In this paper, first of all, I classify the methods of industrial study into three groups and make clear the characteristics on the methodology of each group: modern economics approach (A group), marxist approach (B group) and eclectic approach (C group). A group emphasizes the study of price, B group emphasizes the study of techndogy, and C group emphasizes to grasp the reality of industrial activities without theory or ideology.
Next, I divide the postwar industrial study into three periods. In the first period (1955∼1965), “Gendai Nippon Sangyo Koza” ed. by prof. Arisawa was published in 1959. Under the stimulus of this publication, many industrial studies were made by many researchers such as economists, historians and technologists. And then, industrial economics (or industrial study) acquired citizenship in the academic curriculums.
In the second period (1966∼1973), “Nippon no Sangyo Series” was published by Toyokeizaishimposha in 1965 (revised in 1970). In this period, Japanese industry was just in the secondary high-economic growth which had been accelerated by the pressure of liberalization. But in the latter half of this period, many distortion problems occurred. Above all, the pollution problem became the largest social-problem. And the anti-pollution study was made actively. But on the other hand, in opposition to the anti-pollution study, futurology or future industrial study was made actively too.
The third period (1974∼) is the present stage in which the industrial structure has been changing rapidly, and moreover in the international phase, the position of America has been declining and in turn the position of japan (or a role of japan) in the world has been rising up relatively. In the face of these radical changes both in Japan and abroad, what kind of response has been asked for Japanese industry? The main theme of the present-day industrial study is to analyse the actual response of Japanese industry and to indicate its future forecast.
In conclusion, in the near future, Japanese industry will hold many problems in the international phase (phase A), the industrial adjustment phase (phase B), the technological innovation phase (phase C), and the industrial system phase (phase D). Therefore, We should dig out each of these four phases precisely. However, these four phases don't exist separately but are depending mutually. And so, it is necessary to grasp these four phases circularly and unifyingly. But it seems to me that the new methodology of industrial study (i. e. the method to grasp these four phases unifyingly) is not yet born. In my opinion, I think that a key of solving it is in an approach to the theory of firm.

抄録全体を表示

This is an enlarged paper, the draft of which was read at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial Studies (Japan) on December 1, 1985 in Tokyo. In this paper, I intend to investigate the recent trends of industrial organization economics in the United States of America, in order to help us consider on the future course of our industrial studies. Here, we focus on three aspects, interrelated to each others, of the new trends in industrial organization: towards studies of strategic behavior, analysis of dynamic process of oligopolistic market and competition, and adopting a case study approach rather than cross sectional approach.
Specifically, I emphasize the importance of introducing a factor of “learning-by-doing”, or learning curve, in dynamic analysis of Japanese manufacturing industries, in the view of a greater role of cummulative improvements to increase efficiency and competitiveness in those industries, for instance, in consumer video casset recorder. And, in relation to this, I suggest that the recent coflicts of “dumping problem” between U. S. and Japanese industries should be analyzed with a dynamic approach of learning curve economies.

抄録全体を表示

Although a formal analysis of the economic interdependence by general economic theory has been available since the old time, the field of applied economics on industrial activities, such as the theory of industrial organization, input-output theory, aggregative analysis of industrial growth, socio-economic analysis of industrial system and so on, has developed only in the recent years. However, these applied economics on industrial activities are unhapily diverseified by a great variety of different thcories each other. In each case, the analytical concepts are reformulated to some extent to facilitate thier own applicative aims. To cite one example, the fundamental concept of “industry” has the “dual” character, i. e., it combines the growp-concept as set of firms with the composite-concept formed a constituent part of the national economy.
I realize the necessity of a setting in array of those theories of Industrial Economics in order of the analytical steps and aspects to meet the situation of each problem. Our idea may be compactly summarized in the following chart in which various theories are classified and methodically arranged.
There are two Key-concepts for soution of the problem, that is (1) the concept of intra-and-inter industry and (2) the concept of the degree of disaggreation (or aggregation) of industrial sector, as shown in the chart. It enable us to form a fairly accurate idea of a connecting link among basic and applied theories in the analytical order.
This quiding idea is applied to the developments of industry study in the recent years, and by such approach we aim at giving a unified discussion of industrial ‘organization’ and interindustry ‘structure’, bared on the re-examination of each theoretical background. Recent topics concerning industrial changes regarding service economy, informational network society and so on are also reviewed from the standpoint that emphasises the relations between inter-and-intra industrial activities and economic behavior in the disaggregative level.

抄録全体を表示