It was believed for long years that distribution system in Japan was traditional and far retarded from that of the western societies. However, Japanese manufacturers and retailers has made efforts in modernizing themselves by learning and introducing modern marketing theory and know-how mainly from the United States. And now they are actively engaging in selling Japanese products to Europe and the United States for which economic frictions arise. This article try to make clear how distribution system and marketing technique has been modernized from the Meiji period to present. In this connection, two aspects which is believed to characterize the modernization process of distribution system and marketing in Japan are pointed out. In considering the market for manufacturers and distributors in pre-war Japan, two completely different type of markets had been developed : they were 'international market' and 'domestic market'. The former was newly opened market for Japan and was mainly carried out by such big zaibatsu enterprises as Mitsui Bussan and Mitsubishi Shoji. The latter was traditional one and was dealt by traditional distributers in traditional way. Modernization had occured in both markets. In international market, it was sogo-shosha which led the modernization and, in domestic market, they were such retailors as Mitsukoshi and Takashimaya and also such manufacturers as Shiseido, Morinaga, Ajinomoto and Matsushita which started the production of new products. In both cases, influence of western knowledge and technique was very strong. However, as a whole, traditional character of the distribution system was remained. It was only after the War that retailing revolution and modern marketing by manufacturers gave big influence on the whole system of distribution in Japan. But such dual charachter of market still exists even today and it is the reason why European and American claim Japan's domestic market as of non-tariff barrior. This article makes clear this dual character of Japan's distribution system in its historical perspectives.
In the international maritime history, the International Mercantile Marine (IMM) Co., established as an American concern in 1902, had an unique beginning as follows : firstly, J.P. Morgan & Co., a famous investment banking, played an important role in forming the IMM; secondly, Morgan & Co. combined several important liner companies engaged in a single operating route, the North Atlantic; and lastly, the IMM was composed of shipping firms whose nationalities were different, but mainly American and British. So far, many books and articles have treated of the IMM, usually, from a viewpoint of regarding the IMM as Morgan's Trust in the shipping industry. They analyse the financial aspects of the IMM, with pointing out failure as Trust because of poor financial performance. They are, however, little explanation of 'Americanization' policy that the IMM disposed of its foreign subsidaries and became an American shipping enterprise after the First World War. In order to inquire into the reason for and meaning of adopting Americanization policy, it should be required to analyse the IMM's strategy and structure rather than financial results up to the period of pre-War, and that is my task of the article. In conclusion, it is the reason for adopting Americanization policy that the IMM failed to formulate definite corporate strategy because of differences in managerial environment between constituent companies in the U.S.A. and U.K., and to create administrative control as a whole because of different approaches to organizational design between the top management in the U.S.A. and U.K. While, thus, Americanization policy taken by the IMM after the war was seen as a result of managerial failure of an earlier transnational enterprise in the maritime history, its policy was valid in the sense that it aimed to reconstruct effective organization for control and operation of fleets through unification of strategy by disposing of foreign flags under nominal control.