Comparison of Japan and China 
by Andrew Chan

The Ever-Changing Roles of Japan and China:
By Nicole Gable

Differences in Economic Policies of Japan and China
by Suren Padmalingam,

Tables and Graphs




Comparison of Japan and China

 by Andrew Chan, May 2002

I. Introduction.
II. Comparison of Confucianism in Japan vs. China.
III. Overall Comparison.
IV. Comparison of Public Finance.




I. Introduction

Japan is undoubtedly regarded by many as one of the most advanced industrialized countries in the world. The phenomenal economic growth the Japanese economy experienced since WWII is remarkable when taking into consideration the disastrous situation the country was mired in at the conclusion of World War II. The defeat in the hands of the Allied Powers in WWII left Japan in a catastrophic state as it suffered enormous damages in both its capital infrastructure (human and physical) and population, highlighted by the atomic bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was estimated that the national wealth and the standards of living decreased by 40%[1] when compared to its pre-war levels. Despite the enormous amount of losses incurred, Japan persevered and was totally committed to devote all its resources and energy towards the goal of rebuilding the country and establishing its status as one of the leading economies in the world. Since the end of WWII, Japan has experienced the fastest rate of growth to become one of the largest economies in the world. The country has transformed itself into a perennial powerhouse in many industries such as technology and financial services.

Japan possesses a population of around 126.9 million people residing in 377.8 square kilometers of islands[2]. In addition to the miniscule land area, Japan has a very limited endowment of natural resources and thus has to rely heavily on trade to obtain various energy resources and raw materials. Despite these shortcomings, Japan has consistently ranked at or near the top in economic growth and is hailed as one of the world’s leading industrial and technological powerhouses. It also prides itself on a very high level in the standards of living. In terms of technological innovations, Japan simply has no peers. Surely consumers around the world are familiar with many high-quality products manufactured by Japanese electronic companies. For example, Sony has had huge commercial success in the world of consumer electronics such as the Sony PlayStation. Others electronic manufacturers such as Toshiba and Nintendo as well as state-of-the-art automobiles manufactured by Honda and Toyota are examples of the high-quality products produced by the Japanese. These state-of-the-art products we enjoyed over the years are created by some of the most creative minds in Japan.

China is the oldest civilization in the world, containing more than 5,000 years of history. The country possesses the world’s largest population, which is estimated to be around 1.3 billion[3]. The immense population growth is regarded as a strain for the national government since it simply cannot provide an adequate amount of resources for the entire population. Thus, many rural provinces such as Fujian and Guangxi continue to fall behind the urban provinces of Shanghai and Beijing in economic growth and living standards. Throughout the Mao Communist era, China experienced huge explosions in its population growth rate. To alleviate the dramatic increase in population growth, China has since implemented a law whereby each family can have only one child.

China has been ruled by a Communist regime since 1949. The Chinese Communist Party under the leadership of Mao-Tse Tung exerted its influence at all levels of economic and political activities and had gone through several stages of adjustment from 1949 to 1976. The Soviet model was initially applied during the early years of Mao communist rule. This approval was later abandoned in favor of ideologies to develop the economy. By the 1970’s philosophies of ideologies and moderate thinking took over and was thus employed in China to develop the economy. The goal of the Mao Communist regime was to transform China into a modernized nation through emphasis on three major economic sectors: agriculture, industry, and national defense. Private ownership in agriculture and small urban enterprises was introduced on a small scale, and various financial institutions were established as part of the reforms. Of course, many native Chinese people will know today that the establishment of a price system and reforms to stabilize the prices were abandoned in 1988 in the midst of rampant inflation. The Tiennamen Square incident of 1989 created chaos and signaled that Chinese Communist Party will continue to exert dominance.


II. Comparison of Confucianism in Japan vs. China

Throughout the history of the two countries, a cultural legacy known as Confucianism was infused into each country’s respective societies and had a profound effect on all aspects of life in the tow countries. Confucianism is described as “rational thought system that is intended to serve the people and the whole society rather than any particular class”[4]. Both Japan and China employed Confucianism as the state ideology. There were of course many features of Confucianism in the two countries that shaped each country’s societies. I will elaborate on only 2 distinguishing aspects of Confucianism: emphasis on knowledge and the development of good human relationships.

Both countries place an enormous value for knowledge. In China, the amount of knowledge an individual receives from his/her education will ultimately decide their respective social status. Japan also used knowledge and education as an essential measure for determining one’s social position. Due to the utmost social respect for knowledge and the economic benefits reaped from education, it is widely known that parents in both Japan and China often make huge investments in their children’s education. It is their philosophy that a superb education from prestigious academic institutions cannot come cheap. This feature of Confucianism is prevalent in China and Japan even today as many international students are sent to abroad to study at the finest institutions (though expensive) such as Harvard, MIT, Oxford, Cambridge, and Yale.

Confucianism “classifies people according to their knowledge”. According to this view, it is widely believed in China and Japan that the talented should be employed in relatively important and prestigious jobs. It is under this principle that China designed its economic institutions. Most often the highest political leaders are often the most educated and skilled. Japan, like China, also employed the potential powers of Confucius’ emphasis on knowledge. Japan is regarded as a society with heavy emphasis on education, as it is strongly believed that the level of education an individual receives will determine their prospects for employment. For example, Japanese society tends to place heavy emphasis on which university one attends. Many government-related positions and industries (especially in banking) offer jobs solely on the basis of the name of the university or college an individual attended. Graduating from an elite university will no doubt provide more opportunities for career success than a cookie-cutter university, as ultimately power and status will depend on it. For example, many banking houses in Japan such as Nomura Securities, Daiwa Securities, and Fuji Bank will primarily focus their recruiting efforts on students who graduated from the University of Tokyo or the “Ivy League”[5] institutions in the U.S. 

Investments to develop a skilled labor force is crucial for production in modern technology needed for rapid industrialization. Since WWII, mass education was actively promoted and spread throughout Japan with strong social support. This extends from private elementary school all the way up to the university level. This progressive attitude towards learning helped the Japanese to develop a huge appetite for knowledge and learning. The Japanese was intrigued by the ample opportunities it had to develop their knowledge from the West. When given opportunities of applying Western technologies, the Japanese successfully adopted the Western methods to not only to protect national independence, but also to maintain and develop their knowledge to compete on a full scale with other advanced industrialized countries.

Confucianism also placed heavy emphasis on the development of human relations. Developing close relationships within a family (“familism”[6]) is strongly entrenched in the Chinese society while group consciousness (“groupism”[7]) is highly valued in Japanese culture. The group-oriented Confucianist system has enabled Japan to achieve a significant comparative advantage in many industrial and technological products. The high levels of labor productivity, education, and cooperative attitudes developed between businesses, individuals, and government is all based on the concept of Japanese Groupism. Japanese social groups and its level of prestige are formed on the basis of the position attained in an institution. As mentioned before, the position of an employee in a company or the university an individual graduated from is of significant importance. Chinese familism, on the other hand, assumes a more individualistic role than the Japanese system of group consciousness. This individualistic nature tends to focus more on individual accomplishments rather than promoting social harmony and welfare among their culture. For example, during the collapse in the Cultural Revolution, China was unable to develop any national consensus or agreements since there was no genuine common interest between the leaders (especially Mao-Tse Tung) and the rest of the society. Thus, the rate of growth achieved was not nearly as rapid as that of Japan’s. Unlike Japanese Groupism, loyalty and trust developed in China are not as strong as in Japan. For example, many corporations in Japan grant lifetime employment to its workers to foster an environment of mutual trust. This practice is rejected in China and thus there is less of a close-knit community developed in China’s economy.


III. Overall Comparison

The Japanese economic system is undeniably regarded as one of the most successful market capitalist economies in the world. After its defeat in World War II, Japan’s economy was in shambles as it experienced severe food shortages and widespread inflation. It is truly remarkable that a country can possess such magnitude of perseverance and come back from its devastating losses incurred during WWII to become one of the leading industrialized countries in the world. From 1960-1972, Japan experienced an annual growth of 10.6% in terms of Real Gross Domestic Product (RGDP)[8], outperforming other industrialized countries such as United States and Germany. The pervasive spirit of national unity formed between businesses and government, diligence and high productivity of labor, and frugality all contribute to Japan’s status as one of the preeminent modern capitalist societies today.

Japan, however, is also an economy that is extremely vulnerable to shocks in the world economy. For example, Japan derived most of its oil and energy resources from abroad. The high energy costs associated during the oil shocks can make it difficult for certain Japanese industries such as chemical and steel to compete in the international markets. For example, many steel companies such as Nihan Seikigo and Kawasaki Steel suffered major setbacks in their operations during the Oil Crisis of 1973.  In addition, Japan also has a extremely polluted environment. The infatuation of rapid industrial and technological growth since WWII has caused a massive amount of pollution throughout Japan. Many of Japan’s major cities, including Tokyo and Osaka, are permeated with fumes and can potentially have hazardous effects not only on the labor force, but on the welfare of the general population as well.

Consumer sovereignty prevails in the market system of Japan. Prices are determined by the demands of consumers. In terms of the structure in the industrialized sectors, it is well known that Japan has a knack for merging firms and enterprises from a vast array of markets into affiliated companies under the “Keiretsu”[9] system. In Japan, the Keiretsu is characterized by stable relationships formed between the firms. For example, close relationships forged in the banking sector include Mitsui Bank and Dai-Ichi Kango Bank and Toyota and Isuzu in the automobiles industry. The close relationships allow them to maintain an unique position in the fiercely competitive markets of Japan. Firms can thus coordinate strategies to dominate the industry and establish barriers of entry for potential entrants into the market. This has allowed Japan to maintain comparative advantage in many of their industries including automobiles, electronics, and banking.


The success Japan has achieved can also be attributed to the meticulous and coherent government policies in both industrial and capital investment. The active role the government played in Japan’s post-war development was instrumental to the country’s postwar success. Since Japan possesses only a limited endowment of resources, there was an urgent need to reach a national consensus over the allocation of scarce capital resources and the development of the infrastructure. Although there existed an urgent need to accomplish these tasks in the most efficient way possible, Japan was not impulsive in doing so and did not just implement any quick-fix methods. Instead, the national government gradually formed close bonds with various business enterprises, which proved to be invaluable in the country’s postwar development over time. The close relationship developed between the national government and the business enterprises was a huge stepping-stone for Japan as it was formed on the basis that mutual trust can be established. It was important that the businesses and government decide on economic policy objectives that will benefit the entire society as opposed to the narrow-minded goals of special interest groups. The sincere effort made by both parties to develop a common perspective provided the foundation for economic policies before final decisions are to be made. The existence of this coherence between government and businesses gave Japan a sense of national purpose – the goal of transforming into an advanced industrialized nation.

As for the planning method of Japan, the Japanese government employs a method of “indicative planning”[10]. Plans represent the consensus of not only the government but also of private groups such as corporations, labor markets, and even universities. Again, the pursuit of economic growth and stability by different parties creates a sense of national unity. Japanese economic plans usually do not adhere to a specific time period; instead, it sets various objectives for long-term economic growth. The MITI is the perhaps most important institution in Japan’s industrial planning process as it was responsible for regulating all Japanese companies. It provided a blueprint for the revitalization of industrialization during the post WWII years by focusing on obtaining competitive advantages of private Japanese corporations in the international markets. Its main duty was to decide the structure of industries and guide its development process in order to achieve maximum economic growth. It is worth mentioning that the establishment of the steel and high-tech industries by MITI was instrumental to the rapid growth experienced during the post-WWII period. MITI promoted rapid development of these industries by providing the necessary capital and credit from the Development Bank of Japan as well as from various foreign financial institutions from around the world. In addition, many financial privileges were given to these industries such as low interest rates and tax incentives. These incentives led to further advances in the development process of many important industries. The steel industry, for instance, expanded rapidly and allowed Japan to become a world leader of steel. The steel industry grew steadily in the decades after World War II and achieved remarkable advances in its quality and production efficiency. Steel production reached the optimum level of output in 1973, making Japan the world's top producer in steel. The phenomenal growth and expansion of the steel industry made possible by the MITI was thus a major factor in contributing to Japan’s postwar  rapid annual growth rate.


 The high rate of labor productivity was also instrumental in its contribution to Japan’s post WWII development. One of the foundations of the Japanese economy is its highly educated and motivated labor force. The high labor productivity and strong work ethic entrenched in Japanese culture can be attributed to its labor structure as well as the emphasis placed on education. Many companies use a lifetime employment system where workers consider their jobs to be permanent until retirement. Since employees spent their entire working lives within one company, the lifetime system creates a strong sense of unity and loyalty to the company one works for.  Wages are determined by age and the length of service in the company. The balanced wage structure of the labor-management system is reflected in the relatively equitable income distribution of Japan. Business managers and senior executives often do not live extravagant and glamorous lifestyles. Furthermore, many managers take similar cuts in their wages compared to workers. This led to the avoidance of any potential class conflicts and thus strikes rarely took place. In addition, since it is difficult to secure employment by transferring from one company to another, employees come to the realization that their future will ultimately depend on the company’s profits. Therefore, workers have an incentive to work as productive and efficiently as they can. Japanese firms therefore have an advantage in its labor costs, as workers are willing to trade higher wages for increased job security. In recent decades, however, Japan has experienced increased aging in the labor force. Since wage increases and promotion are primarily based on seniority, many workers in the younger generation feel there are less opportunities for career advancement. For example, it is inherently difficult for young workers to assume a managerial position in the Japanese banking industry. Furthermore, it is also worth mentioning that the rapidly aging labor force can potentially depress the savings rate of the economy. Although savings rate are still at high levels, the level of savings rate are not at the levels it once was in the late 70s. This can potentially provide less opportunities for investments in both human and physical capital, both of which were crucial elements during the rapid development from the mid-1950s through the 1970s.

Thriftiness is another characteristic that contributed to Japan’s economic growth. The scarcity in housing, immense costs of living, premium placed on education, and low transfer payments received all provided incentives for the Japanese households to save after WWII. The high savings rate of the households thus led to more opportunities for investment and foreign trade. Huge amount of capital investments contributed to Japan’s economic growth as it accounted for more than 40% of the GDP growth rate during its postwar period[11]. Capital investments were made to further develop Japan’s infrastructure.


The Chinese economic system primarily consists of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)[12], which exerts influence at all level of economic and political activities. The Communist Party prescribes the goals and objectives to be followed by the entire population. During Mao’s era of Communist rule, China’s economic policies were directed towards the expansion of productive capacity in industrial commodities such as steel and petroleum. Agriculture industries were mainly controlled by the state and were delegated the responsibility of feeding the country’s enormous population. Although it has taken some measures to de-collectivize agriculture and decentralized state-controlled companies and industries, the CCP nevertheless retained a significant portion of state-owned sectors. Problems associated with the lack of reforms to market system combined with the relatively primitive nature of macroeconomic policy tools has led China to an erratic pattern of growth and inflation during the various stages of development in the Mao era. The result was an incomplete reformed centrally planned economy. The significant amount of tumultuous economic activities associated with the adjustment process during its stages of development has pressured the system to lean towards a more market-friendly institutional structure, as demonstrated by the Tiannamen Square incident of 1989.

Unlike the capitalists market system in Japan where consumer preference determines resource allocation, the economic system of China does not allow consumer sovereignty to exert the same influence. Instead, the production of consumer goods and services are determined by the state. Although consumers are entitled to freely choose among the goods produced, this right does not necessarily give consumers an advantage. For example, although a consumer might have the resources to purchase a good such as an automobile, he/she may find that this good is exclusive only to an elite party. Since China is dominated by the CCP, prices are not determined by consumer demand in the marketplace as it is in Japan. In setting the prices of most commodities, the government takes into account the costs of production, potential profits, and taxes. The determination of the prices should therefore cover all these elements. Since China possesses a relatively underdeveloped transportation system and a rather diverse industrial base, decentralization in the setting of prices is seen as necessary. Therefore, a dichotomy of responsibility exists between the national government and the local provincial governments. The prices of the most important goods are established by the national government while the provincial government determines the rest. This division therefore reflected the variations in prices of goods and services in China.


The national economic plan derived by the CCP is also different from Japan. National economic planning consists of a number of sub-plans that are targeted for a specific industries. For example, there are output plans developed for the agriculture, defense, and the transportation industries. Other plans developed by the CCP include: labor plans which involves the allocation of factor inputs in order to meet an adequate supply of labor, cost saving plans that prescribe the wages for business enterprises to follow, and financial plans to control the income and spending of the government in order to efficiently regulate the flow of savings and investment within the banking system. Production of goods is usually concentrated in facilities with a single supplier and user, as the CCP strongly believed that this method of production will eliminate the redundancies associated in market competition. Unlike the Japanese planning system, which does not adhere to a certain time period, Chinese planning often consists of a specific time period, usually for five years. This is due to the rationale that future long-term economic growth is difficult to sustain and that insufficiency of consumer goods in the short-term needed to be resolved first in order to balance the economy.

During the industrialization process in the Mao era, the CCP comprised of bureaucrats was presumed to be significantly more important than advanced scientists, researchers, and educators. In the Communist political system, it is worth noting that the bureaucrats have the most important role in society. The Mao administration, however, was unable to establish a bureaucratic system that was capable of dealing with the complexity associated with the industrialization process. After WWII, part of the reason Japan was able to experience rapid growth was because of its highly educated labor force and its ability to adopt Western methods and ideas and tailor them to their own uses. China, on the other hand, refused to allow any Western ideas to be incorporated into the Chinese society. It was therefore difficult for the CCP to produce a systematic and practical vision for the society without the infusion of Western ideas into their culture. The structure in human capital was organized in a way that education was not intended to be an institution for increasing human capital. In addition, science and technology was not promoted as heavily as in post-WWII Japan. Mao and the CCP simply did not have any long-term comprehensive visions of how it should be developed. The developmental process of industrialization has therefore been difficult for China as it experienced several stages of adjustment from 1949 to 1976, starting from the Period of Consolidation and culminating with the Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The Cultural Revolution impeded economic progress for China as it furthered destroyed human capital as it forbid the import of scientific knowledge. When Mao died in 1976, China was in a disastrous state of affairs. The general population and the labor force were inadequately educated and poorly skilled, cultural heritage was in shambles, and there were further deterioration in the infrastructure and environment. It was felt that ten years of reform had gone to the wastelands.


The Chinese labor system also deserves some mentioning. Unlike the Japanese labor system where there exists a relatively uniform wages, the Chinese maintains an “eight-wage classification system”[13]. Chinese industrial labor workers are paid according to their skill level, ranging from class 1 as the lowest to class 8 as the highest. Government action rather than market forces thus determines the wages. This wage scale is based according to the national government’s priorities for industrial development in different classes. Because of this wage system, income distribution tends to experience a wider degree of disparities than the Japanese system. With a relatively wider income inequality, many desirable goods go to only those individuals who could afford it. The rest of the population deemed many of the basic goods as unaffordable. Poverty existed in many rural areas and living standards are considered low compared to Japan.

Despite the fluctuations experienced in its growth rate during the various stages of development, the performance of the Chinese economy during the Mao era can generally be considered robust. Although consumption levels and living standards are regarded as low, poverty has been moderately reduced in the urban areas. Inflation was kept under control and unemployment also has been kept at a low rate. The annual growth of China’s GNP is in the vicinity of 4 to 7% during the Mao Communist era[14], lower than the growth rate Japan experienced. Although China’s industrialization process did not occur as rapidly as that of Japan’s, it nevertheless built a solid industrial foundation. With the state and provincial governments increasing their efforts to further develop the capital infrastructure, the stage was set for China to become a fully industrial and modernized nation. Whether this sustained rapid growth allows China to usurp a leading role in the world economy ultimately depends on its proper implementation of economic policies.  Many can debate over many factors but in general it includes considerable decentralization towards dismantling the overwhelming power of the CCP, increased investment in infrastructure, and the allowance of the price system to fully play its proper role of determining the consumers’ willingness to pay.


IV. Comparison of Public Finance

 Having analyzed the overall structures of the economic systems of Japan and China during their respective periods, I will now delve into a relatively narrower aspect of the two economies: public finance. Public finance is one of the most crucial elements in determining the long-term success of an economic system. The tax system is not only a crucial element of determining the expected revenues for the government, but it also gauges the minimum standards of living of the general population. Taxes also provide the government with control over the society’s resources as well as directly affecting the wealth distribution. The distribution of government spending into various activities can have a dramatic impact on the society’s economic variables such as inflation, unemployment, and rate of growth. I will analyze two aspects of public finance in the two countries’ respective economic systems: Budgets and expenditures and structure of taxes.

One of the main distinctions in public finance systems between Japan and China is the role and size of its budgets. In Japan government expenditures and transfer payments are handled in a decentralized manner as the national budget is comprised of general accounts, special accounts, and government agency accounts. Overall government spending in Japan accounts for around 20% of its GNP[15]. The budgets of China, on the other hand, are centralized in a manner that represent a consolidation of all national and local budgets. China’s budget is also much larger compared to Japan’s, as close of half of the country’s national income flow through the budget. This can be understandable since the population of China vastly exceeds that of Japan’s. As for the allocation of government expenses, more than 50% of total expenditures are devoted to the financing of capital production[16]. The remaining amount is used to finance national defense, social security, foreign aid, and research. Since the Communist government owns most of the means of production, the budgets are also much more extensive than Japan’s in terms of its coverage for various different types of programs. For example, expenditures for the development of infrastructure, research, and capital investment are directly financed out of the national budget. The budget in Communist China is therefore the primary mechanism used for the allocation of resources and is regarded as an effective way to implement the national plan objectives. In the capitalist Japanese economy, however, expenditures for education, welfare programs, capital investments, and research can be financed partly by the private sectors. For example, many Japanese banks and private insurance companies provide the necessary capital and health care programs to individuals. This can benefit the consumers, as more attractive terms of lending and better health plans will result from direct competition in the capitalist economy of Japan. In their constant battle to win potential customers from its rivals, these private enterprises realize the need to develop more innovative and better products in order to survive. This reflects the nature of the competitive capitalist economy as firms constantly battle each other for profits and ultimately survival. In addition, Japan’s budget gives a low priority to expenditures in social welfare programs. This is due to the lifetime employment system where various benefits are provided by the companies in addition to wages. Also, as a result of sanctions imposed on Japan by the Allied Powers, only a very small percentage is devoted to national defense. This small allocation into defense expenditures allowed Japan to concentrate on other activities, namely the development of its capital infrastructure and industries and the promotion of international trade.  


 A distinctive feature of the tax system in a command economy like China is the dominance of indirect taxes over direct taxes. It is recognized that indirect taxes are easier to administer and collect than direct taxes. Since the Chinese Communist Party was not well developed during its initial stages, indirect taxes are often collected from state enterprises and agriculture industries to finance its development of the economy. Since agriculture is considered a stronghold in China, it was the belief of the CCP to tax the agrarian industry extensively. It was therefore absolutely crucial for the CCP to collect an adequate amount of taxes to cover the sheer size of its national budget. Tax revenues were derived mainly from the “turnover tax”[17], which is applied on almost all economic activities. Direct taxes such as personal income taxes in China were seen as having negative impacts on work incentives and therefore were not regarded as important. Other factors accounting for the small proportion of personal income taxes include the abundance of illegal activities conducted as well widespread tax evasions. Personal income taxes thus constitute only a small proportion of the total tax revenue.

  The Japanese tax system, on the other hand, derives its revenue mostly from direct taxes. The most important taxes in Japan are personal income taxes and corporate taxes. This is intuitive considering the fact that private corporations in Japan account for most of the economic activities conducted and that most of the labor force are employed by private enterprises. A distinctive facet of the Japanese tax system is the significant amount of tax provisions to reduce tax rates in order to achieve specific national objectives. The rapid rates of economic growth Japan experienced has induced the government to reduce the rates of personal and corporate income taxes every year in the post-WWII period.  This was done to further encourage growth of the economy. Provisions to rapidly develop the economy include the stimulation of savings and investments as well as the promotion of exports and new technologies. For example, purchases of new products or the use of the latest technologies approved by the MITI are subject to significant tax deductions or even exemptions. This is promoted by the Japanese national government to encourage the rapid development of industries to enable them to become a viable competitor in the international marketplace.



[1] “Survey of Economic Conditions in Japan” (Tokyo: Mitsubishi Economic Research Institute, June 1978)

[2] Data was obtained from an online database “World Development Indicators Database”, April 2002 on the World Bank’s internet website,

[3] Data is obtained from an online database “World Development Indicators Database”, April 2002 on the World Bank’s internet website,

[4] Duffy, J. William, and Neuberger Egon. Comparative Economic Systems: A Decision Making Approach. Boston : Allyn and Bacon, 1976, p.327

[5] The Ivy League is a group of eight elite academic institutions in the United States. It is comprised of Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Pennsylvania, Princeton, and Yale.

[6] Comparative Economic Systems: A Decision Making Approach. Boston : Allyn and Bacon, 1976, p.196

[7] Comparative Economic Systems: A Decision Making Approach. Boston : Allyn and Bacon, 1976, p.36

[8] International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics Yearbook, 1980 p.364-365

[9] Duffy, J. William, and Neuberger Egon. Comparative Economic Systems: A Decision Making Approach. Boston : Allyn and Bacon, 1976, p.334

[10] Duffy, J. William, and Neuberger Egon. Comparative Economic Systems: A Decision Making Approach. Boston : Allyn and Bacon, 1976, p.108

[11] Japanese Economic Statistics, Tokyo, Bulletin no. 12, Sept. 1946; no. 1-101, Oct. 1948-Feb. 1967, p.62

[12] The abbreviation “CCP” stands for Chinese Communist Party.

[13] Duffy, J. William, and Neuberger Egon. Comparative Economic Systems: A Decision Making Approach. Boston : Allyn and Bacon, 1976, p.220

[14] Central Intelligence Agency, Handbook of Economic Statistics, 1981, Table 59.

[15] Japanese Economic Statistics, Tokyo, Bulletin no. 12, Sept. 1946; no. 1-101, Oct. 1958-Feb. 1967, p.59

[16] Helen Yin ,and Yi-Chang Yin, Economic Statistics of Mainland China. Cambridge, Center for Asian Studies, Harvard University Press, 1960, p.47

[17] Flath, David. The Japanese Economy. Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 2000, p126.



1) Central Intelligence Agency, Handbook of Economic Statistics, 1981, Table 59.

2) Duffy, J. William, and Neuberger Egon. Comparative Economic Systems: A Decision  Making Approach. Boston : Allyn and Bacon, 1976.

3) Flath, David. The Japanese Economy. Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 2000.

4) Gurley, G. John. China's economy and the Maoist strategy. New York : Monthly Review      Press, 1976.

5) International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics Yearbook, 1980.

6) Japanese Economic Statistics, Tokyo, Bulletin no. 12, Sept. 1946; no. 1-101, Oct. 1958-Feb. 1967.

7) “Japan’s Strategy for the 1980s,” Business Week, December 14, 1981.

8) Min Tang, Growth Triangle in Asia. Oxford University Press, 1997.

9) Mitsubishi Economic Research Institute, Survey of Economic Conditions in Japan, June 1978.

10) World Bank Group, World Development Indicators Database, 

11) Yin, Helen ,and Yin Yi-Chang, Economic Statistics of Mainland China. Cambridge, Center for Asian Studies, Harvard University Press, 1960, p.47.






OK Economics was designed and it is maintained by Oldrich Kyn.
To send me a message, please use one of the following addresses: ---

This website contains the following sections:

General  Economics:

Economic Systems:

Money and Banking:

Past students:

Czech Republic

Kyn’s Publications

 American education

free hit counters
Nutrisystem Diet Coupons