Zaibatsu - financial conglomerate

Japanese: 財閥 - ざいばつ

Zaibatsu is a journalistic term coined in the Meiji era, like academic cliques and clan cliques, and was initially used to refer to the joint business activities of a group of business leaders from the same place of origin. Over time, however, the term came to refer to super-rich individuals such as Mitsui, Iwasaki (Mitsubishi), and Sumitomo, or the businesses operated under their control. After World War II, it came to be understood as "a diversified business management entity developed under a closed ownership and control system by a specific family or clan," and today it has become established as an academic term.

[Masaru Udagawa]

Types of conglomerates

Zaibatsu can be classified as follows based on their period of development, business type, and scope of activity.

[1] Classification by development period
(1) The groups that can trace their origins back to the Edo period and the early Meiji period and which established their management bases throughout the Meiji period are known as the "established zaibatsu" or "old zaibatsu" - such as Mitsui, Mitsubishi, Sumitomo, Yasuda, Furukawa, Asano, Kawasaki (Hachiemon), Fujita, etc.

(2) The group known as the "Taisho Zaibatsu" (Taisho zaibatsu) which originated in the middle of the Meiji era and expanded rapidly during the Taisho era, especially during the economic boom following World War I. This group included Suzuki, Kuhara, Kawasaki (Shozo) = Matsukata, Shibusawa, Iwai, Nomura, Murai, and others.

(3) The groups known as new zaibatsu or new conglomerates that started in the late Meiji and Taisho eras and rose to prominence from around the time of the Manchurian Incident through the Second Sino-Japanese War, such as Nissan, Nippon Chisso, Mori, Nisso, and Riken.

[2] Classification by business type
(1) General zaibatsu: These were companies that operated businesses across finance, trading, shipping, and various manufacturing industries - Mitsui, Mitsubishi, and Sumitomo.

(2) Financial conglomerates: those that concentrated their business operations mainly in the financial sector, such as banking, trusts, and insurance -- Yasuda, Kawasaki (Yaemon), Nomura, etc.

(3) Industrial conglomerates. These were companies that diversified their business operations, primarily in the manufacturing sector, such as Asano, Furukawa, Okura, and the emerging conglomerates.

[3] Classification by Scope of Activities
(1) Chuo Zaibatsu. These were companies whose headquarters were in large cities such as Tokyo or Osaka and whose business activities were nationwide: the established zaibatsu, the "Taisho zaibatsu," and the new zaibatsu groups.

(2) Regional zaibatsu. These are conglomerates that pursue diversified management centered on local industries in a particular region, such as Yasukawa-Matsumoto, Kaijima, and Aso in Fukuoka Prefecture (coal mining), Mogi in Chiba Prefecture (brewing), and Nakano in Niigata Prefecture (oil).

[Masaru Udagawa]

Characteristics of Zaibatsu

Thus, although the zaibatsu were all called zaibatsu, their development process and forms were very diverse, but they also had some commonalities. First, they all had a strong desire for diversification, and their affiliated businesses occupied dominant positions in their respective industrial sectors or specific regions. Second, in line with their development process, they gradually reorganized their affiliated businesses into joint-stock companies, and adopted a conglomerate management system in which the shares of these companies were owned by a headquarters in which the zaibatsu family had exclusive stakes. Third, the assets of the zaibatsu family were concentrated and managed as shared assets, and arbitrary family actions were restrained. Fourth, in many cases, professional managers held real power in business management, and they generally managed with the awareness that the wealth of the zaibatsu should be invested in modern business fields and that these should be developed and strengthened. However, in the case of emerging zaibatsu, the founders were in charge of command, and there was little closed-off control over business management.

[Masaru Udagawa]

Conditions for the Emergence of Zaibatsu and Their Role

Zaibatsu were by no means a corporate form unique to Japan. Zaibatsu were born in any country where a system of private property was well established and where wealthy people were not satisfied with managing a specific business and were eager to invest their assets in diversified business fields. In particular, in the early stages of industrialization, when management resources were limited but there were a wide range of business fields in which to develop, zaibatsu or similar corporate groups were likely to emerge.

Japan, which started industrialization as a latecomer after the Meiji Restoration, was no exception, and many zaibatsu like those mentioned above sprang up in various forms. However, compared to their counterparts in other countries, Japanese zaibatsu had a strong desire for diversification and a strong tendency to aim to form corporate groups that operated a wide variety of businesses. In addition to the fact that Japan began industrialization later than Western countries, professional managers who had a strong desire to develop and establish modern businesses early occupied the core of the zaibatsu's top management, and while persuading zaibatsu families, they invested their wealth one after another in modern business fields. Through such corporate activities, the zaibatsu became a powerful driver of industrialization and economic development, which were the national goals after the Meiji Restoration, and played a major role in that regard.

However, the role of the zaibatsu began to gradually decline as the industrial structure became more sophisticated after World War I. As long as the zaibatsu stuck to the closed family shareholding system, which was a unique system of the zaibatsu, they were unable to respond adequately to the heavy and chemical industry, which required huge investment capital, and as a result, their business activities became more conservative. Furthermore, in the midst of the successive depressions in the early Showa period, social criticism of the concentration of wealth in the zaibatsu grew, leading to the assassination of Dan Takuma, chairman of the largest zaibatsu, Mitsui Goma, by right-wingers in March 1932 (Showa 7). Therefore, in order to avoid social criticism, the zaibatsu, especially the three major zaibatsu of Mitsui, Mitsubishi, and Sumitomo, began to publicly sell the shares of their affiliated companies in the form of "zaibatsu conversion," and in order to respond to the heavy tax burden and the demand for expansion into heavy and chemical industries as the wartime system progressed, they had to take measures such as converting their headquarters into joint-stock companies and making some of their shares publicly available.

In this way, the zaibatsu, which played a major role in the early stages of industrialization, lost their positive raison d'être as the industrial structure became more advanced, and after World War II, the zaibatsu were viewed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (GHQ) as the economic pillars of militarism and feudalism, and were dismantled.

[Masaru Udagawa]

"Japanese Zaibatsu and Their Dissolution, Vol. 1 and 2 (1951), edited and published by the Holding Company Reorganization Committee" ▽ "Morikawa Hidemasa, 'A Study of the Business History of Zaibatsu' (1980, Toyo Keizai Shinposha)"

Weight of Zaibatsu in the Japanese economy at the end of the war based on paid-in capital
©Shogakukan ">

The Japanese economy at the end of the war based on paid-in capital...

Source: Shogakukan Encyclopedia Nipponica About Encyclopedia Nipponica Information | Legend

Japanese:

財閥は学閥、藩閥などと同様に明治時代に造成されたジャーナリズム用語で、当初、出身地を同じくする財界人グループの共同的事業活動をさすことばとして使用されたが、その後、時代を経るにつれて、三井、岩崎（三菱(みつびし)）、住友などの大富豪、あるいは彼らの支配下で営まれる事業体を、財閥とよぶようになった。そして、さらに第二次世界大戦後は、「特定の家族あるいは同族の封鎖的な所有・支配体制の下で展開された多角的事業経営体」と理解されるようになり、今日では学術用語としても定着してきている。

［宇田川勝］

財閥の種類

財閥は、その発展期、業態、活動範囲などによって、次のように分類することができる。

〔1〕発展期による分類
(1)その起源を江戸時代・明治初期に求めることができ、明治年間を通じて経営基盤を確立した既成財閥ないし旧財閥とよばれるグループ――三井、三菱、住友、安田、古河(ふるかわ)、浅野、川崎（八右衛門(はちえもん)）、藤田など。

(2)明治中ごろに出発し、大正時代、とくに第一次世界大戦期の大戦景気のなかで急膨張を遂げた「大正財閥」とよばれるグループ――鈴木、久原(くはら)、川崎（正蔵）＝松方、渋沢、岩井、野村、村井など。

(3)明治末年・大正時代にスタートし、満州事変前後から日中戦争期にかけて台頭した新興財閥あるいは新興コンツェルンとよばれるグループ――日産、日窒(にっちつ)、森、日曹(にっそう)、理研など。

〔2〕業態による分類
(1)総合財閥。金融、商事、海運、各種製造事業分野にわたって事業経営を展開していたもの――三井、三菱、住友。

(2)金融財閥。主として銀行、信託、保険などの金融分野に事業経営を集中したもの――安田、川崎（八右衛門）、野村など。

(3)産業財閥。製造業分野を中心に多角的事業経営を展開したもの――浅野、古河、大倉、新興財閥グループなど。

〔3〕活動範囲による分類
(1)中央財閥。本社が東京、大阪といった大都市にあり、かつ事業活動を全国的範囲で展開していたもの――既成財閥、「大正財閥」、新興財閥グループ。

(2)地方財閥。特定地域の地場産業を中心に多角的経営を追求したもの――福岡県の安川＝松本、貝島、麻生(あそう)（炭鉱業）、千葉県の茂木(もぎ)（醸造業）、新潟県の中野（石油業）など。

［宇田川勝］

財閥の特質

このようにひと口に財閥といっても、その発展過程・形態はバラエティーに富んでいたが、そこには共通する側面もまたあった。第一に、いずれも多角化志向が旺盛(おうせい)で、その傘下事業はそれぞれの産業部門、あるいは特定地域において支配的地位を占めていた。第二に、発展過程に相応して、傘下事業を順次、株式会社に改組し、それら会社の株式を、財閥家族が排他的に出資する本社が所有するコンツェルン管理を採用していった。第三に、財閥家族の資産は共有資産として集中・管理されており、家族の恣意(しい)的行動は抑制されていた。第四に、専門経営者が事業経営の実権を握っている場合が多く、彼らは一般に財閥の富を近代的ビジネス分野に投下し、それらを育成・強化すべきであるという意識をもって経営にあたっていた。ただし、新興財閥の場合は、創業者が陣頭指揮をしており、事業経営の封鎖的支配も希薄であった。

［宇田川勝］

財閥の出現条件とその役割

財閥はけっして日本特有の企業形態ではなかった。私有財産制度が確立しており、しかも富豪が特定事業の経営に満足することなく、その資産を多角的事業分野へ投下する意欲をもつ場合は、どこの国でも財閥は誕生した。とくに工業化の初期段階において、経営資源が限定され、一方、展開すべき事業分野が広範に存在する場合には、財閥あるいはそれに類似する企業集団が出現しやすかった。

　明治維新後、後発国として工業化をスタートさせた日本においてもその例外ではなく、前記のような多数の財閥がさまざまな形態をとりながら群生した。ただ、日本の財閥は諸外国のそれに比べて、多角化志向が旺盛で、異種多彩な事業を経営する企業集団の形成を目ざす傾向が強かった。日本が西欧諸国に遅れて工業化を開始したという事情に加えて、近代的ビジネスを早期に育成・確立したいという意識を強くもつ専門経営者が財閥のトップ・マネジメントの中枢を占め、財閥家族を説得しつつ、彼らの富を近代的事業分野へ次々に投下していったからである。そして、そうした企業行動を通じて、財閥は、明治維新後の国家目標であった工業化と経済発展の有力な担い手となり、その面で大きな役割を果たした。

　しかし、そうした財閥の役割も第一次世界大戦後の産業構造の高度化のなかでしだいに後退し始める。財閥固有のシステムたる家族の封鎖的持株支配体制に固執する限り、巨額の投資資金を要する重化学工業経営に財閥は十分に対応することができず、それに伴い財閥の企業行動も保守的色彩を強めていったからである。さらに昭和初年の相次ぐ恐慌のなかで財閥の富の集中に対する社会的批判が高まり、1932年（昭和7）3月には最大財閥・三井合名の理事長団琢磨(だんたくま)が右翼の手によって暗殺されるという事態を招いてしまった。それゆえ、財閥、とくに三井、三菱、住友の三大財閥は、社会的批判を回避するため、「財閥の転向」という形で、傘下企業の株式を公開し始め、さらに戦時体制の進展に伴う重税負担・重化学工業進出要請にこたえるため、本社の株式会社化とその一部株式公開などの処置をとらなければならなかった。

　このように、工業化の初期過程で大きな役割を果たした財閥も、産業構造の高度化とともにその積極的存在意義を減じていき、第二次世界大戦後、財閥は連合国最高司令部（GHQ）から軍国主義と封建主義の経済的支柱とみなされ、解体された。

［宇田川勝］

『持株会社整理委員会編・刊『日本財閥とその解体』上下（1951）』▽『森川英正著『財閥の経営史的研究』（1980・東洋経済新報社）』