ABSTRACT
As political democracies with representative forms of government, Japan and the United States pursue economic policies that reflect their respective national interests and ideologies. Major policy conflicts sometimes occur. One area of conflict has been—and continues to be—in agricultural trade relations. Before explaining why this is true and what can be done about it, we offer a set of propositions.
In economic terms, the agricultural trade relations between Japan and the United States are complementary. The natural limitations imposed on the Japanese agricultural sector have resulted in a food deficit situation, which has grown incrementally because of dynamic increases in national wealth and very moderate increases in national population. At present, approximately half of Japan's food requirements come from imports. In contrast, the natural advantages of the U.S. agricultural industry have often resulted in food surpluses followed by declining market prices for agricultural products. American agriculture has become quite dependent on the existence of foreign (dollar) markets for its products; over time, Japan has become the number one export market for U.S. agriculture. Thus, there has developed a harmony of interests between U.S. and Japanese agriculture, at least as viewed in terms of the economic theory of comparative advantage.
In political terms, the agricultural trade policies of both Japan and the United States tend to be dominated by agricultural political interests owing to the strong rural base of the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan and the highly decentralized nature of the American political party system. To some extent this is a reflection of the difference in the structure and orientation of the two political systems. The United States has a federal system, with a national government characterized by separated powers; Japan is a unitary state, with a parliamentary-cabinet form of government. Although fanners are a minority group in both countries, and especially so in the United States (approximately 12 percent in Japan and 3 percent in United States), the farm vote continues to have political credibility, for somewhat different reasons. Thus, food and agricultural policies in both are strongly influenced by domestic political considerations and competing sectional and commodity interests, although the latter are of relatively greater significance in U.S. food politics.
In the two countries, rather diametrically opposed ideologies are proclaimed by their respective agricultural political interests; these ideologies are, at least in part, camouflages for the respective economic interests. U.S. farm groups (general and commodity), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (notably the Foreign Agricultural Service), and powerful Congressional agriculture committees advocate the superiority of the economic theories of free trade and comparative advantage. In contrast, the Japanese agricultural power structure (the farmer cooperatives, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, and the agriculture committees in the Diet) advocate with equal vigor the vital necessity of implementing the principles of self-sufficiency and protectionism.
The agricultural political establishments of both the United States and Japan then attempt, not without moderate success, to isolate themselves from the subordinate although significant role that each would occupy if the national interests of both countries were the primary concern of the respective governments. More specifically, U.S.—Jap-anese national and international economic policies are primarily concerned with issues of mutual security, world peace, and domestic prosperity, and yet their respective agricultural interests tend to pursue policies that isolate their particular economic interests from these primary goals. Moreover, in both nations, other domestic industrial and welfare interests also have major and coordinate concerns which need to be, and to some extent are, accommodated in both the domestic political processes and in the foreign policies within and between the two nations.
In consequence, ways and means need to be devised that will accord both Japanese and U.S. agricultural interests a significant, but still secondary, role in the overall relations between the two nations. Institutions and strategies need to be developed which will build flexibility, diversity, and mutual understanding in the decision-making process between the two governments. Peace, freedom, security, and prosperity are their mutual goals, and rational agricultural trade relations are definitely valuable to both nations in the pursuit of those goals.
