Does Japan need more structural reform?

Section 6: Economics, Business and Political Economy
Convenors: Sébastien Lechevalier (Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Science Sociales); D. Hugh Whittaker
(University of Oxford)

“Japan is Back!” The three arrows of Abenomics promised to revitalise industry, turn challenges
into opportunities, create new frontiers, and maximize the potential of all citizens. Whatever else
they achieved, the arrows created a set of expectations, and some benchmarks against which numerous
‘scorecards’ have been proposed. Compared to the first two arrows, the third – structural reforms
– took some time to articulate and implement. Whenever economic targets were missed, it was
convenient to blame a lack of progress in the third arrow, especially labour market reform.

It can be argued, however, that corporate governance, one of the 10 key reform areas, has changed
very significantly, following implementation of the corporate governance and stewardship codes, and
related measures. Ironically, the government rather than the market has played a key role in this.
But will this revitalize the economy, or spur financialisation? Indeed, in some areas, there may
have been too much structural reform rather than too little. More ‘flexiblisation’ of the labour
force, for instance, in which over 35 percent of workers are classed as ‘non-regular,’ may simply
depress domestic demand further rather than freeing up resources for revitalisation.

Structural reforms predate Abenomics, of course. Over three decades, a quite comprehensive program
of structural reforms has been implemented on the financial, goods and labor markets, which has led
to substantial but uneven liberalization and deregulation of the Japanese economy. Arguably the most
productive sectors have become more competitive. However, it is also recognized that stagnant
consumption and investment – major causes of the poor economic growth – are not caused by a lack of
deregulation. If so, are further structural reforms the right answer to Japan’s current economic
problems? And what is the balance between positive and negative effects, such as rising inequalities
or wage-led deflation? A time frame of three decades offers ample scope for analysis and reflection.
As part of the Economics, Business and Political Economy Section, we particularly welcome papers
which address these and similar issues on structural reform. We expect that there will be a
diversity of views, depending on disciplinary specialisations, and approaches towards political
economy. The following topics would be particularly welcome:

Individual structural reforms (corporate governance; public fund management; venture business;
corporate tax; innovation and new technology; women’s participation and advancement; flexible
working practices; healthcare)Political economy of structural reforms and/or AbenomicsSocial
consequences of structural reforms and/or AbenomicsStructural reforms and/or Abenomics in
comparative perspectiveJapanese economy/business/political economy in a regional context

Please note, however, that proposals of papers and panels that fall outside of the theme are very
welcome and will be considered fully and equally. Decisions about acceptance will be based on
academic merit after a thorough review process.
Post-conference publication: we hope to publish selected papers in a special issue of a refereed
journal and are already in contact with publishers and editors of refereed journals. This would mean
that a revised version of the conference paper must be submitted soon after the conference for the
double-blind review process. Those wishing to be considered for the post-conference publication
should please submit not only the abstract but also a full manuscript by July 31, 2017.

Any question? Please contact us at sebastien.lechevalier@ehess.fr or hugh.whittaker@nissan.ox.ac.uk

How to submit: Panel and paper proposals should be written in English and submitted no later than 30
November 2016.

Visit the webpage: http://www.nomadit.co.uk/eajs/eajs2017/cfpan