日本における「産業の規律」と独占 : 一九三〇年代の産業規制政策の展開を中心にして (「産業の規律」と独占 : 労働と資本と国家)
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
If we could grasp 'industrial discipline' as relationships among firms, industrial relations between labor and management, and government intervention against such relations, 'industrial discipline' in this sense underwent a great change at the time of Great Depression. Freedom of trade and cartel contract which government officially permitted in the 1920s was restricted by the enactment of the Law of Control to Important Industries in 1931. Since then, government positively intervened in industrial oraganization by encouraging cartel and trust, and guiding their activities. On the other hand, the legal acknowledgment of freedom of trade(labor) union which was admitted in the level of administrarion in the '20s, was failed by the abolition of Trade Union Act-Bill in 1931. Since then labor policy was transformed from acknowledgment of trade(labor) union to its restriction. Thus the rapid transformation of 'industrial discipline' in the 1930s includes two phases: (1) Enlargement of restriction against 'freedom of trade and contract' among firms, (2) Change of labor policy from cooperetive direction to compulsory direction. The purpose of this paper is to focus on phase (1), and further to reseach the development of industrial organization policy in the 1930s. By doing so, we shall clarify the legal and functional features of industrial organization policy in Japan at that time. Conclusions of the research are as follows: (1) Although government intervention in industrial oranization was a world-wide tendency in this period, feature of intervention in Japan is that legal restriction in regard to market mechanism went ahead of the change of macro economic policy. Another feature is the positiveness of intervention. This means that the purpose of intervention was not only restriction of cut-throat competition, but also setting up of industry with scale economy or external economy. (2) The above features are based on following three factors: First, it is the character of industrial structure that heavy industries had comparative disadvantage in the world market, thus could not establish in market mechanism. Second, it is the character of industrial organization that cartel was prevailed, but competition was still at work in small and medium firms. Thirdly, it is the social factor that public opinion was not critical enough to restrain the freedom of trade.
- 社会経済史学会の論文
- 1990-08-30
著者
関連論文
- 「岡崎哲二氏の書評に応える」
- 中村隆英・尾高煌之助編『二重構造』(日本経済史6)
- 日本における「産業の規律」と独占 : 一九三〇年代の産業規制政策の展開を中心にして (「産業の規律」と独占 : 労働と資本と国家)
- 戦時経済統制の展開と産業組織の変容(二) : 国民経済の組織化と資本の組織化
- 戦時経済統制の展開と産業組織の変容(一) : 国民経済の組織化と資本の組織化