18/11/2017 Western freedom and Japanese culture

              For centuries Western philosophy has regarded freedom as the most important value. The majority of Europeans and Americans seem to believe that they are entirely free to do anything if they do not harm others, although whether they actually behave according to this belief is a separate question. In economics terms, they believe that an individual has freedom of choice as far as he does not inflict external diseconomies to others. The key to understanding Japanese culture lies in realizing that this belief has serious problems.
              It is worthwhile to note that economics has a paradigm called general equilibrium theory which is supposed to justify the above belief. It proposes that if all individuals act from self-interests utilizing freedom of choice, the allocation of resources of the economy will become efficient. This is called the first proposition of welfare economics. Neoliberalism, which seeks for globalization, is based on this proposition or neoclassical economics.
              This justification, however, depends on many unrealistic assumptions. One of them is that all transactions are carried out by complete contracts free of cost. Complete contracts stand for sufficiently detailed contracts that would not foment disputes. This implies that detailed contracts control all human relations including those within organizations, among teachers and students, between lovers, etc., though, strictly speaking, lovers do not appear in the theory.
The cost of making a contract is an example of what is called transaction cost in economics. Any detailed contract can be made in general equilibrium theory because transaction costs are assumed to be zero. It is obvious that such a theory is quite unrealistic. Sufficiently detailed contracts between employer and employee, for example, would incur astronomical costs.
              Existence of transaction costs in the real world generates situations of insufficiently detailed contracts or game situations, which are characterized by interdependence among individuals. In these situations, individuals' lawful behavior is likely to influence the welfare of other people. For instance, they may behave uncooperatively.
A typical and interesting game in relation to the problem of freedom is prisoners’ dilemma, in which individuals (called players) freely choose strategies to maximize their payoffs. Behaving in this way they lead to an inefficient outcome. If they could trust each other and cooperate, they would lead to an efficient one, i.e., they would both become happier. The real world is full of this type of situations involving decisions as to whether to cooperate. Cooperation cannot be achieved easily in the real world because sufficiently detailed contracts are hard to be made.
A fundamental cultural difference between Western countries and Japan lies in the difference in the degree to which contracts have been utilized in their histories. In contrast with Western countries, Japan has not used contracts very often in business. For instance, when I got employed by the university for which I worked more than thirty years, I did not sign a contract but a pledge of about two lines of words.
              A society that does not so much rely on contracts requires special ethics and human relations. Such values as trust, enryo,* sincerity, and punctuality are very important. In many cases those values become more important than freedom.
              I would like to talk about this matter again.

*I do not find any proper English word for the Japanese word enryo, which means a person's attitude of sacrificing his freedom for the benefit of the group he belongs to even though seeking for more freedom is perfectly legal. My dictionaries list translations such as reserve, mindfulness, and self-restraint, but I am not quite sure if any of them is proper.

Comments and questions are welcome.
Kazuhiro Arai’s Japanese blog:        　 https://araikazuhiro.blogspot.jp/

Kazuhiro Arai’s Japanese home page:   http://araikazuhiro.world.coocan.jp/









Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Nature of Economics (3)

Image
The Nature of Economics (3) A crucial defect of neoclassical economics related to the above discussion is that it analyzes seriously only markets, more specifically organized markets. It does not seriously analyze firms or households. It ignores government, the environment, and international relations. Although the real economy has a variety of market types, it treats all markets as the same type. Can the demand-supply analysis (with auctioneers) be applied to medical markets or education markets? This implies that neoclassical economics analyzes only a limited part of the economy. Although it deals with firms, it does not seriously analyze them in the sense that it fails to explain how a particular set of input levels achieves the level of output given by the production function. In other words, it does not describe the process of production or how production is carried out. Firms in the real economy try hard to improve their technologies. They also try to invent new products
Read more

The Nature of Economics (7)

Image
The Nature of Economics (7) Neoclassical economics does not consider efficiency of the whole economy because the production function and utility function are exogenously given. Since I do not think that this point is made clear in books or papers, I would like to discuss it in some detail. Consider two economies E1 and E2. The workers in E1 are more cooperative and hard-working. Those in E2 are selfish and lazy. Hence, the labor productivity in the firm in E1 is higher for equally given levels of physical inputs. However both economies are efficient in neoclassical economics! Both E1 and E2 are efficient as far as all firms maximize their profits subject to exogenously given (different) production functions! It is obvious that E1 is more affluent than E2. I would like to emphasize that efficiency differs from affluence in neoclassical economics. Next consider two economies E3 and E4. The people in E3 are more harmonious and other-regarding within the household. Those in E4 ar
Read more

The Nature of Economics (5)

Image
The Nature of Economics (5) We see here a good example for the fact that the values researchers possess affect their choice of the topic and method of research generating bias in ‘scientific works.’ 　 Researchers who want to support individualism do not analyze firms or households seriously. They simply introduce exogenously given production functions and utility functions. Economists tend to ignore or distort social aspects that are inconvenient to build models with conclusions they like. It is really hard to establish social sciences that are value-free. Researchers need to recognize this. On the other hand, a unified theoretical model may be formed to explain the cultural difference mentioned in the example given in the above third reason. It may be done by introducing a measure of the degree of cooperativeness as an exogenous variable. In such a model different types of equilibrium may arise for different values of the measure. If we can endogenize the variable for that m
Read more