初期農商務省の政策対立

DOI Web Site

書誌事項

タイトル別名
  • Economic Policy Confrontation in the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce in the Early Years
  • ショキノウショウムショウ ノ セイサク タイリツ

この論文をさがす

抄録

The purpose of this paper is to compare a pro-Maeda group with an anti-Maeda group in the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce (MOAC) until the end of 1885, paying special attention to a confrontation which occurred between the two groups regarding economic policies. Furthermore, the policies of the Ministry of Finance (MOF) are also considered. This paper focuses on the reactionary views in the written statement, "Kogyo Iken," which was edited by Maeda Masana. Even though the written statement was epoch-making in industrial policy, it had several problems: it not only led to a gradual modernization, it also had limited vision because it insisted on supporting a variety of industries, including those which were in decline. When the MOF changed the policy of documentary bills for direct exportation in order to accumulate specie, friction with the MOAC, which considered it important to support various local industries, increased. Subsequently, the friction between the two Ministries was finalized when they argued over a draft for an industrial bank. On the other hand, within the MOAC, there was a group represented by Shinagawa Tadamichi, that thought highly of the MOF's policy regarding the accumulation of specie. In order to support accumulating specie, this group believed it was important to support only staple commodities. They criticized the support for local industries endorsed by the Maeda group, and they promoted policies for the 'indirect encouragement of industries,' such as trade associations, staple commodity quality reform, improvements of the means of production, and so on. Finally, in addition to this confrontation over economic policies within the MOAC, Maeda Masana created factional opposition, through the re-organization of the MOAC. Consequently, he was banished from the MOAC in 1885.

収録刊行物

  • 歴史と経済

    歴史と経済 46 (3), 38-51, 2004

    政治経済学・経済史学会

詳細情報 詳細情報について

問題の指摘

ページトップへ