\documentstyle[11pt,doublespace]{article}
\author{David Golombek}
\title{Efficiency}
\date{\today}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
Japan is an island nation, low on natural resources.  The United
States Covers half a continent, and has natural resources to last
another 50 years, even at current rates of consumption.  Japan has a
stong, nationalistic history stretching back 800 years, with a firm
heritage shared by it's largely homogenous population.  The United
States is barely over 200 years old, has a population thrown together
from the refugees and travelers of the world, with few or no common
ties.  Given these points, how much application does any theory
applicable to one population hold to the other?  Both Vogel and
Woronoff bring up valid points about the merit of the Japanese
economic and management systems, but ultimately, the usefulness of the
ideas comes down to whether they are applicable to the rest of the
world.

Given the number of books that came out praising the Japanese economy
over the time is made it's tremendous economic surge, it is
unsurprising that books both praising and criticizing it came out.
Woronoff and Vogel's books certainly match the two ends of this
spectrum, with Woronoff being flatly critical of the Japanese system,
while Vogel praises it.  What is intereresting are the different
qualities that each uses to reinforce his opinion.

Woronoff begins with an attack on the highly praised ``lifetime
employment'' policy in Japan.  He correctly points out that this
policy is by no means comprehensive, and that it is by no means
formal.  Indeed, nowhere in any employees contract does is state that
they shall be employeed for life -- if economic conditions were to
take a turn for the worse (as unlikely as it seems in today's
economy), it is quite feasible to see many of these ``lifetime
employees'' suddenly out of a job.  Woronoff goes on to attack the
Japanese style of management.  Instead of the industrious,
long-sighted managers described in other texts, Woronoff presents them
as politics oriented

Vogel on the other hand, presents a very favorable picture of the
Japanese system, begining with a short history of how the current
situation developed.  He then goes on to cover how Japanese
organizations are run, in their leveled heirarchy in which employees
advance at the same rate, with differentiation for ability only in
which area of work they are assigned too.  Vogel also attempts to
explain why executives accept lower salaries, and how good social
interaction among employees is helped by company sponsored events.  


Although it is easy to agree with Vogel for the simple reason that
Japan has the strongest economy in the world and must therefore being
doing something right, I find many of Woronoff's arguments very
powerful.  Japanese industries are still very much dependent upon the
high productivity and schooling of the average worker, and thus many
of the tactics the Japanese use do not apply to other countries.
Certainly MITI and the power of the zaibatsu's help Japan much, by
collecting capital, allowing high R\&D budgets and quick response to
new technologies.  Both of these policies are highly extensible, and
easily used by other nations, yet neither author mentions them as an
important part of the Jappanese success.  On the other hand, both
others talk about the basic worker, who is very productive, is
certainly not a very exportable item (although other nations, such as
Korea and Argentina are finding their workers have similar
attributes).  Thus, each of the two analyses of Japan is somewhat
correct.  Japan's system works very well for them, as Vogle points
out.  However, as Woronoff points out, it is the underlying base of
workers that allows Japan to do so well: many other parts of their
system are not as optimal, and without this base, many Japanese
companies would fall apart.


As Vogel points out, good relationships among employees are helped by
company sponsored events and a relatively level salary scale.
Similarly, very able employees are kept at the same level as people of
lesser ability, but put in more important departments.  Either of
these ideas, if tried in the United States (or most other
industrialized capitalistic nations), would fall flat, with employees
quickly moving too firms offering better salaries and more challenging
positions.  The strong social stigma of changing companies found in
Japan is simply not present elsewhere, and is nearly impossible for a
company to create.  This, and other similar pre-existing social
structures allow Japanese companies to succeed with the policies they
currently hold.

Thus, overall I like the Japanese system, as long as it is set in a
Japanese environment.  I am unconvinced that it is suitable for use in
other countries because it is too dependent upon other uncontrollable
structures, and is not even neccessarily the best strategy for Japan
to begin with.  However, it certainly worked, and has certain
excellent qualities, such as strong involvement of the company is
employee lives that can be modeled elsewhere.  As will all things in
life, the Japanese economic system is both good and bad.


\end{document}
