Much has been discussed on the “U-turn movement” of Japanese population, but each of those engaged in the discussion uses the term “U-turn” in different meaning. It must be functional for our discussion to restrict the usage of this term to mean what was reported by T. Kuroda, who was the first to read a paper at the academic meeting concerning this new trait of Japanese population movement. He pointed out that during 1960s the population concentration into metropolitan districts from non-metro-politan areas was slightly decreasing, while the population moving fromm metropolitan to non-metropolitan regions was remarkably increasing.
Although the expression is literary, on the analogy of a motorcar's “U-turn” move-ment, the recent tendency reported by him can be called “U-turn” movement of Japa-nese population movement, which changed its population-movement pattern from concentration type to decentralization type. Nothing but the tendency above mentioned was the original meaning of the term “U-turn” movement of Japanese population.
Soon after the presentation of the paper concerning the above fact, Kuroda was criticized by A. Ono, who insisted that the new tendency Kuroda pointed out did not mean so remarkably a change in the population movement pattern according to the calculation of X2 by Quo. But it seemed to me that the re-examination by Ono was not completely adequate, because it contained some misunderstandings on Kuroda's logical construction. I myself re-calculated Kuroda's method as truly as I could and found that the criticism was disagreeable and that the contribution of Kuroda was to be highly estimated.
The discussion-points briefly above followed were what I commented when I wrote a paper in
Japanese Sociological Review, Vol. 22, No. 2. My paper introduced new dis-cussions, which contained not only sociological but also geographical issues. It might be my duty to review those new discussions and to remove other types of misunderstand-ings on “U-turn movement” of Japanese population.
The first thing I should point out is that there are some critics who cannot distinguish what was said by Kuroda from what was said by K. Shimizu, K. Hattori, and H. Futagami. The concept “Charm (Gravitation) of Cities” offered by Shimizu and Hattori has a large concern with population movement indeed, but neither of the two professors was the original reporter of “U-turn movement”. Even the contributions of Futagami, who attempted to examine “U-turn movement” by factor analysis, and who, on the process of his factor analysis, applied the idea “Chasm” to the study of population movement, is impossible to be regarded on the same level as Kuroda, the original reporter.
It is unfair to make up willfully another theoretical system putting together some fragments of the words of Kuroda, Shimizu, Hattori, Futagami and others, and to criticize this seemingly new but not really existing theory.
Another type of unfair criticism is as follows. Some critics are suspicious whether Kuroda is confusing “U-turn movement” with “doughnut-pattern movement” or not. That is, according to the critics, Kuroda, might have mistaken the population movement between the “loop” and the satellite cities forr the movement between metropolitan district and non-metropolitan area. But such a criticism is inadequate. A precice examination of the tables in Kuroda's paper evidences that it was impossible for Kuroda to miscount such a kind of miscounting, because the tables were of a sort that never did contain any data concerning the movement between the centre of metropolis and its outskirts.
Such are the points that have been disputed. I am sure that most of the misunderstandings might have been removed.
But, still a question is left.
View full abstract