I met several Japanese colleagues over the years and most of them do not believe the economic argument over protection of Japanese farmers. In other words, the costs (calculated in a straightforward way) far outweigh the benefits. However, there are at least three non-economic arguments. The first is that the rice constituency is politically very strong. Their numbers are small but they they have considerable sway over the LDP (liberal democratic party). Of course there is nothing liberal about this party, it becomes liberal when benchmarked with other parties! The second (perhaps interrelated) reason is that rice is still sacred among the Japanese, even if Japanese are generally irreligious. It might be called a psychic attachment. The third reason is the subjective element of taste. Japanese generally consider their rice to be distinct in taste, texture, and flavor. While I am sure substitution is relatively easy, all of these factors in an interconnected way continue to influence protection of Japanese rice.
Two other points might be mentioned. I have come across references that suggest many farmers are weekend farmers, meaning they have other forms of employment. So the idea of welfare support could be challenged. Second point is that Japanese rural areas are being denuded of people due to migration over decades and the population is ageing. Brides are brought over from Asian countries so there is basic security and sustainability question. Cheers, Anthony xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Anthony P. D'Costa Professor of Indian Studies Asia Research Centre Copenhagen Business School Porcelaenshaven 24, 3 DK-2000 Frederiksberg Denmark Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: +45 3815 2572 Fax: +45 3815 2500 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 5:40 AM, Gar Lipow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 5:07 PM, raghu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Gar Lipow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> It seems overwhelmingly mainstream economic opinion that Japanese rice >>> protection is without justification, with huge costs to Japanese >>> consumers and no benefits. Is this a case where the mainstream is >>> right, or are there legit food securit and social welfare arguments to >>> be made for being able to produce a staple locally? It is always >>> interesting to look at the poster children for the conventional >>> wisdom. >> >> Isn't there a strong environmental sustainability argument for growing >> food locally? In the case of poor countries there is also a strong >> argument to be made for food self-sufficiency for national security >> and stability. >> -raghu. >> > > > Makes sense. I'd be curious to see a rigorous argument for this > though. Michael's point is a good one, but I wonder if it is still > true today.Japan is a much richer nation than in 1971. I suspect the > sustainability, food security and national security arguments are > stronger. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
