-
Kurato KUMON
Article type: Article
1996 Volume 62 Issue 1 Pages
1-27
Published: May 25, 1996
Released on J-STAGE: September 28, 2017
JOURNAL
OPEN ACCESS
The purpose of this paper is to clarify the nature of genshikin-maegashi [unsecured abvances to raw-silk producers] at Kobe in the period from the Kanto Earthquake of 1923 to May 1933. Chapter I analyzes the extent to which city banks provided funds for the kiito urikomitonya [raw-silk provider for export merchants] and how this was done. City banks in Kobe provided more funds than city banks in Yokohama, and were more succesful in recovering their loans. Chapter II analyzes the process of establishment of Kobekiito Co., Ltd. and Shineikiito Co., Ltd. both large Kobe raw-silk providers, as well as examining their stockholders and genshikin-maegashi. Both companies were established in order to start a market for raw silk in Kobe. In the l92Os the stockholders of both companies were either entrepreneurs or citizens of Kobe. Both companies supplied raw-silk producers with genshikin that was composed of immense capital funds and money borrowed from city banks. In the 1920s the accounts of Kobekiito Co., Ltd. were in good condition, but Shineikiito Co., Ltd. had advances, which had turned out irrecoverable, to raw-silk producers in Shinshu area. After the Great Depression, the accounts of both companies were in a bad condition. They redeemed their advances through capital reduction in 1933. Both the raw-sillk producers in the Kansai area and the entrepreneurs and citizens of Kobe had great hopes when the raw-silk market at Kobe was first started. At Kobe genshikin-maegashi were developed through capital contributed by entrepreneurs and citizens and loans from city banks in Kobe. These aspects of genshikin-maegashi at Kobe signify a change in the historical features of the financing of silk reeling industry in Japan.
View full abstract
-
Katsumi ARAHATA
Article type: Article
1996 Volume 62 Issue 1 Pages
28-54
Published: May 25, 1996
Released on J-STAGE: September 28, 2017
JOURNAL
OPEN ACCESS
"Noji-junkai-kyoshi" were instructors designated by the government to act as agricultural advisers to farmers in order to improve agricultural methods. The system was modelled on similar schemes which had previously introduced in several prefectures. The scheme in operation in Ishikawa prefecture is thought to have been particularly influenced. In the first half of the Meiji era, agricultural policy had two distinct aspects in the sense that importance was attached to both traditional Japanese farming methods and to western methods at the same time. From the point of view of the former, "Nodankai" [Farmers' Meetings] were to be promoted and the system of "Noji-junkai-kyoshi" was to be seen as a secondary, supporting measure. On the other hand, from the point of view of the latter, these meetings were not to be approved and the system of "Noji-junkai-kyoshi" was to be function as a substitute. At the planning stage, the traditionalist view was stressed. However, at the actual stage of implementation, the westernising view was stressed. In any case, the number of advisers and the range of their activities was reduced because of budgetary constraints.
View full abstract
-
Jaedong CHOI
Article type: Article
1996 Volume 62 Issue 1 Pages
55-78
Published: May 25, 1996
Released on J-STAGE: September 28, 2017
JOURNAL
OPEN ACCESS
From the late 19th century, peasant communes in Moscow province started a transition from the traditional three-field system to a new multi-field system using travoseyanie [grass-sowing], and this transition was supported by the zemstva. This quantitative expansion of travoseyanie was an attempt to stem the decline of the peasant economy, but the results did not entirely meet the expectations of the zemstva. Among other things, travoseyanie revived the cultivation of linen, which had cased to flourish under the three-field system. In this way, it made it possible to restore the peasant economy in the communes by enhancing the peasants' attachment to their land. Nevertheless, grass was mostly sold outside the households rather than used inside. Deviation from the crop-rotation in the multi-field system was prevalent. Even in the villages where the multi-field system with grass-sowing was introduced, the traditional dual structure of agriculture and seasonal migration still remained. In this way, the chance of reviving the peasant economy through travoseyanie was greatly limited by the commercially purposed introduction of travoseyanie and by the widespread deviation from the rule of crop-rotation.
View full abstract
-
[in Japanese]
Article type: Article
1996 Volume 62 Issue 1 Pages
79-81
Published: May 25, 1996
Released on J-STAGE: September 28, 2017
JOURNAL
OPEN ACCESS
-
[in Japanese]
Article type: Article
1996 Volume 62 Issue 1 Pages
81-85
Published: May 25, 1996
Released on J-STAGE: September 28, 2017
JOURNAL
OPEN ACCESS
-
[in Japanese]
Article type: Article
1996 Volume 62 Issue 1 Pages
85-88
Published: May 25, 1996
Released on J-STAGE: September 28, 2017
JOURNAL
OPEN ACCESS
-
[in Japanese]
Article type: Article
1996 Volume 62 Issue 1 Pages
88-92
Published: May 25, 1996
Released on J-STAGE: September 28, 2017
JOURNAL
OPEN ACCESS
-
[in Japanese]
Article type: Article
1996 Volume 62 Issue 1 Pages
92-95
Published: May 25, 1996
Released on J-STAGE: September 28, 2017
JOURNAL
OPEN ACCESS
-
[in Japanese]
Article type: Article
1996 Volume 62 Issue 1 Pages
95-97
Published: May 25, 1996
Released on J-STAGE: September 28, 2017
JOURNAL
OPEN ACCESS
-
[in Japanese]
Article type: Article
1996 Volume 62 Issue 1 Pages
98-100
Published: May 25, 1996
Released on J-STAGE: September 28, 2017
JOURNAL
OPEN ACCESS
-
[in Japanese]
Article type: Article
1996 Volume 62 Issue 1 Pages
100-104
Published: May 25, 1996
Released on J-STAGE: September 28, 2017
JOURNAL
OPEN ACCESS
-
[in Japanese]
Article type: Article
1996 Volume 62 Issue 1 Pages
104-106
Published: May 25, 1996
Released on J-STAGE: September 28, 2017
JOURNAL
OPEN ACCESS
-
[in Japanese]
Article type: Article
1996 Volume 62 Issue 1 Pages
106-109
Published: May 25, 1996
Released on J-STAGE: September 28, 2017
JOURNAL
OPEN ACCESS
-
[in Japanese]
Article type: Article
1996 Volume 62 Issue 1 Pages
109-112
Published: May 25, 1996
Released on J-STAGE: September 28, 2017
JOURNAL
OPEN ACCESS
-
[in Japanese]
Article type: Article
1996 Volume 62 Issue 1 Pages
112-115
Published: May 25, 1996
Released on J-STAGE: September 28, 2017
JOURNAL
OPEN ACCESS
-
[in Japanese]
Article type: Article
1996 Volume 62 Issue 1 Pages
116-119
Published: May 25, 1996
Released on J-STAGE: September 28, 2017
JOURNAL
OPEN ACCESS
-
[in Japanese]
Article type: Article
1996 Volume 62 Issue 1 Pages
119-122
Published: May 25, 1996
Released on J-STAGE: September 28, 2017
JOURNAL
OPEN ACCESS
-
[in Japanese]
Article type: Article
1996 Volume 62 Issue 1 Pages
122-125
Published: May 25, 1996
Released on J-STAGE: September 28, 2017
JOURNAL
OPEN ACCESS
-
[in Japanese]
Article type: Article
1996 Volume 62 Issue 1 Pages
125-127
Published: May 25, 1996
Released on J-STAGE: September 28, 2017
JOURNAL
OPEN ACCESS
-
[in Japanese]
Article type: Article
1996 Volume 62 Issue 1 Pages
128-130
Published: May 25, 1996
Released on J-STAGE: September 28, 2017
JOURNAL
OPEN ACCESS
-
[in Japanese]
Article type: Article
1996 Volume 62 Issue 1 Pages
130-133
Published: May 25, 1996
Released on J-STAGE: September 28, 2017
JOURNAL
OPEN ACCESS
-
[in Japanese]
Article type: Article
1996 Volume 62 Issue 1 Pages
133-136
Published: May 25, 1996
Released on J-STAGE: September 28, 2017
JOURNAL
OPEN ACCESS
-
Article type: Bibliography
1996 Volume 62 Issue 1 Pages
142-144
Published: May 25, 1996
Released on J-STAGE: September 28, 2017
JOURNAL
OPEN ACCESS