INTRODUCTION

THIS CHAPTER EXAMINES the response of Japanese capitalism to globalization or Americanization in the 1990s and into the early twenty-first century, comparing the Japanese with the German case. We start by considering the reasons why the German case is taken into account in examining Japan's response to the intertwined processes of globalization and Americanization. Consideration is also given to the methodology of comparison, where we suggest that capitalism is defined and institutionalized by the state. We next move on to provide a historical Japanese–German comparison in relation to globalization and Americanization. Our third point is a comparison focused on the two central features of capitalism, namely, the enterprise system and international orientation.

METHODOLOGY

To start with, questions may be raised methodologically with regard to the reason for making a comparison with Germany (West Germany and unified Germany) in examining the response of Japanese capitalism to globalization. Under the Cold War system before 1990, there was certainly valid meaning in making a Japan–Germany comparison. Its basis lies, more than anything, in their common or parallel historical experiences, as illustrated by their defeat in the war, the occupation and the post-war reforms pushed forward by the Allied Powers, as well as their economic growth and rise to economic superpower status following the reforms.

However, with the end of the Cold War around 1990, a large divergence occurred in the paths charted by the two countries. West Germany achieved unification with East Germany and concretely experienced the end of the Cold War, one of the essential causes of which was the unification itself. As Europe's political, military, economic and social integration progressed, unified Germany's capitalism became greatly ‘Europeanized’. Indeed, following the introduction of the single currency euro, some might argue in favor of discussing European capitalism rather than German capitalism. In contrast, Japanese capitalism exists within an international environment centring on East Asia where the Cold War system still persists as illustrated by the existence of divided states, the system of some bilateral security treaties, the presence of the US military, and the lack or underdevelopment of regional integration. Thus, there is no possibility to talk about the ‘Asianization’ of Japanese capitalism or Asian capitalism at the institutional level.