Book Review

Comparative/World

Comparative history has resisted fulfillment. Many have called for the achievement, but few have met its demands or realized its promise. Shortcomings arise because requirements are so high. Successful comparative history calls for substantial linguistic, empirical, analytical, and literary expertise as well as time and maturity. Individual historians possessing such requisites have been few and far between. Reliance on teams of researchers offers one way of circumventing these obstacles. Therefore, a review of this edited collection offers an opportunity to assess the status of comparative history today.	1
The volume edited by Douglas A. Farnie et al. is the product of a long-term, cooperative research endeavor between scholars in Britain and Japan. Thirteen authors have contributed to the final, published account, seven from Japan and six from Britain. Nearly all of the authors are either business historians or economic historians, usually associated either with university economics departments or schools of business. The Japanese authors are best known for their highly focused research on topics in Japanese business history, while the British authors are experts on British economic and business history. Each of the chapters is coauthored by a binational team consisting of one or more British scholars and one or more Japanese scholars.	2
To render their undertaking feasible, the authors focus on one region in each country, the Manchester-Lancashire region in Great Britain and the Kansai (or Osaka and Kyoto) region in Japan. They cast a wide net in addressing their topics. Two substantive chapters are of a general nature. One provides an overview of the modern economic history of both regions and the other sketches the development of big business in the two regions between 1900 and 1990. Six further chapters examine more specialized topics. Two trace the evolution of the textile industry in these subregions, while four others examine electronics, shipbuilding, management education, and industrial research—in each case through a paired comparison. The book also includes a short introduction and an equally short conclusion. Lists and tabular information are both generously employed, and there are extensive notes to most chapters, although there is no comprehensive bibliography. Many sources on Japan (in Japanese) are cited, but the vast majority of citations are to works in English on Great Britain.	3
Summarizing the conclusions from such an eclectic study is hazardous, but these are some of the major findings. Essentially, the prevailing view that Japan has been the more dynamic, successful nation economically is confirmed and reinforced. However, most authors modify this view with the qualification that Britain retained more strength and dynamism through the 1920s, or perhaps as late as the 1940s. All of them concede that Japan has far outstripped Britain's economic achievements since 1945.	4
The sources of Japan's relative success are numerous. Financing has been more readily available for Japanese firms in the Osaka area than for British firms in the northwest. Managers have been better trained, more highly skilled, and more entrepreneurial in Japan. They have displayed their aptitudes through bolder risk taking, longer time horizons, and superior achievements. Workers in Britain became increasingly more defensive, individualistic, and uncooperative as time wore on, while Japanese workers tended to be far more compliant. Business firms in Japan pursued strategic, multifaceted objectives that took into account markets around the globe, while British firms adopted short-term perspectives that were hampered by a risk-averse, parochial outlook. Finally, in the Manchester-Lancashire area many key firms reverted to safe, cost-plus provision for the military, whereas Japanese firms took a much broader and more risk-aware view of markets, old and new, local and global.	. . .