Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:02:33.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tax Reform as Social Policy: Adjusting to change in interwar Japan*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2012

ANDREA REVELANT
ANDREA REVELANT*
Affiliation:
Department of Asian and North African Studies, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the wide domain of finance, taxation is one of the issues to which public opinion is most sensitive. This paper explores why tax reform was hotly debated in Japan throughout the 1920s, focusing on the policies of the two main political parties. Though a topic rarely treated by historians, this controversy reveals a wealth of information on the concerns that lay behind policy choices in years that were marked by economic instability and social unrest; it shows, in particular, how the ruling elites tried to attenuate class conflict by enhancing the redistributive function of taxes, which had thus far been subordinated to the encouragement of rapid economic growth and the financing of state investment. While these attempts deserve attention as tentative steps towards the development of a welfare state, their limits indicate that the parties, in spite of extending the suffrage during this period, retained strong links with a restricted network of established constituents. This paper dwells especially on the earliest and least studied phase of the dispute on tax reform, in order to prove that the emergence of distinct party platforms did not stem simply from tactical considerations, but was rooted in broader policy visions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , May 2013 , pp. 851 - 894
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The research for this paper was supported by a two-year scholarship from the Japanese Ministry of Education and a short-term grant from Ca’ Foscari. I am particularly grateful for advice from Costas Lapavitsas, Gotō Shin'ichi, and the two anonymous referees.

References

1 Schumpeter, J., ‘The Crisis of the Tax State’, in Peacock, A.et al. (eds), International Economic Papers, No. 4 (London: Macmillan, 1954Google Scholar; essay originally published in 1918), p. 7.

2 For a collection of recent studies, see kenkyūkai, Kinda sozeishi (ed.), Kindai Nihon no keisei to sozei (Tōkyō: Yūshisha, 2008)Google Scholar. (Note: All works in Japanese subsequently quoted from were published in Tokyo, unless otherwise indicated.) The official narratives of modern taxation are: hensankai, Meiji zaiseishi (ed.), Meiji zaiseishi, Volumes 5–7 (Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1904, reprinted 1971)Google Scholar; Ōkurashō (ed.), Meiji Taishō zaiseishi, Volumes 6–7 (Zaisei keizai gakkai, 1937); zaiseishi henshūshitsu, Ōkurashō Shōwa (ed.), Shōwa zaiseishi, Volumes 5, 14 (Tōyō keizai shinpōsha, 1954, 1957)Google Scholar.

3 For an introduction, see Matsuo, T.Taishō demokurashii no gunzō (Iwanami shoten, 1990), pp. 2–22Google Scholar; Katō, S. ‘Taishō Democracy as the Pre-Stage for Japanese Militarism’, in Silberman, B. and Harootunian, H. (eds), Japan in Crisis (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974), pp. 217–36Google Scholar. Scholars use the reign-name of Emperor Taishō (1912–26) flexibly.

4 On the latter process, see Mitani, T. ‘The Establishment of Party Cabinets, 1898–1932’, in Duus, P. (ed.), The Cambridge History of Japan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), Vol. 6, pp. 55–96Google Scholar; Masumi, J.Nihon seitō shiron, Volumes 2–5 (Tōkyō daigaku shuppankai, 1966–79)Google Scholar; Murai, R.Seitō naikakusei no seiritsu (Yūhikaku, 2005)Google Scholar.

5 Either view can be found in Akita, G., The Foundations of Constitutional Government in Japan, 1868–1900 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ramseyer, M. and Rosenbluth, F., The Politics of Oligarchy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 See Berger, G., Parties Out of Power in Japan, 1931–1941 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Minichiello, S., Retreat from Reform (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 1984)Google Scholar; Oku, K.Shōwa senzenki Rikken seiyūkai no kenkyū (Keiō gijuku daigaku shuppankai, 2004), pp. 89–115Google Scholar, 171–206.

7 See Banno, J.Democracy in Pre-War Japan (London: Routledge, 2001), pp. 108–13Google Scholar; Garon, S., The State and Labor in Modern Japan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), pp. 63–65Google Scholar.

8 See Hara, A. ‘1920 nendai no zaisei shūshi to sekkyoku-shōkyoku seisaku rosen’, in Nakamura, T. (ed.), Senkanki no Nihon keizai bunseki (Yamakawa shuppansha, 1986), pp. 78–109Google Scholar; Metzler, M., Lever of Empire (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006), pp. 67–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 80–89.

9 See Mitani, T.Nihon seitō seiji no keisei (Tōkyō daigaku shuppankai, 1967), pp. 133–83Google Scholar; Najita, T., Hara Kei in the Politics of Compromise (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1967), pp. 59–79Google Scholar.

10 See Naraoka, S.Katō Takaaki to seitō seiji (Yamakawa shuppankai, 2006), pp. 188Google Scholar, 207, 215.

11 See, for example, Myōga, F.Nihon seitō no gensei (Nihon hyōronsha, 1929), pp. 237–38, 253–54Google Scholar, 297.

12 See Kawato, S.Nihon no seitō seiji 1890–1937 nen (Tōkyō daigaku shuppankai, 1992), pp. 169–80Google Scholar.

13 The most well known is probably Johnson, C., MITI and the Japanese Miracle (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1982)Google Scholar.

14 Ramseyer and Rosenbluth, The Politics, pp. 56–73.

15 kyoku, Naikaku tōkei (ed.), Nihon teikoku tōkei nenkan (NTTN) (Naikaku tōkei kyoku, 1920), p. 628Google Scholar.

16 On public finance through the modern period, see Sakairi, C.Nihon zaiseishi kenkyū, four volumes (Sakai shoten, 1988)Google Scholar.

17 On income tax up to 1926, see Takahashi, M. ‘Gendai shotokuzeisei no tenkai’, Keizai shirin, 26 (1) 1958, pp. 47–83Google Scholar; 27 (1) 1959, pp. 85–120; 28 (1) 1960, pp. 129–60; ‘Nihon shotokuzeisei no shiteki kōzō’, Shakai kagaku kenkyū, 13 (6) 1962, pp. 1–42; Ushigome, T. ‘Meiji nijūnen shotokuzeihō dōnyū no rekishiteki kōsatsu’, Zeimu daigakkō ronsō, 56, 2007, pp. 437–88Google Scholar. For an outline stretching into the 1940s, see Shiomi, S., Japan's Finance and Taxation: 1940–1956 (New York: Columbia University Press), pp. 111–49Google Scholar.

18 Eguchi, K. ‘1922 nen no eigyōzei hantai undō’, in Kokushi ronshū (Kyōto daigaku bungakubu dokushikai, 1959), Vol. 2, pp. 1641–656Google Scholar; ‘1914 nen no haizei undō’, in Inoue, K. (ed.), Taishōki no seiji to shakai (Iwanami shoten, 1969), pp. 53–115Google Scholar; Toshi shōburujoa undōshi no kenkyū (Miraisha, 1979), pp. 21–104, 233–303.

19 Andō, Y.Kindai Nihon keizaishi yōran (Tōkyō daigaku shuppankai, 1979), p. 86Google Scholar.

20 See Kanazawa, F. ‘Ryōzei ijōron tenkai katei no kenkyū’, Shakai kagaku kenkyū, 36 (1) 1984, pp. 91–98Google Scholar; Miyamoto, K. ‘Gendai zeisei keisei katei no kenkyū’, Kanazawa daigaku hōbungakubu ronshū, 8, 1961, pp. 177–78Google Scholar.

21 Rinji zaisei keizai chōsakai shorui: 14, Kokuritsu kōbunshokan (henceforth NA), Tōkyō, 2A–36 委292, p. 34.

22 See Taikakai, Naimushō-shi (Hara shobō, 1970, reprinted 1980), Vol. 1, pp. 581–87; Vol. 2, pp. 115–73. Takayose, S.Meiji chihō zaiseishi, six volumes (Keisō shobō, 2000–06)Google Scholar. Yoshioka, K.Nihon chihō zaiseishi (Tōkyō daigaku shuppankai, 1981), pp. 41–104Google Scholar. See also, Ōgo, K. ‘Chihō jichi seido to zeisei’, in Kindai sozeishi kenkyūkai, Kindai, pp. 114–39.

23 See Kanazawa, ‘Ryōzei’, pp. 94–95, 97–98; Mizumoto, T.Kosūwari no seiritsu to tenkai (Ochanomizu shobō, 1998), pp. 134–40Google Scholar; Okuda H. ‘Chōsonsei chōson no sainyū kōzō to kosūwari’, in Kindai sozeishi kenkyūkai, Kindai (2008), pp. 231–33, 244–52; Ōshima, M.Meiji kokka to chiiki shakai (Iwanami shoten, 1994), p. 281Google Scholar.

24 See Tōyō keizai shinpōsha, Meiji, pp. 529–30, 534–35.

25 For a general treatment of the period between 1910 and the 1920s, see Takeda, H. ‘Keiki junkan to keizai seisaku’, in Ishii, K.et al. (eds), Nihon keizaishi (Tōkyō daigaku shuppankai, 2002), Vol. 3, pp. 1–51Google Scholar. See also Mochizuki, K.Taishō demokurashii no seiji keizaigaku (Ashi shobō, 2007)Google Scholar.

26 On this subsidy, see Fujita, T.Nihon chihō zaisei hattenshi (Kawade shobō, 1949, reprinted 1977), pp. 237–66Google Scholar; Takayose, Taishō, pp. 208–315.

27 See A. DeWit, ‘Trench Warfare on the Tax Fields’, PhD thesis, University of British Columbia, 1997, pp. 84–113, 140–166. Available at: <http://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/6623>, [accessed 6 April 2012].

28 See Nishio, K.Chihō bunken kaikaku (Tōkyō daigaku shuppankai, 2007)Google Scholar.

29 NTTN (1939), pp. 30–31.

30 On socio-political issues in the interwar period, see Garon, The State, pp. 39–218; Gordon, A., Labor and Imperial Democracy in Prewar Japan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991)Google Scholar; Large, S., Organized Workers and Socialist Politics in Interwar Japan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981)Google Scholar; Nishida, Y.Kindai Nihon nōmin undōshi kenkyū (Tōkyō daigaku shuppankai, 1997)Google Scholar; Waswo, A., ‘In Search of Equity’, in Najita, T. and Koschmann, J. V. (eds), Conflict in Modern Japanese History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), pp. 366–411Google Scholar; Yasuda, H.Taishō demokurashii shiron (Azekura shobō, 1994)Google Scholar. On the debate prior to 1918, see Garon, The State, pp. 10–38; Matsunaga, S. ‘Shakai mondai no hassei’, in Asao, N.et al. (eds), Nihon rekishi (Iwanami shoten, 1976), Vol. 16, pp. 241–80Google Scholar.

31 Teikoku gikai Shūgiin giji sokkiroku (henceforth TG) (Tōkyō daigaku shuppankai, 1923, reprinted 1982), Vol. 42, pp. 93–94.

32 See Higuchi, H. (ed.), Kenseikai-shi (Kenseikai-shi hensanjo, 1926), Vol. 1, pp. 323–26Google Scholar, 350, 353–54; Tōkyō asahi shinbun (TA), 20 April 1922.

33 Quoted in Higuchi, Kenseikai-shi, Vol. 2, p. 370.

34 See Metzler, Lever, pp. 240–45, 248–52; Smethurst, R., From Foot Soldier to Finance Minister (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Asia Center, 2007), pp. 251–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 262–67.

35 Metzler, Lever, pp. 118–24. For a rather harsh judgement, see Mochizuki, Taishō, p. 171. A sympathetic appraisal can be found in Smethurst, From Foot Soldier, pp. 218–19.

36 NTTN (1920), p. 121.

37 For a detailed synthesis, see Fujitani, K.Wagakuni saikin no chiso mondai (Ōsaka: Ōsaka shōka daigaku keizai kenkyūjo, 1932), pp. 67–97Google Scholar. The bibliography provides a good selection of the vast prewar production. The postwar literature is discussed in Ikegami, T. ‘Ryōzei ijō mondai no igi wo megutte’, Keizaigaku, 47 (4) 1986a, pp. 87–102Google Scholar. See also Ikeda, J. ‘Seitō naikakuka no futatsu no chihō zeisei kaikaku to kanryō’, in kenkyūkai, Nihon gendaishi (ed.) 1920 nendai no Nihon no seiji (Ōtsuki shobō, 1984), pp. 111–52Google Scholar. Part of the debate is treated in Takayose, Taishō, pp. 157–84.

38 See Ōkurashō, Shōwa, Vol. 5, pp. 492–590; Vol. 14, pp. 229–50; Shiomi, Japan's Finance, pp. 33–52.

39 See Kanazawa, ‘Ryōzei’, pp. 115–16; Miyazaki, R. ‘Taishō demokurashiiki no nōson to seitō (3)’, Kokka gakkai zasshi, 93–11/12, 1980, pp. 99–101Google Scholar.

40 Fujita, Nihon chihō, p. 359; Ōkurashō, Shōwa, Vol. 5, pp. 37–38.

41 Fujita, Nihon chihō, p. 407; Kanazawa, ‘Ryōzei’, pp. 108–10, 116; Ikegami, T. ‘Daiichiji taisengo Nihon ni okeru zeisei seiri mondai no hassei’, Keizaigaku, 48 (4) 1986b, pp. 52, 59Google Scholar.

42 Kanazawa, ‘Ryōzei’, pp. 76–86.

43 On his thoughts, see Havens, T., Farm and Nation in Modern Japan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974), pp. 98–110Google Scholar.

44 See Garon, The State, pp. 73–119.

45 See Spaulding, R., Imperial Japan's Higher Civil Service Examinations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967)Google Scholar.

46 See Masumi, Nihon seitō, Vol. 4, pp. 219–34; Shimizu, Y.Seitō to kanryō no kindai (Fujiwara shoten, 2007)Google Scholar.

47 See Sakairi, Nihon, Vol. 3, pp. 71–73; Ikegami, ‘Daiichiji’, p. 40.

48 TG, Vol. 35, pp. 149–50 (10 February 1919).

49 Related documents are to be found in NA as Rinji zaisei keizai chōsakai shorui, 2A-36 委265–294. Relevant to this paper are: 5. Shimon daigogō tokubetsu iinkai kaigiroku (hereafter TIK); 13.1. Daiyonkai sōkai giji sokkiroku shimon daigogō daiichi (SGS1); 13.2–5. Sōkai giji sokkiroku shimon dai gogō dai ni-dai go (SGS2–5); and 14. Rinji zaisei keizai chōsakai yōran ji daiichigō shi daigogō (CY1–5). For documents without numbered pages, ‘s’ will indicate the number of the microfilm slide.

50 Hara, K. (ed.), Hara Takashi nikki (Kangensha, 1950), Vol. 8, p. 155Google Scholar (8 February 1919); TG, Vol. 35, pp. 150, 393 (15 March 1919).

51 On the Extraordinary Research Commission's achievements, see Toshitani, T. and Honma, S. ‘Tennōsei kokka kikō-hōtaisei no hensen’, in Hara, H.et al. (eds), Taikei Nihon kokkashi (Tōkyō daigaku shuppankai, 1976), Vol. 5, pp. 220–37Google Scholar.

52 Miyamoto, ‘Gendai’, p. 208.

53 Carlile, L., ‘Zaikai and Taishō Demokurashii’, in Minichiello, S. (ed.), Japan's Competing Modernities (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 1998), pp. 296–99Google Scholar. On steel and shipbuilding in the Extraordinary Research Commission, see Takeuchi, S. ‘Shihonka dantai to keizai seisaku’, Chiba shōdai ronsō, 17 (3) 1979, pp. 147–64Google Scholar; also see von Staden, P., Business-Government Relations in Prewar Japan (New York: Routledge, 2008), pp. 80–99Google Scholar.

54 Ikegami, ‘Daiichiji’, p. 45; TA, 2 June 1920. Appointments are recorded in CY1, pp. 11–14; CY3, pp. 5–7, 299; CY4, pp. 40–41; TIK, s962. CY3 contains a summary of the agenda and the final report. A printed version of the minutes in TIK is stored as Zeisei seiri tokubetsu iinkai gijiroku, Kokuritsu zeimu daigakkō (National Tax College), Wakō, Shōwa 53-honkō-1426; hereafter TIKb. Parts omitted in the former document appear in the latter, and vice versa. Copies of the report are at the National Tax College as Zeisei seirian, Shōwa 53-honkō-1427; Heisei 12-Tōkyō-167–1/2. The full text was published in Ōkurashō, Meiji, Vol. 6, pp. 383–526; with some omissions in Takahashi, K.Zaisei keizai nijūgonenshi (Jitsugyō no sekaisha, 1932), Vol. 5, pp. 281–380Google Scholar.

55 See kurabu, Shōyū, Kizokuin no seiji dantai to kaiha (Shōyū kurabu, 1984), pp. 158–64Google Scholar; kinenkai, Gō danshaku, Danshaku Gō Seinosuke kunden (Gō danshaku kinenkai, 1943), pp. 445–49Google Scholar, 469–77.

56 SGS1, p. 3.

57 SGS1, pp. 1–2. The alternatives are compared in CY3, pp. 19–86.

58 CY3, p. 23.

59 See Kanbe in TIKb, p. 122 (14 April 1921); Yokoi in TIK, s999 (21 April 1921); Matsumoto in TIK, s1029 (21 July 1921). This estimate can be reconstructed by combining a rice price of 30 yen/koku, as reasonably requested in TIKb, p. 23 (1 October 1920), with data on productivity and gross/net income ratio on a three-year average (used to assess the tax on agricultural income). See Ōkurashō shuzei kyoku, Zeisei chōsa iinkai shorui, NTC, Heisei-10-honkō-1893, 1923, p. 153.

60 ‘Denpata baibai kakaku’, Teikoku nōkaihō, 11–9, 1921, p. 66.

61 For scholarly definitions of this class, see Furuse, D. ‘Chūshōnō ga hontō no hyakushō da’, Nōsei kenkyū, 2–10, 1923, pp. 9–12Google Scholar. In terms of holding size, the prevailing opinion stood for 1–5 chō, corresponding in 1921 to 22.8 per cent of the farming population (see Furuse, ‘Chūshōnō’, p. 14). The range 1–3 chō (18.1 per cent) is preferred in A. Waswo, ‘The Transformation of Rural Society, 1900–1950’ in Duus, The Cambridge History, Vol. 6, p. 548.

62 CY3, pp. 86–93, 102–12.

63 CY3, p. 295. On the Conference, see kenkyūjo, Kajima heiwa (ed.), Nihon gaikōshi (Kajima kenkyūjo shuppankai, 1971), Vol. 13, pp. 23–257Google Scholar; Gow, I., Military Intervention in Pre-War Japanese Politics (London and New York: Routledge, 2004), pp. 108–47Google Scholar.

64 See in particular, Ōguchi Kiroku (secretary-general of the Kokumintō) in SGS2 (10 July 1922), s459–62; SGS4 (19 July 1922), s635–9; Koyama Kenzō (a Kenkyūkai Peer), SGS4 (19 July 1922), s738–42; Taniguchi Fusazō (president of Osaka Associated Cotton Spinning Co.), SGS4 (19 July 1922), s756. On criticism from interest groups, see Ikegami, ‘Daiichiji’, pp. 51–52.

65 As in TA, 19 July 1922. Growing scepticism can be traced through earlier editorials on 14 May 1921; 9 June 1921; 2, 15 July 1921; 11 December 1921; 30 April 1922; 10 May 1922.

66 See Sakairi, Nihon, Vol. 3, pp. 94–104; Mochizuki, Taishō, pp. 219–37.

67 TA, 30 April 1922.

68 See Shimizu, Seitō, pp. 204–14; Yui, M. ‘Bunkan nin'yōrei kaisei mondai to Sūmitsuin’, in Yui, M. (ed.), Sūmitsuin no kenkyū (Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 2003), pp. 69–74Google Scholar.

69 See Hirose, E. (ed.), Mitsuchi Chūzō (Mitsuchi sensei shōtokukai, 1962), pp. 143–45Google Scholar, 166.

70 TIK, s1084 (27 April 1922).

71 TIK, s1047–9 (6 October 1921).

72 TIKb, pp. 381–92 (27 April 1922).

73 TA, 11 June 1921.

74 See Kanazawa's remarks on how debate continued through the decade (in ‘Ryōzei’, p. 133).

75 TIK, s1084 (27 April 1922).

76 Takahashi in TG, Vol. 41, p. 14 (21 January 1922).

77 Kanazawa, ‘Ryōzei’, p. 83.

78 See Ikeda, ‘Seitō’, pp. 135–38; Tanaka, S., ‘Meiji chihō jichi no henbō oyobi saihen to ryōzei ijō mondai’, Ibaraki daigaku seikei gakkai zasshi, 36, 1976, pp. 11–27Google Scholar.

79 Reported in TA, 17 June 1921.

80 SGS5 (20 July 1922), pp. 154–58.

81 See Umeda, T.et al., Kyōchōkai no kenkyū (Kashiwa shobō, 2004)Google Scholar.

82 SGS5, p. 155.

83 See Taikakai, Naimushō-shi, Vol. 2, pp. 178–80, 330, 336–37.

84 NTTN (1939), p. 364.

85 See Hara, Hara, Vol. 8, pp. 351, 376–77, 483, 489; Vol. 9, p. 131 (13 October 1919; 6 November 1919; 11, 18 February 1920; 12 November 1920).

86 See Maeda, R. (ed.), Tokonami Takejirō den (Tokonami Takejirō denki kankōkai, 1939), pp. 513–15Google Scholar; S. Garon ‘Fashioning a Culture of Diligence and Thrift’, in Minichiello, Japan's Competing, pp. 320–21. For more in general on the Home Ministry under Hara, see Kinbara, S.Taishō-ki no seitō to kokumin (Hanawa shobō, 1973), pp. 162–200Google Scholar.

87 Pyle, K., ‘The Technology of Japanese Nationalism’, Journal of Asian Studies, 33–1, 1973, pp. 57–58Google Scholar.

88 Andō, Kindai, p. 8.

89 ‘Sankō shiryō dai nanagō’, in Shūgiin giin senkyohō ni kan suru chōsa shiryō: Naikoku no bu (1923), NA, ヨ314–0027, p. 1.

90 kyoku, Nippon ginkō chōsa (ed.), Honpō keizai tōkei (Nippon ginkō chōsa kyoku, 1933), p. 118Google Scholar.

91 See Table in CY3, p. 34; Kanbe's notes in TIKb, p. 124 (14 April 1921).

92 Kizaka, J. ‘Kakushin kurabu ron’, in Inoue, K. (ed.), Taishō-ki no seiji to shakai (Iwanami shoten, 1969), p. 322Google Scholar.

93 TIK, s999, s1028, s1081 (21 April 1921, 14 July 1921, 20 April 1922); ‘Zaisanzei ni tsuite’, Teikoku nōkaihō, 12, 1922, pp. 2–8, 10. See also Andō, K. ‘Zeisei no seiri to nōka no futan ni tsuite’, Teikoku nōkaihō, 11, 1921, pp. 7, 2–8Google Scholar.

94 The author also concludes that, after partial transfer, the land tax would have been decreased by 8.1 million yen. However, this is because the devolved amount is mistaken there for the residual land tax amount. See Kanazawa, ‘Ryōzei’, pp. 103–06.

95 TIK, s1043 (29 September 1921). On the vigorous protest waged by business associations in 1920, see, for example, TA, 18 June 1920, 23 June 1920, 27 June 1920.

96 As noted in Ikegami, ‘Daiichiji’, p. 58.

97 See Kanbe in TA, 1 July 1921; in TIK, s1041 (29 September 1921); Baba in SGS5, p. 141.

98 Kanazawa, ‘Ryōzei’, p. 110.

99 See Ishigami, R. Hara Takashi botsugo (Chūō kōronsha, 1960).

100 TA, 11 November 1923. See also ‘Ijō no ganmoku wa seiri setsuyaku’, Ekonomisuto, 1, 1923, pp. 5, 9.

101 On the latter, see Mochizuki, Taishō, pp. 163–71; Sakairi, Nihon, Vol. 3, pp. 81–82. On armament reduction in the 1920s, see Asada, S. ‘Nihon kaigun to gunshuku’, in Hosoya, C. and Saitō, M. (eds), Washinton taisei to Nichibei kankei (Tōkyō daigaku shuppankai, 1978), pp. 353–414Google Scholar; Takahashi, H. ‘Rikugun gunshuku no zaisei to seiji’, in kenkyūkai, Kindai Nihon, Kanryōsei no keisei to tenkai (Yamakawa shuppansha, 1986), pp. 143–83Google Scholar.

102 See Matsuo, T.Futsū senkyo seido seiritsu no kenkyū (Iwanami shoten, 1958, reprinted 1989), p. 231Google Scholar; Maeda, Tokonami, pp. 626–27.

103 Interview quoted in Imamura, T., Takahashi Korekiyo (Jiji tsūshinsha, 1958, reprinted 1985), pp. 114–16Google Scholar; partially translated in Smethurst, From Foot Soldier, pp. 229–30. See also TA, 19 January 1923. Maeda, Tokonami, p. 635; Sakaguchi, J.Noda taikai den (Noda taikai den kankōkai, 1929), pp. 742–43Google Scholar; sensei denki hensankai, Yamamoto Tatsuoand Kosaka, J. (eds), Yamamoto Tatsuo (Yamamoto Tatsuo sensei denki hensankai, 1951), p. 438Google Scholar.

104 Tanaka Ryūzō in TIK, s999 (21 April 1921), 1027 (14 July 1921), 1035 (15 September 1921), 1037 (22 September 1921), 1081 (20 April 1922); Takahashi Mitsutake in TIK, s1029–30 (21 July 1921), 1033 (12 September 1921); Hatano Shōgorō in TIK, s1038 (22 September 1921).

105 Itō, Y.Taishō demokurashii to seitō seiji, 2nd edition (Yamakawa shuppansha, 1998), pp. 108–13Google Scholar.

106 ‘Sankō shiryō dai nanagō’, pp. 1–10. On the committee, see Matsuo, Futsū, pp. 234–37, 255–56.

107 This is admitted by Secretary Matsumoto in SGS3, s539.

108 ‘Hōkoku’ (19 June 1923) in Shūgiin giin, p. 2; ‘2. Senkyoken ni kansuru chōsa shiryō’, in Shūgiin giin, pp. 27–28, 34.

109 TG, Vol. 42, p. 140 (3 February 1923).

110 TG, Vol. 42, p. 135. Discussion at pp. 136–42. See also kyoku, Shūgiin jimu, Teikoku gikai Shūgiin iin kaigiroku (Kyōto: Shūgiin jimu kyoku, 1923, reprinted 1986), Vol. 37, pp. 71–80Google Scholar (16, 20 February 1923).

111 ‘Chiso ijō ni kansuru gokai wo teisu’, Seiyū, 266, 1923, pp. 7–11; TIKb, pp. 381–82.

112 Documents were later collected as kyoku, Ōkurashō shuzei, Zeisei chōsa iinkai shorui. A summary of meetings was published monthly in Teikoku nōkaihō, 13 (7) 1923, pp. 7, 54–56Google Scholar; 13 (8), pp. 31–32; 13 (9), 31–32; 13 (10), pp. 35–36.

113 Itō, Taishō demokurashii, p. 113.

114 Ikeda, ‘Seitō’, pp. 140–44.

115 Kato, J., The Problem of Bureaucratic Rationality (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.