読書中の洋書 Why Nations Fail（邦題：国家はなぜ衰退するのか）の書評記事を数回に分けて書いています。
今回は第9章（Reversing Development）と第10章（The defusion of Prosperity）を中心に書評を書きたいと思います。特に10章では日本の例（江戸時代から明治時代への移行）が例として取り上げており、馴染み深い内容でした。
【English】
The arthors present a compelling argument that the fate of nations is largely determined by their political and economic institutions. Their theory also challenges the well-known Dual Economy Model proposed by Lewis.
Lewis’s Dual Economy Theory
Lewis’s dual economy model argues that developing economies often exhibit a dual structure: a stagnant, low-productivity traditional sector and a dynamic, high-productivity modern sector. He suggests that economic growth occurs as labor shifts from the traditional sector to the modern sector. He received the Novel Prize for his work on economic development.
However, the authors challenge the idea that economic growth follows an automatic process. Instead, they emphasize that institutional structures determine whether economic transitions succeed or fail.
Japan’s Case
Japan’s Edo period provides an interesting case of a dual economy. The country’s economic structure consisted of a feudal agricultural sector and a relatively dynamic, commercial urban economy. While rural areas were bound by the strict policies of the Tokugawa shogunate, cities like Osaka and Edo (Tokyo) flourished as trade centers.
Although Japan’s sakoku (isolationist) policy is well-known, foreign trade was not entirely prohibited. For instance, Satsuma domain was permitted to engage in limited trade, primarily with the Ryukyu. The Satsuma domain benefited economically due to its geographical distance from Edo and its trade relations, which helped enrich its finances and later facilitated its role in overthrowing the Tokugawa regime.
The Meiji Restoration (1868) marked a radical shift from feudalism to modern industrialization. Key policies like feudal abolition, land tax reform, and Western technology adoption paved the way for centralization and industrial growth.
These changes reflected the transition from extractive economic structures to more inclusive structures.
The role of external shocks in triggering institutional reforms should not be forgotten.
In Japan’s case, the arrival of Commodore Perry and the subsequent signing of unequal treaties served as the catalyst for systemic change. Faced with the threat of Western imperialism, Japan’s leadership recognized the necessity of modernization and institutional reform.
This contrasts sharply with China’s response to Western encroachment. The Qing Dynasty resisted external engagement, leading to a prolonged period of decline. As a result, while Japan industrialized rapidly in the late 19th century, China remained economically stagnant, eventually becoming one of the world’s poorest nations under Mao Zedong’s rule.
コメント