551 426 39,072 35,734 3,338 40,430 13,770


307,065 84,300 73,860 10,440 17,477 15,911 1,566 81,718 74,438 7,280 76,225 47,345


38.3 35.3 3.0 5.4 5.3 0.1

19.1 16.9 2 .2

30.9 6.3

36.2 32.5 3.7 5.4 5.3 0.1 22.6 20.1

2.5 29.0 6.8

30.5 27.2 3.3 5.5 5.2 0.3 26.8 24,5 2.3 27.8 9.4

27.5 24.1 3.4 5.7 5.2 0.5 26.6 24.2 2.4 24.8 15.4


(1) This table is originally formulated according to the Input-Output Table. (2) Foods include alcoholic beverages, tobacco and marine products. (3) Expenditure for final consumption of food includes expenditure outside household and government expenditure for food besides household expenditure. (4) Expenditure for distribution does not include the expenditure for transactions with the food industry. (5) Expenditure for food processing includes imported processed food. (6) Expenditure for food processing is calculated by deducting expenditure for agricultural and marine products, expenditure for distribution and for services for meals outside, from the home expenditure for the final consumption of food. (7) The figures of 1975 are provisional. Source: Research Section of the Ministerial Secretariat, MAF.



Table 6-5.

Share of Food and Petroleum in the Total Imports1' Unit: million of $

Total import (A) Food commodities (B)2' Soybeans Food commodities and soybeans (C) Crude oil and raw oil (D) Percentage (B)/(A) (C)/(A) (D)/(A) Balance of trade3' Current balance3' Note:













4,491 548 107

8,169 1,470 226

18,881 2,574 366

19,712 2,917 421

23,470 3,607 474

38,314 6,009 772

62,110 882

57,863 8,815 940

64,799 9,376 842

70,809 10,105 1,093

79,343 11,403 1,131

110,672 14,415 1,272

655 465

1,696 1,047

2,940 2,236

3,338 3,048

4,081 3,927

6,781 6,000

9,004 18,898

9,755 19,644

10,218 21,185

11,198 23,573

12,534 23,433

15,687 23,471

12 .2


14.6 10.4


13.6 15.6



14.8 16.9 15.5

15.4 17.4 16.7

15.7 17.7 15.7

13.1 14.5 30.4

15.2 16.9 34.0

14.5 15.8 32.7

14.3 15.8 33.3

14.4 15.8 29.5

1,901 932

3,963 1,970

7,787 5,797

8,971 6,624




9,887 3,680

17,311 10,918

24,596 16,534

8 ,12 2


a 136

a 4 ,6 9 3

1) C.I.F. basis. 2) Food commodities are according to STC. No. 1, which does not include soybeans. 3) IMF basis, a Imbalance. Soruce: The Bank of Japan, Balance o f Paym ents, monthly.

a 6 82

13.0 14.2 30.2 1,845 a 8 ,7 5 4


Table 6- 6 . Prospect for Economy of 1985 Table 6—6—i. Gross National Product Unit: 1,000 billion yen at 1970 price The figures in ( ) is component ratio


Gross national product Consumption expenditure Out of which personal consumption Gross fixed capital formation

Average growth rate of 1975-1985 Case Case 13) 24>


19752 )

Case 13)

Case 24)

Average growth rate of 1975-77=)

Average growth rate of 1960-19706'









42.8 (59.4)

58.1 (62.7)

97.9 (59.9)







37.0 (51.2)

49.9 (53.9)

85.8 (52.5)

87.9 (52.1)





14.6 7.1 3.5 59.6 6.0 30.0 53.9 25.4 (32.4) (33.0) (35.4) (35.3) Note: 1) Actual results. 2) Estimation of actual results. 3) Case 1 is according to the assumption that the prices of primary products tend to rise. 4) Case 2 is according to the assumption that the said prices tend to be stabilized comparatively. 5) and 6) are actual. In addition, the other important assumptions are omitted here. Source: Showa 50 nendai Z e n k i K eizai K eikaku (Economic Plan fo r 1976 to 1980), Economic Planning Agency, May 1976.

Table 6- 6-ii.

Industrial Structure

Unit: % Average anunal growth rate 1970-1985

1985 1970 Case 1

Case 2 2.5 60.6 48.1

Case 1 1.4 5.3 5.1

Case 2 1.4 5.5 5.2 6.7

4.5 2.5 Primary industry 61.2 60.4 Secondary industry 48.4 Of which manufacture 50.4 6.2 10 .2 11.5 12 .0 and construction 5.9 6.1 37.1 36.9 34.3 Tertiary industry about about about about Amount of gross output 5.5 350 360 5.4 159.2 in 1970 price (unit: 1,000 Billion yen) Note: (1) This table represents the amount of gross output based on the input-output tables, accounted by constant value of the 1970 calendar year. (2) The classification of industry is as follows: Primary industry..............agriculture, forestry and fisheries Secondary industry..........mining, manufacture and construction Tertiary industry..............public utilities, commerce, service business and those of indefinite classification. (3) As to case 1 and case 2, see note 3) and 4) of Table 6- 6-i. Source: Op. cit., p. 132.


Table 6- 6-iii.

Employment Structure Unit: % 1985


8.7 17.4 Primary industry 36.7 35.2 Secondary industry 54.6 47.4 Tertiary industry Note: (1) Based on the S u r v e y o f th e L a b o r F orce. (2) Classification of industry is the same as in Table 6- 6-ii. Source: Op. cit., p. 132.

Table 6-7.

Prospective Number of Family Farms and Population engaged in Agriculture Unit of farm: 10,000 Unit of population: 10,000 persons 1972

Number of family farms Family farm population Persons per family farm Population engaged in agriculture Principal males engaged in farming (under 60 years) Source:

C h o k i M ito s h i,

516 2,467 4.8 687 192

1985 about 430 about 1,880 4.3 410-430 120-130

Ratio of annual decrease al.3 a2 .1 a3.9~a3.5 a3.1~a2.8

p. 38.

Table 6- 8 . Agricultural Establishments Except Family Farms Table 6—8—i. Number Agricul- Governtural ment Coopera­ Limited Other coops., and Others companies companies and other municipal Schools tive Total associa­ bodies farms tions 998 743 2,436 4,697 871 1,008 1,477 1970 12,230 2,314 1,237 1,443 1,531 1,1 0 1 731 4,164 1975 12,521 797 52 7 331 1,157 1,424 7,932 4,164 I — — 341 783 3 6 331 1,464 II — 1,200 77 13 403 708 724 III 3,125 1,187 2,312 1,679 670 3,747 1,245 1,761 1980 12,601 I: Establishment intending to sell agricultural produce. II: Grassland farming. I ll: Other purpose. Source: P o c k e t E d itio n , 1978, p. 126; A d v a n c e R e p o r t o f th e 1 9 8 0 W o r ld C e n su s [/], p. 57.

Table 6- 8-ii.

Area (1975) Unit: Establishment, number; area, ha.

Agricultural establishments

Total 204,132

12,521 Source:

Cultivated land area

P o c k e t E d itio n ,

1978, p. 107.

Paddy 9,938

Upland field 194,193

761 Table 6- 8-iii.

Number of Agricultural Establishments (except Family Farms) by Size of Cultivated Land (1975) Total

Total Coop, farms Companies Others Grassland farming

Exceptional1* Under 1 ha

9,396 4,164 2,581 1,187 1,464

3,436 1,253 1,635 547 1

1 -1 0

1,059 566 171 274 48


2,527 1,482 415 198 432

10 ha and cover

2,374 863 360 168 983

N ote: Establishments of which cultivated land is less than 10 Ares in Eastern Japan and less than 5 Ares in Western Japan, but of which the value of sales is ¥70,000 and over. Source: P ocket Edition, 1978, p. 126.

Table 6- 8-iv.

Number of Agricultural Establishments Intending to Sell Agricultural Produce except Family Farms, by Sales Value (1975) Total

Total Coop, farms Company Others Source:

No sale

7,932 4,164 2,581 1,187

237 138 57 42

Under ¥ 1 ,000,000

¥ 1 ,000 ,00010 ,000,000

¥ 10 ,000,000 and over

1,137 887 61 189

2,691 1,777 490 424

3,867 1,362 1,973 532

P ocket Edition, 1978, p. 124.

Table 6-9. Number of Family Farms by Size of Cultivated Land Table 6-9-i. Prefectures excluding Hokkaido Unit: 1,000 farms

1975 1976 1977


Under 0.5 ha


4,819 4,761 4,709

1,995 1,920 1,911

1,436 1,436 1,416

1 .0 - 1 .5

1 .5-2.0


3.0 ha and over

727 727 710

349 236 76 347 242 88 339 242 90 Note: Including Okinawa Prefecture as of Feb. 1, 1975 and as of Jan. 1, 1976 and 1977. Source: P ocket Edition, 1978, p. 119.

Table 6—9—il.

1975 1976 1977 Source:


Unit: 1,000 farms Under 20.0 ha and Total 5.0-10.0 1 .0 - 1 .5 10 .0- 20.0 1.0 ha over 27 134 48 32 16 10 130 23 46 33 17 12 127 43 32 23 18 12 As of Feb. 1, 1975 and as of Jan. 1, 1976 and 1977. P ocket Edition, 1978, p. 119.


Table 6-10. Shares of Viable Family Farms in Agriculture ________________________________________________________ Unit: % Shares of viable family farms Minimum agricultural Number Area of Regular annual income Gross value of cultivated farm of for viable agricultural land farms worker family farms products ¥ 10,000

Agricultural fixed capital

48 8.6 23 24 16 19 9.1 27 22 21 83 18 25 150 (7.0) 6.6 18 19 19 310 (9.5) 9.2 36 28 30 27 (8.0) 7.4 35 375 26 28 27 Figures in ( ) under the “Number of farms” are those for the cases in which the subsidies for rice production adjustment and others are included in the agricultural income. Source: S ta tis tic a l A n n e x f o r 1 9 7 7 , p. 94; A n n u a l R e p o r t on th e A g r ic u ltu r a l S itu a tio n in 1 9 8 0 , p. 196.

1960 1965 1970 1975 1979 Note:

Table 6-11.

Number of Family Farms by the Sales Value of Agricultural Products (1975) Unit: Number of farms Under Total 300,000- 1,500,000- 3,000,000- 5,000,000- 10 ,000,000 family No sale 300,000 1,500,000 3,000,000 5,000,000 10,000,000 yen and yen yen yen yen yen over farms 4,953,071 545,612 155,727 Whole 906,128 1,470,087 1,779,948 73,024 22,545 11 .0 Japan % 100 18.3 29.7 35.9 3.1 1.5 0.5 21,869 25,702 26,387 Of which 134,263 18,031 12,834 24,805 4,635 Hokkaido 100 13.4 9.5 16.3 18.5 19.1 19.7 3.5 % Source: T he 1 9 7 5 C e n su s o f A g ric u ltu re . Table 6-12. Income Comparison of Family Farm Households and Wage Earner Households __________________________________________________________ Unit: %_________________ 1963 1965 1970 1972 1974 1975 1979 Family farm household Farming income/Total income








Wage earner household Income from employment/Total income





























Ratios of family farm to wage earner Income per household1) Income per member of household12) Disposable income per member of household3' 1) 2)

=Total income of family farm household/Real income of wage earner household. =Total income of family farm household per member of household/Real income of wage earner household per member of household. 3) =Disposable income of family farm household per member of household/ Disposable income of wage earner household per member of household. Source: S ta tis tic a l A n n e x f o r 1 9 7 6 , p. 41; S t a tis tic a l A n n e x f o r 1 9 7 7 , p. 43; S ta tis tic a l A n n e x f o r 1 9 8 0 , p. 49.

763 T a b le 6 - 1 3 . N u m b e r o f F a m ily F a rm s C la ssifie d b y F u ll-T im e an d P art-T im e

Unit: 1,000

1950 1960 1970 1975 1980


Full-time family farms


6,176 6,057 5,402 4,953 4,661

3,086 2,078 845 616 623

3,090 3,979 4,557 4,337 4,038

Part-time family farms I 1,753 2,036 1,814 1,259 1,0 0 2

II 1,337 1,942 2,743 3,078 3,036

I. Family farms earning main income from farming. II. Family farms earning main income from other jobs. Including Okinawa Prefecture for 1970 and 1975. Source: A d v a n c e R e p o r t o f th e 1 9 8 0 C ensu s, [ I ] p. 19.

Table 6-14, Number of Farm Household Members Engaged in Self-Farming Table 6 - 1 4 -i, By Male and Female Unit: 1,000 persons Male

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980


(2 )

Grand Total


17,656 15,443 15,464 13,732 12,539

8,509 7,489 7,587 6,877 6,422

Note: Source:

Engaged in own farming and other (3) Engaged jobs only in self­ (4) (5) farming Mainly Mainly in self­ in other farming jobs 4,887 1,109 2,513 3,296 1,269 2,924 2,834 1,139 3,614 2,147 828 3,902 2,068 605 3,749

(6 ) Total

9,147 7,954 7,877 6,855 6,117

Female Engaged in self­ farming and (7) Engaged other jobs only in self­ ( 8) (9) farming Mainly Mainly in self­ in other farming jobs 8,209 337 601 6,318 631 1,005 5,593 685 1,599 514 4,418 1,923 3,968 332 1,818

Including Okinawa Prefecture in 1975 and 1980. of MAF, 1974-75, gp. 2 0 --21; 1 9 8 0 C ensu s, [ I ] , p. 32.

S ta tis tic a l Y e a r b o o k

A d v a n c e d R e p o r t, o f th e

Table 6 - 1 4 -ii, Engaged only in Self-Farming or Engaged in Self-Farming and in Other Jobs As Well. Unit: 1,000 persons Engaged in self-farming and other jobs Engaged Engaged only and mainly in Mainly Mainly only in self-farming self-farming Total in self­ in other farming jobs 1,446 3,114 14,542 1960 13,096 4,560 1965 9,614 11,514 5,829 1,900 3,929 8,427 7,037 1,824 5,214 10,251 1970 1975 6,565 7,167 1,342 5,825 7,907 1980 6,036 6,503 937 5,566 6,973 Note: Including Okinawa Prefecture in 1975 and 1980. Source: S ta tis tic a l Y e a r b o o k , ibid., pp. 20-21; th e 1 9 8 0 C ensu s, ibid., p. 32.

764 Table 6-14-iii.

Number of Principal Persons, Engaged in Self-Farming Unit: 1,000 persons Female Male Total 150 days 150 days Total Total and over and over 11,750 8,941 7,048 4,889

1960 1965 1970 1975

5,515 4,191 3,222 2,298

6,235 4,750 3,826 2,591



Note: Including Okinawa Prefecture in 1975. Source: Op.cit., pp. 22-23 ( T h e C e n s u se s o f A g r ic u ltu r e ). Table 6-15.

Number of Family Farms by Agricultural Working Status Unit: 1,000 Total family farms

1970 1975

5,342 4,953

Without regular farm workers

With only female regular farm workers

2,250 2,725

834 615

With one and over of male regular farm workers

With male regular farm workers of under 60 years old

2,258 1,612


Note: Excluding Okinawa Prefecture in 1970. Source: Op. cit., pp. 14-15 ( T h e C e n s u se s o f A g r ic u ltu r e ). Table 6-16. Population Engaged in Self-Farming Table 6-16-i. By Sex and Age Unit: 1,000 persons Female

Male Grand total

1960 1965 1970 1975

14,542 11,514 10,252 7,907


5,995 4,565 3,972 2,975

By age 16-29 30-59 60 and over

(41.2) (39.7) (38.8) (37.6)

4,645 748 2,528 663 1,994 446 1,389

1,350 1,290 1,316 1,140

By age


16-29 30-59 60 and over 8,546 6,949 6,279 4,932

(58.8) (60.4) (61.2) (62.4)

7,358 1,186 4,521 907 3,918 575 3,000

1,188 1,242 1,454 1,359

Note: Excluding Okinawa Prefecture in 1960, 1965 and 1970. Source: T h e C e n s u se s o f A g ric u ltu re . Table 6-16-ii.

1960 1965 1970 1975 Source:

Ratio of 60 Years Old and Over Population Engaged in Self-Farming to the Total Population Engaged in Self-Farming Unit: °/; Total




22.5 28.3 32.8 38.3

13.9 17.9 22.9 27.6


26.8 31.6

T h e C e n su se s o f A g ric u ltu re .


Table 6-17. Number of Family Farms Hiring Labor and Man-Days Unit: Family farms, 1,000 farms; man-days, 1,000 Regular farming Temporary farming Exchange of employees employees labor or mutual aid Farm hands Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number of of of of of of of of hiring employees hiring man-days receiving man-days receiving man-days farms (1 0 0 farms farms farms ( 1 0 farms) persons) 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 Note:


— 13,148 2,198 76,802 15,793 1 ,1 0 1 1,503 13,831 — 92,512 1,694 18,644 2,821 1,245 11,089 11,438 7,021 2,402 69,114 1,741 20,805 817 3,682 — 2,241 64,135 1,763 25,636 819 8,209 1,807 11,411 558 5,147 1,343 34,462 1 ,0 1 0 635 123 708.5 21,513.9 408.7 5,123.5 350.6 3,807.4 Exchange of labor or mutual aid means the traditional custom between the hamlet people or relatives for the exchange of labor or mutual aid. It is the relationship among groups organized by custom. Farm hand means a laborer who helps without compensation by cash or in kind, but through mutual aid assistance. It is rather an individual relationship. The Censuses o f Agriculture; A dvance R e p o rt o f th e 1980 Census, [I ] , p. 39.

Table 6-18. Area of Land under Tenure of Family Farms other than Cultivated Land Table 6—18— i. Area of Land under Tenure Unit: Area, 1,000 ha; number, 1,000 farms Of which forestry Area of land other than cultivated land Number of Area under tenure of farms family farms 5,715.8 2,492.9 n.a. | Whole Japan 1970 49.0 76.7 n.a. l Hokkaido 2,366.4 5,034.0 5,750.6 ( Whole Japan 1975 374.3 560.3 59.4 1 Hokkaido Source: T h e C e n s u se s o f A g ric u ltu re .

Table 6-18-ii. Area of Land Used by Family Farms for Meadow or Pasture other than Cultivated Land Unit: Area, 1,000 ha; number, 1,000 farms Meadow and pasture Meadow and pasture within forests Number of farms area 170.2 144.2 ( Whole Japan 1970 75.0 25.1 l Hokkaido 67.1 71.1 ( Whole Japan 1975 42.2 9.6 ( Hokkaido Note: Including Okinawa Prefecture in 1975. Source: T h e C e n s u se s o f A g ric u ltu re .

Number of farms 66.7 9.3 40.4 44.4

area 65.4 37.5 43.8 21.0

766 Table 6 -19. Family Forestry and its Forest Area Unit: 1,000 families; ha Family Forestry Number of Forest area per family families 1960 1970 1980

2,705.3 2,565.9 2,531.3

2.3 2.6 2.6

Of which Family farms Nonfamily farms Number of Forest area Number of Forest area families families 2,544.9 2,279.3 1,981.4

2.4 2.6

160.3 286.6 549.9

3.5 2.8

Note: 1) Okinawa Prefecture is not included in 1960 and 1970 2) The data of the survey is as of February 2, of the year, but in the case of Okinawa Prefecture, it is as of December 1, of the previous year. Source: A dvance R e p o rt o f th e 1980 Census, [ II] , p. 7.

Table 6—20. Number of New Entries in Fanning among New Graduates of Farm Household’s Sons and Daughters Unit: 1,000 persons

Total of new graduates Of which engaged (A) Of which engaged in farming (B) Ratio of graduates from high school (C), (%) Ratio of those engaged in farming (D), (%) Sons Total of new graduates of which engaged (A) of which engaged in farming (B) Ratio of those engaged in farming (C), (%)











1,334.7 598.4

917.6 311.6 9.9 81.8 3.2

853.7 281.5

848.4 298.2

1 0 .2

1 2 .0

39.7 11.4

1,161.6 496.6 36.7 67.6 7.4

79.4 3.6

75.8 4.0

765.6 274.1 9.0 78.9 3.3

743.4 265.3 7.0 85.3 2.9

729.4 261.6 7.0 74.3 2.7

673.5 299.7 41.8 13.9

594.2 252.4 26.1 10.3

463.6 150.8 7.9 5.2

428.0 137.2

426.8 147.3 10.7 7.1

388.7 134.7 7.6 5.7

373.5 130.1

368.7 128.8 5.8 4.5






New graduates include those from the middle school, the high school, the college and the university and other various schools, excluding the primary school. Figures for 1975 include Okinawa Prefecture. In 1975, out of 311.6 thousand new graduates who were engaged in employment, 27.7 thousand were graduates of middle school and 230.8 thousand were graduates of high school. Out of 230.8 thousand, 8.1 thousand were mainly engaged in farming. The total number of graduates mainly engaged in farming was 9.9 thousand. Therefore, the ratio of graduates from high school was 81.8 %. The figures are based on the graduates in March of the year, and surveyed as of April 30 of the year, except 1978 which was surveyed as of July 1 of the year. (C) = Graduates from high schools who were engaged in farming/(B) (D) = (B)/(A) MAF, N o ka Shugyo D o ko Chosa (Survey o f E m p lo y m e n t o f th e Farm H ousehold).

Table 6-21.

Dependence on External Help for Paddy Rice Farming Year: 1974 Unit: 1,000 family farms

By scale of paddy area planted by rice

Under 0.3 ha 0.3-0.5 0.5-1.0 1.0—1.5 1 .5-2.0 2.0-3.0 3.0Total

Total of family farms farming rice paddy

(a) 1,423 970 1,106 380 154 103 45 4,181

Number of family farms depending on external help for rice paddy farming (b)

Ratio of family farms depending on external help


Number of family farms depending on external help by kinds of work Raising Seedlings

Cultiva­ Planting tion


1,080 741 812 275 113 74 31 3,126

Note: Excluding Okinawa Prefecture. Source: Statistics and Information Department, MAF,

76 76 73 72 73 72 69 75

150 80 95 37

477 195 12 2


34 15



5 399

5 859

419 327 366 117 48 31 12


Control of insects and pests 285 219 285 124 64 44 24 1,044




366 164 123 32


203 54 19




4 818



Drying and hulling 747 512 501 133 38 19 5 1,953

In a s a k u K e ie i n i O k e r u N o s a n g y o n o G a ib u -izo n J y o k y o C h o sa H o k o k u ( R e p o r t o f th e

Survey on th e S itu a tio n o f W o r k in g D e p e n d e n c y in P a d d y F a rm in g ) (hereafter referred to G a ib u -izo n ), January 1974, pp. 24-30,1975.


Table 6-22.

Component Ratio of Family Farms Depending on External Help Classified by the Kinds of Work for Rice Paddy Farming ____________________________________________________ Year: 1974 Unit: % By kinds of works Average Raising seed­ lings

Culti­ vation

Plant­ ing



Component ratio of family farms depend­ ing on external help by the kinds of work Total



Working together by manual labor



Joint use of machines and facilities


Contract 73.2 With other family farms 41.7 15.7 With organizations With others 15.8 Source: Op. cit., p. 21.

28.7 28.4 14.2

76.5 14.1 1.4

Control Reap­ Thresh­ Drying of ing insects ing and and hulling pests














5.2 27.3

18.0 79.7

8.9 71.5

13.1 86.9


2 1.8

7.8 23.0 48.9

60.7 9.6

75.1 9.3 2.5

41.1 22.3 25.2

4.1 1.3

1 .2

Table 6-23. Contract of All Farming Work Table 6-23-i. By the Contracted Parties Year: 1974 Unit: One family farm Number of family farms by counterparts of contracts

Rice paddy farming Other crop farming


With other family farms

33,340* 2,890

29,740 2,570

With Of which organization contract of organizations production 2,760 230

2,600 190


950 90


* Since one family farm has more than one counterpart in a few cases, the total number of each family farm by counterparts exceeds the total number 33,340. Source: Op. cit., pp. 116-117 and 119. Table 6-23-ii.

By Fee of Contracts per 10 Ares Year: 1974 Unit: One family farm Number of family farms by amount of fee paid for contracts per 10 ares

Rice paddy farming* Other crop farming Note:

Under ¥ 20,000

2 0 ,000 -


¥50,000 and over

7,080 1,830

6,700 320


3,230 280



Gratis 1,130 240

* Since one family farm makes more than one contract in a few cases, the totalized number of each family farm by contract fees exceeds the total number (33, 340) of Table 6-23-i. Source: Op. cit., pp. 117 and 120.


Table 6 -2 4 . Organizations for Agricultural Production (Cooperative Groups for Agricultural Production) N u m b e r o f o rg an izatio n s ■----------------------------------------------

O rg an izatio n o f ag ricu ltu ral p ro d u c tio n (a)

O rg an izatio n f o r jo in t use

P addy rice W heat a n d b arley* F ru its V egetables H o rtic u ltu re in facilities S e ric u ltu re O th ers* ( b ) O rg an izatio n o f g ro u p ag reem en t o n c ro p farm ing P addy rice W heat a n d b arley* F ru its* V egetables H o rtic u ltu re in facilities* S ericu ltu re* O th ers* (c) C o n tra c t o rg an izatio n s C o n tra c t o f farm m an ag m en t C o n tra c t o f farm in g w o rk s (d )

O rg an izatio n f o r an im al h u sb a n d ry


C o o p e rativ e farm in g m an ag em en t



1 9 7 6 /1 9 7 2

(3 4 ,0 3 2 ) 3 8 ,1 5 0 (1 7 ,3 2 9 ) 2 0 ,1 4 8 8 ,9 7 0 150 4 ,8 4 8 702 564 2 ,2 6 9 2 ,6 4 5 (4 ,2 7 6 ) 5 ,519 3,371 21 2 25 5 91 6 548 15 202 (4 ,5 6 5 ) 4 ,5 6 9 309

2 9 ,2 1 3

(1 1 6 .5 ) .. . (1 3 3 .0 )

4 ,2 6 0 (4 ,0 6 5 ) 4 ,1 0 8 (3 ,7 9 7 ) 3 ,8 0 6

13 ,0 2 5 5 ,0 9 3


4 ,4 8 2 378 531 2 ,541

108.1 1 85.7 106.2 8 9 .3

1976 (a) M em ber o f (b ) P lan ted area (h a) o rg an izatio n s o f o rg an izatio n s e x c e p t se ricu ltu re 1 ,6 1 8 ,2 3 2 .. . 6 1 6 ,5 3 3 2 5 2 ,5 8 5 2 ,8 9 8 1 4 9 ,4 6 8 3 0 ,3 1 9 1 0 ,9 4 9 1 1 1 ,7 6 4 5 8 ,5 5 0

... 3 1 9 ,5 9 7 16 ,6 1 8 8 0 ,7 6 3 17 ,3 8 3 2 ,1 8 7 s 1 1 ,922*'

12 .4 6.1 0 .6 16.6 0 .7 6.4 4 2 .4 —

— 12.9 12.9 2 4 .9 4 .9 11 .7 4 7 .1 —

1 9 6 ,7 0 5 1 0 4 ,8 2 2 4 ,0 9 3 1 3 ,9 6 9 4 8 ,7 6 5 1 5 ,4 1 8 506 9 ,1 3 2

... 1 0 7 ,9 5 6 7 ,7 6 6 5 ,5 8 3 13 ,0 0 9 3,087 6 0 1)

4 .0 2.5 0 .8 1.6 1.2 9.0 0 .2

— 4 .4 6.0 1.7 3.7 16.5 0.2

(6 8 .1 ) 6 ,2 7 5 5 ,3 5 4



9 9 .5 . .

. . .

(a) (b ) R a tio (%) t o relev an t n a tio n a l figures o f th e cen su s o f ag ricu ltu re in 1975 32 .7

. . .

(1 6 3 .7 ) 2 ,7 8 8 77

6 8 3 ,7 6 8 3 0 ,1 3 9

4 3 3 ,3 6 3 s' 2 4 ,3 6 5

13.8 0 .6

(4 0 1 .3 )

2 ,711

(1 5 7 .0 )

6 5 3 ,6 2 9

4 0 8 ,9 9 8




(1 5 5 .5 ) 2 ,6 1 4

1 2 1 ,2 2 6


(8 4 .2 ) 4 ,511

* Crops newly surveyed in 1976. 1) Unit is not ha but 100 cases. 2) Consigned area by contract. Note: (1) The survey of 1976 covered only the total number as far as cooperative farm management is concerned. (2) The total number of organizations for agricultural production (in 1976 as well as in 1972) at the heading of this table includes the number of cooperative farm management but the other headings do not include cooperative farm management. (3) The figures of 1972 do not include Okinawa Prefecture. (4) The figures parenthesized in the first figure column neither include Okinawa Prefecture nor crops marked by an *)of the other Prefectures. (5) The rates of 1976 to 1972 (1976/1972) are not calculated in the case of crops marked with*) at the heading of the table, which were not surveyed in 1972. Source: MAF, N o g y o Seisart S o s h ik i C h d sa H o k o k u -s h o ( R e p o r t o n th e S u r v e y o f O r g a n iz a tio n s f o r A g r ic u ltu r a l P r o d u c tio n ), 1976.


Table 6-25.

Organization of Joint Use of Machines or Facilities Year: 1976 Unit: Number of organization Organization Number Joint use organizations 26,541

Organization for joint use of machines or facilities* Organizations for group agreement on crop farming which also jointly use machines or facilities* Organizations for animal husbandry, which jointly use machines Organizations for animal husbandry, which jointly use facilities Cooperative farm

20,148 4,301 1,662

Grand total Note: * Excluding organizations for animal husbandry. Source: N ogyo Seisan S o sh iki Chosa H okoku-sho, 1976, pp. 32, 35, 38.

Table 6-26.

Number of Legal Persons Engaging in Agricultural Production

Total 1965 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976

430 3,806 30,347

1,294 3,069 3,244 3,563 2,942 2,879 2,937

Limited responsibility company 712 1,739 1,810 1,942 1,921 2,007 2,042

Unlimited partnership

Limited partnership 14 19

Legal person association of agr. affairs

568 1,308 2 21 1,411 4 25 1,592 2 20 999 3 13 856 3 15 877 Note: These figures represent those which fulfill the requirements of the Agricultural Land Law and are qualified to get a cultivated land tenure. Source: Materials of Agricultural Structural Improvement Bureau, MAF. 0


-J -4 M

Table 6-27.

Number of Cooperative Farms of Plant Cultivation by the Size of Harvested Area

Unit: Number

By the size of harvested area Total Paddy rice

1972 1975

467 460



103 127

1975 Fruits Industrial plants Horticulture in facilities1*

1972 1975 1972 1975 1972


2-5 ha





30-50 ha

20-30 ha 240


49 n



50 ha-

46 19

24 15











247 182













974 824


451 191

-5a Other crops

1 0 -2 0


80 150

5-10 ha






5 -10a 16

1972 1975

309 215



Note: 1) The size of area is shown by ares but not hectares. Source: T he 1 9 7 5 C e n su s o f A g r ic u ltu r e ; N d k a ig a i n o N d g y o - jig y o -ta i o th e r th a n F a m ily F a r m s), pp. 56-9.



20-50a 33

10 - 20 a

35 43



C h o s a H o k o k u -s h o {R e p o r t on th e S u rv e y o f A g r ic u ltu r a l E s ta b lish m e n ts


Table 6-28.

Number of Animal Husbandry Cooperative Farms by Heads of Animals Unit: Number Total

Under 9 head

Dairy cattle




Beef cattle

1975 1972

308 194




Hogs and pigs

Layer Source:

20-29 37

30-49 82


30 13


26 24


Under 99 head








Under 1,000 hens






Op. cit., pp. 62-5.

10-19 17

49 100-299 125

300-499 71

1,0001,999 11

500-999 79

182 120 161 1,000 head and over 58



2,0004,999 58


10,000 hens and over









50 head and over 201

Table 6-29.

Imputed Value of the Remuneration Due to Unpaid Family Labor by Farming of Selected Agricultural Products Unit: Yen Per day 1960









905 220 193 —

1,053 312 268 398

2,008 525 350 635

2,493 454 621 774

6,953 1,468 1,684 2,754

19,032 3,237 3,388

19,919 3,992 4,001 5,072

31,649 4,960 4,050 6,043

32,592 3,209 5,456 4,636

67,006 4,970 13,535 8,160











499 664 630

568 1,127 718

967 812 849

832 1,655 1,444

4,011 3,589 2,381

10,740 4,385 7,100

9,576 5,057 5,634

13,502 3,613 4,976

8,457 6,722 7,760

38,709 11,531 12,085

1955 Paddy rice Wheat Six-row barley Two-row barley Potatoes for industrial purposes Sweet potatoes for industrial purposes Soybeans Rapeseeds* Note: Source:

Per ten ares

1. Excluding Okinawa Prefecture. 2. * Rapeseeds of upland field. S tatistical A nnex fo r 1974.

775 Table 6-30.

Purchase Price and Marketing Price of Livestock by Farmers Unit: Yen

Purchase price of farmers Landrace Piglets FI 90-100 days Unit one head 1950 1,639 1955 3,230 1960 5,271 1965 6,168 1970 9,749 1971 11,840 1972 14,140 1973 14,990 1974 17,800 1975 28,130 1976 25,260

Pure bred Holsteins

Beef cattle (female cattle for raising)

one head

one head

Marketing price of farmers Beef cattle of Japanese breeds 10 kg

Condemned Female calves daily Fattened of Japanese cows hogs breeds of about 6 months 10 kg 10 kg one head

1,237 1,782 2,769 76,010 135,300 4,328 2,019 63,350 148,300 4,659 2,236 85,890 175,200 5,326 2,818 149,100 301,600 8,113 4,170 101,800 262,200 7,485 3,109 114,100 297,600 8,658 4,597 128,900 315,700 9,626 4,609 Note: Beef cattle or calves of Japanese breeds means “wagyu”. Source: MAF, R ural Prices Index.

1,115 1,614 2,067 2,191 2,368 2,689 2,851 3,008 3,823 5,012 4,514

18,508 41,250 54,540 83,779 107,623 143,911 301,800 236,100 207,800 225,100

776 Table 6-31. Division

Japanese Residual Import Restriction Items (commodity group) (As of April 1978) Description of goods


Livestock products

0201 0401 0402 0404 1602

Meat of bovine animals Milk and cream, fresh Milk and cream, processed Processed cheese Meat of bovine animals, or pigs, prepared or preserved in airtight containers

Marine products

0301 0302 0303

Shore fish and cod roe, fresh, chilled or frozen Shore fish and cod roe, salted or similary preserved Scallops, adductors of shellfish, squid and cuttle fish, chilled or frozen or similarly preserved, excluding MONGOIKA Edible seaweeds

Fruits and vegetables

1208* 0802 0811 2005 2006 2007 2104

Oranges and tangerines, fresh Oranges and tangerines, for provisionally preserved Fruit puree and fruit paste Canned pineapples and fruit pulp Fruit juices and tomato juice Tomato ketchup and tomato sauce

Starch and sugar

1108 1702

Starch and inulin Grape sugar, etc.,


1101 1102

Wheat flour, rice flour, barley flour, etc., Wheat meal, rice meal, etc.,

Locally important agri-products

0705 1201 1208* 2107

Small red beans, broad beans, peas, etc., Peanuts (excluding those for oil extraction) Tubers of amorphophallus Food preparations containing added sugar, milk, seaweeds, wheat, etc.,

CCCN 1-24 Mineral 2701 products 4102 Leather and leather 4103 products 4104

22 items

Coal Bovine cattle leather and equine leather Sheep and lamb skin leather; dryed, coloured, stamped or embossed Goat and kid skin leather; dryed, coloured, stamped or embossed 6402 Leather foot wear; excluding those for sports use 5 items CCCN 24-99 Total CCCN 1-99 27 items Note: 1) * Indicates duplicated items. 2) Butter, skimmed milk, powdered milk, sweetened condensed milk, wheat, wheat flour, barley, naked barley, rice, etc. are under state trade and not items of import restriction which should be demanded to be liberalized. Source: Information from the Section of Trade and Tariffs, MAF.

Table 6-32. Budget for Agricultural Price Policy Unit: Million Yen For reference*2 Budget for price policy -----------------------------------------------------Staple food 1)

811,402 822,900 730,495 631,245

1975 1976 1977 1978 Note:

Other food 2)

46,186 66,083 75,182 101,212


■ 857,588 888,983 805,677 732,457

Adjustment of rice production

106,079 78,748 95,583 304,489

Grand total (a)

963,667 967,731 901,260 1,036,946

Total amount related to Agricultural agriculture infrastructure forestry and fisheries (b) (c) 409.930 458,408 639,297 778,580

2,289,198 2,491,860 2,770,725 3,225,862

Total amount of budget




42.1 38.8 32.5 32.1

17.9 18.4 23.1 24.1

ll.o 10.1 9.4 9.4

(d) 20,837,158 24,650,235 29,346,615 34,440,044

1. 1) Rice and “mugi”. 2) Including beef, calves, pork, eggs, broilers, milk for processing, vegetables, soybeans and colza. 2. Supplemented budget basis. Source: Documents arranged by the Section of Budget, Ministerial Secretariat of MAFF.

Table 6 -3 3 . Cases and Area of Transfer of Cultivated Land Unit: Case, number; area, ha Number of cases Transfer of ownership Owner cultivated land Gratuitous Onerous conditions Rented land Right of lease Creation Transfer Right by loan for use Creation Transfer Cancellation of lease, etc. Area (ha) Transfer of ownership Owner cultivated land Gratuitous Onerous Rented land Right for lease Creation Transfer Right by loan for use Creation Transfer Cancellation of lease, etc. Area of diversion (ha) Note:











16,969 38,048 58,741

62,992 307,439 130,084

66,820 393,744 113,085

62,698 370,036 67,263

77,478 336,917 43,391

64,197 213,581 21,023

86,772 208,839 18,269

84,032 198,946 16,959

84,974 195,303 15,362

46,941 40,475

24,028 18,387

15,685 8,887

10,243 4,184

6,054 1,252

13,733 410

21,319 4,102

22,523 4,622

23,595 5,457

. . .


2,806 4,199 46,348

3,147 1,419 42,079

3,356 1,384 34,501

2,101 437 35,074

4,442 44 26,197

31,862 449 27,928

41,344 759 27,969

48,668 873 -

11,072 6,343 8,144

18,857 39,105 15,385

20,425 56,729 14,096

23,379 73,947 8,686

36,379 71,211 5,055

43,283 47,568 2,551

71,782 46,293 2,436

67,322 42,133 2,032

66,581 40,338 1,947

5,974 4,038

3,982 1,812

2,690 952

2,462 544

1,838 141

5,909 99

9,352 795

9,446 1,121

10,142 1,105

529 436 4,649

957 230 4,309

1,787 242 3,632

4,529 17 3,176

36,822 196 3,999

44,969 478 4,119

51,606 447 -




1,283 127 3,991 57,134





. . .

. . . . . .


Figure represents cases and area for transfer for the purpose of farming excluding the area for diversion, as approved in accordance with the articles of the Agricultural Land Law. The area of diversion includes the diversion approved in accordance with the articles 4 and 5 of the Agricultural Land Law and other diversion which is not subject to the approval of the Authorities concerned in accordance with the said articles. B asic S ta tistic s R evised, pp. 70, 90; S ta tistic a l A p p e n d ix f o r th e A gricu ltu ral W hite Paper o f 1 9 7 9 , p. 99. For 1979, Structural Improvement Bureau, MAFF, Transfer a n d D iversion o f C u ltiva ted L an d (1 9 7 9 ), February, 1981, pp. 8, 19.

779 Table 6-34.

Selling Price of Cultivated Land Unit: 1,000 yen per 10 ares

Paddy field I National average Urban area Plain area Mountainous area II Upland field I National average Urban area Plain area Mountainous area II









198 343 194 171 187

343 1,870 322 228 204

1,022 6,681 1,163 472 328

2,818 21,300 3,082 1,001 627

2,966 20,638 3,130 1,220 685

3,155 22,935 3,187 1,255 824

2,936 914 2,663 2,791 129 281 7,420 23,044 22,469 24,128 340 1,999 2,941 2,876 2,943 143 292 946 1,030 146 366 769 990 91 488 387 419 68 112 123 184 Note: 1) I, Survey by the National Chamber of Agriculture on the selling price for cultivation of medium grade paddy fields or medium grade fields. II, Research Institute of Real Estate, ordinary grade paddy fields or ordinary grade upland fields. Source: For 1955-1975, Basic Statistics, Revised, pp. 91 and 94. For 1976 and 1977, Sta­ tistical A nnex fo r 1977, pp. 27-8. ... ...

Table 6-35.

Number of Farms by Size in Japan and in the European Economic Community Japan (a) 3,431,157 1,378,979