I’ve long held the view that pundits pay far too much attention to American elections and not enough attention to elections in foreign countries. It’s not that US elections are unimportant—we are the world’s dominant power—rather the relative importance of the US is generally exaggerated. The US is more important than the world’s 3rd largest economy, but surely it’s not 100 times more important.
How many people know that Japan just picked Yoshihide Suga as its new leader? How many know that his policy preferences differ somewhat from those of Prime Minister Abe?
After graduating, he became secretary to a Yokohama politician, where his real education began. His boss was minister of transport in the early 1980s, heavily involved in the privatisation of Japan Railways. “I think that’s the basis for Mr Suga’s politics,” said Isao Mori, his biographer. “It’s something like Thatcherism or Reaganism.” Whereas Mr Abe is a conservative, Mr Suga belongs more to the free market wing of the LDP, aiming to shake off the shackles of Japan’s regulatory state.
One thing I’ve noticed is that the view of the media on issues such as deregulation are very much dependent on context. When discussing deregulation in the US, there’s often a high degree of skepticism. In contrast, there’s generally a tacit assumption that deregulation is a positive development when discussed on other countries—something that would boost efficiency. I’d be interested in knowing if other people have noticed the same pattern.
PS. Of course most media outlets do not even discuss deregulation in foreign countries. Here I’m focusing on outlets such as the Financial Times, the New York Times, The Economist, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the South China Morning Post, etc.
READER COMMENTS
Hellestal
Sep 5 2020 at 6:18pm
I’ve had that sense also.
If the distinction is genuine, and not a figment of our imaginations, I’d suspect it’s based on higher-than-average quality of international journalists working at prestige publications and also their broader range of experiences, giving them larger “sample sizes” compared to those who focus on domestic issues only. It can be easier to see what actually works when presented with stark international contrasts.
Scott Sumner
Sep 5 2020 at 6:33pm
Good points.
Fazal Majid
Sep 5 2020 at 10:05pm
Suga is also not the grandson of a grade A war criminal and a revisionist himself like Abe. This probably means relations with South Korea will improve, although I doubt it will make much of a change with China since Xi relied on xenophobia to consolidate his hold on power and cannot back out now.
eric mcfadden
Sep 5 2020 at 10:21pm
This headline stuff about foreign leaders is just as vapid as anything you read in the states. George Bush is from Texas, his policy will favor cowboys. How would you explain local politics to one of your foreign students within the limits a CNN article.
Something that article didn’t say that was important. Abe sent 4 dudes to the war dead shrine this year. That Suga guy wasn’t one of them. You can be sure Abe knew he was thinking about quitting 2 or 3 weeks ago so it’s meaningful that he didn’t make the obvious choice for his replacement go to the war shrine on their memorial day. Does that mean he will surrender to Korea? No, it doesn’t mean anything. Good luck parsing the insane politics of a different country.
The Japanese people that I have asked don’t seem to hate this new guy though, for what that’s worth.
Guille
Sep 6 2020 at 7:56am
“The US is more important than the world’s 3rd largest economy, but surely it’s not 100 times more important.”
I don’t get this. Why is the size of the economy so important? Spain has a smaller economy than Japan but the outcomes of Spanish elections impact Spanish more than 100 times those of Japan (as Japanese ones can only affect us indirecty and to the extent we trade with them). Same aplies to Americans (except that their economy is bigger). Actually, I would bet that the biggest reasons why American elections are followed in Europe are cultural and ideological more than economic (and Japan has no impact on us in this regard).
Believe me, paying more than 100 times more atention to your elections than to those of foreign countries is not an American unique feature. Probably not many people here in Europe know there were elections in Japan. If I were you I would consider the possibility that if this is actually the case it is precisely because local elections impact people’s life more than 100 times foreign ones do.
Scott Sumner
Sep 6 2020 at 2:24pm
Neither election has any significant impact on my life. That’s not why I consume the news.
Todd Kreider
Sep 6 2020 at 10:36am
Japan is the world’s fourth largest economy as India eclipsed Japan years ago. China passed Japan around 1995.
Aladin
Sep 6 2020 at 10:58am
I guess will see what happens. Japan has a number of cultural problems that interfere with a free market system as well … low birthrate, long hours expected, total company loyalty demanded (making changing jobs or having choices nearly impossible) and the apprenticeship system in Japan, where it takes years to even reach the level of a standard employee for a given job.
Regulations should be in place to change the overall culture to be more tolerant of changing jobs and gaining skills dynamically. Of course, craftsmanship and spending a lifetime developing one skill is highly valued in Japan, so one will have to find a balance between respecting the culture and removing barriers to entry.
For example, a central component of the Meiji Restoration was to break the shoganite culture as well as implement military reforms and economic reforms. It wasn’t just a matter of removing regulations, but also a matter of for example abolishing samurai, Dearming the populace, etc … all of which was necessary.
Abe had a cultural vision. Wasnt a very developed one, and some aspects of it were quote disgusting (historical revisionism, denying mass atrocities, etc…) but I’d be interested in seeing how the new guy handles Japan’s culural problems, which imo are holding it back more than its policy regime.
Todd Kreider
Sep 6 2020 at 2:33pm
Japanese worked an average of 2,000 hours a year in the early 90s and that has fallen to 1680 hours in 2018 – higher than the 1,780 hours a year in the U.S. I’m not sure where you get that it takes years to even rise to a standard employee. Birthrate is irrelevant.
Aladin
Sep 6 2020 at 8:33pm
Huh, well I guess I’m mistaken then. I’m just repeating what people from Japan who I know have said to me on various occasions. If that disagrees with factual stats, well, mea culpa.
BC
Sep 6 2020 at 9:06pm
I hadn’t noticed the difference in perception of foreign vs. domestic deregulation, but Scott is correct. If a disinterested, third-person observer mentions foreign “labor market reforms”, they usually mean deregulation to increase labor market flexibility, e.g., German labor reforms led to a reduction of structural unemployment. If an American talks about “creating jobs” or “protecting workers” in the US though, they often mean more subsidies and regulations. If a third-person observer says, “Japanese banks have too much power,” they usually mean deregulation is needed to reduce regulatory capture. Domestically, however, references to industries that “have too much power” often imply a desire for more regulation, e.g., Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. “Powerful unions and guilds” usually refer to impediments to deregulatory reform in foreign countries. Domestically, however, “strengthening unions” is often considered good and “weakening unions” bad. When third-person observers say that a foreign country needs to reform its pensions, they usually mean that promised pension benefits need to be limited by funds available to cover obligations. Calls to “strengthen pensions” domestically, however, often are calls to increase promised pension benefits. Finally, foreign “fiscal reform” usually refers to limiting foreign government debt, especially through more disciplined spending. Domestic “fiscal policy”, however, usually refers to higher spending without concern for debt.
Disinterested observers of a foreign country tend to see the foreign government captured by various interest groups and, because the observers have no affiliation with any of the interest groups, tend to call for deregulation to reduce such regulatory capture. Domestically, however, commenters often have an attachment to one or more interest groups and, thus, are biased towards trying to help those interest groups capture government for those groups’ ends.
Comments are closed.