Comparative Study of Japanese and Korean Economy-Industry and Company-

这次研讨会是在亚洲经济危机爆发几年后举办的，能够从不同角度对危机的特点进行观察。针对麻省理工学院教授保罗·克鲁格曼（Paul Krugman）的著名文章《亚洲奇迹的神话》（Foreign Affairs， 1994年11月），对政府与市场的职能分工进行了新古典主义的分析。从定量分析的角度出发，提出了基于合并资本经济模型的分析，认为韩国经济危机的根本原因是货币贬值，而货币贬值又是结构性贸易逆差造成的。（当提出未来资本外流的模拟时，发生了一场辩论。）本文分析了韩国媒体、学术界和政府的行动，以及美国和国际货币基金组织在危机爆发时的行动，并将这场危机与拉丁美洲和东南亚的危机进行了比较。更多的日本和韩国的经济和商业——在两国金融政策崩溃的背景下经历了快速变化的领域——被提出。关于是将这种危机解释为两国经济框架的解体，还是将这种危机解释为向新经济框架的过渡，存在争论。日本和韩国的研究人员对日本和韩国产业结构之间的合作可能有多大的看法存在明显差异。此外，还有一种意见呼吁韩国制定政策，效仿日本小企业的成功——日本小企业通常被认为是日本经济的一个优势——以及它们在亚洲的发展。关于日本和韩国就业做法的变化（两国广泛关注的事态发展），进行了一次介绍和辩论，充分显示了比较分析的有效性。会议还介绍了日本废除就业制度的内部机制，并解释了日本工人短缺的趋势。有人问：“从20世纪80年代后半期开始，韩国劳动运动的兴起，在目前的经济危机下，会带来什么政策？”还就随着国际竞争的加剧，促进就业做法的内容进行了辩论。许多研究人员提出意见说，不仅是日本和韩国，而且包括正在实行开放政策的中国在内的东亚经济结构改革是近期的重要课题。此外，还有意见认为，应根据亚洲国家的情况，积极提出替代方案，以对照国际货币基金组织现有的结构改革计划。并且，在金融、劳工、技术、企业实践等领域提出了许多明确定义的想法（包括许多政策建议），随后是研究人员之间的辩论。少

This seminar was held several year after the start of the Asian Economic Crisis, and was able to gather observations from various angles on the characteristics of the crisis. Regarding MIT Professor Paul Krugman's much-noticed article "Myth of Asia's Miracle" (Foreign Affairs, Nov.1994), a neoclassical analysis on the division of functions between government and market was presented. From the standpoint of quantitative analysis, analysis based on a consolidated capital economic model was presented, stating that root cause of South Korea's economic crisis was the decline of the currency, which in turn was caused by structural trade deficit. (A debate occurred when simulation of future capital outflow was presented.) An analysis of the actions of SouthKorean media, academia and government, as well as the actions of United States and the IMF as the crisis unfolded was presented, as was a comparison of the crisis with crises in Latin America and Southeast Asia.Many provocative findings on … More Japanese and South Korean economies and businesses-areas experiencing rapid change in the light of the collapse of the two countries' financial policies-were presented. There was debate on whether to interpret such crises as the disintegration of the two countries' economic frameworks or to interpret such crises as transitions to new economic frameworks. There was marked difference in opinion between Japanese and South Korean researchers on just how much cooperation would be possible between Japanese and South Korean industrial structures. And, an opinion was heard that called for South Korea to formulate policy that would emulate in South Korea the success of Japan's small businesses-often cited as a strong point of the Japanese economy-and their advancement into Asia. Regarding changes in employment practices in Japan and South Korea (developments of wide concern for both countries), there was a presentation as well as a debate which showed well the effectiveness of comparative analysis. There also was a presentation on the inner workings of the dismantlement of Japanese employment practices as well as an explanation of the Japanese tendency for worker shortage. A question wasasked querying what policies the rise of the the labor movement in South Korea since the latter half of the 1980s will bring forth in the light of the current economic crisis. There also was debate on what the advancement of employment practices would consist of as international competition intensifies.Many researchers presented opinions stating that an important topic for the immediate future is reform in East Asia economic structure that would cover not just Japan and South Korea but also China, where open-door policies are being enacted. Also, opinions were heard that stated IMF's plans for structural reform should be contrasted by actively proposing alternate plans based on conditions in Asian countries. And, numerous clearly defined ideas (including many policy proposals) in fields of finance, labor, technology, corporate practices, etc. were presented, followed by debates among researchers. Less