Double structure - 20 buildings

This term, which describes the structural characteristics of the Japanese economy, was first used by Hiromi Arisawa and popularized in the Economic White Paper of 1957. It stated that in the Japanese economy, modern large corporations coexist on the one hand, with pre-modern small businesses, family-run micro-businesses, and agriculture on the other, and that the wage and income disparity between the two is extremely large, making it akin to a dual structure of developed and underdeveloped countries within a single country, and that this should be resolved through economic modernization and growth.

In response to this, Kenichi Miyazawa, from his analysis of the 1957 "Comprehensive Basic Survey of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises," clarified that behind the dual structure lies the indirect financing method. In other words, behind the wage disparity by company size, there is a disparity in added-value productivity, which indicates the ability to pay wages, which is due to the disparity in capital intensity (the amount of tangible fixed assets per employee), that is, the amount of invested capital, which in turn depends on the disparity in the ability to raise funds for capital investment. And since indirect financing, that is, the method of raising capital for capital investment mainly from financial institutions, was what supported Japan's high economic growth after the war in terms of financing, large companies were able to raise capital investment funds at low interest rates, in large quantities, and over the long term, while small and medium-sized enterprises that were at risk of defaulting on loans could only raise capital investment funds at high interest rates, in small quantities, and in the short term, and this difference gave rise to the above-mentioned disparities. This is the capital concentration hypothesis.

However, these various disparities gradually narrowed throughout the period of high economic growth. This was because a shortage of young labor began around 1960, and small and medium-sized enterprises raised wage increases at a faster rate than large enterprises. This improvement in the solvency of small and medium-sized enterprises was the result of the following processes: (1) they raised capital investment funds through corporate efforts, thereby increasing capital intensity and productivity, (2) they increased value-added productivity by raising product prices, and (3) companies that could not do either disappeared from the statistics. (2) was when small and medium-sized enterprises, whose productivity growth rate was slower than that of large enterprises, raised the prices of their products and increased their apparent value-added productivity. This was the inflation of the high economic growth period, and Yoshihiro Takasuka called it productivity growth rate differential inflation.

Thus, it seemed as if the dual structure was being eliminated, but the oil crisis reversed this trend. Looking at the current corporate statistics for all industries, the various disparities (large companies divided by small and medium-sized enterprises) narrowed the most in 1975, and since then, the disparities in labor costs and value-added productivity have continued to widen. Only the capital intensity disparity has narrowed, but this is due to the fact that large companies no longer borrow from financial institutions due to capital accumulation, making it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to borrow, in other words, the indirect financing method has changed. However, the reason why the narrowing of the capital intensity disparity does not lead to a narrowing of the value-added productivity disparity is largely because low growth = stagnant demand makes it impossible for small and medium-sized enterprises to raise product prices. Thus, the labor cost disparity has continued to widen, and we can expect a future of low growth = an expansion of the dual structure, which is thought to lead to a narrowing of middle class consciousness and an increase in class consciousness and discrimination.

[Tetsuya Hitosugi]

"Capital Structure and Inter-Company Disparities," edited by the Economic Planning Agency's Economic Research Institute (1960, Printing Bureau of the Ministry of Finance) " ▽ "Price Issues in Modern Japan," by Yoshihiro Takasuka (1972, Shinhyoron)" ▽ "The Mature Japanese Economy I," edited by Yoshiharu Shimizu and Naomi Maruo (1983, Chuo Keizaisha)

Source: Shogakukan Encyclopedia Nipponica About Encyclopedia Nipponica Information | Legend

日本経済の構造的特質を表すことばで、有沢広巳(ひろみ)によって初めて用いられ、1957年（昭和32）の『経済白書』によって一般化した。そこでは、日本経済には一方に近代的大企業が、他方に前近代的小企業・家業的零細企業と農業が併存しており、両者間の賃金・所得格差がきわめて大きく、一国のうちに先進国と後進国との二重構造が存在するに等しいから、経済の近代化と成長によってその解消を図るべきであるとした。

　これに対して宮沢健一は、1957年の「中小企業総合基本調査」の分析から、二重構造の背後に間接金融方式があることを明らかにした。すなわち、企業規模別賃金格差の背後には、賃金支払能力を示す付加価値生産性の格差があり、それは資本集約度（従業員1人当り有形固定資産額）つまり投下資本量の格差によるものであり、さらにそれは設備投資資金調達能力の格差に依存する。そして戦後日本の高度成長を資金面で支えたのは間接金融方式、つまり設備資金を主として金融機関から調達する方式であったから、大企業は低利・大量・長期に設備資金を調達できた反面、貸倒れの危険のある中小企業は高利・小量・短期にしか設備資金を調達できず、この差が前記の各格差を生んだとする。これが資本集中仮説である。

　しかし、この各種格差は、高度成長期を通じてしだいに縮小していった。それは、1960年ごろから若手労働力不足が発生し、中小企業が大企業よりも賃上げ率を高めたことによる。この中小企業の支払能力向上は、(1)企業努力によって設備資金を調達して資本集約度・生産性を高めた、(2)製品価格を上げて付加価値生産性を高めた、(3)どちらもできぬ企業は統計から消えた、という過程によったものである。(2)は、生産性上昇率が大企業より劣る中小企業が、その製品価格を上げて、見かけ上の付加価値生産性を高めたもので、これが高度成長期のインフレーションであり、高須賀義博はこれを生産性上昇率格差インフレとよんだ。

　こうして二重構造は解消しつつあるようにみえたが、オイル・ショックはこの方向を逆転させた。いま全産業の法人企業統計でみると、各種格差（大企業を中小企業で割った値）がもっとも縮小したのは1975年度で、その後、人件費と付加価値生産性の格差は拡大し続けている。資本集約度格差だけは縮小しているが、これは、大企業が資本蓄積によって金融機関から借り入れなくなり、中小企業の借入れが容易になったこと、すなわち間接金融方式が変容したことに基づく。しかし、資本集約度格差縮小が付加価値生産性格差縮小にならないのは、低成長＝需要低滞のため、中小企業が製品価格を上げられなくなったことが大きい。こうして人件費格差は拡大し続けており、低成長＝二重構造拡大の将来が予想されるが、これは中間階層意識の縮小、階級意識・差別意識の増大をもたらすと考えられる。

［一杉哲也］

『経済企画庁経済研究所編『資本構造と企業間格差』（1960・大蔵省印刷局）』▽『高須賀義博著『現代日本の物価問題』（1972・新評論）』▽『清水嘉治・丸尾直美編『成熟の日本経済I』（1983・中央経済社）』

出典　小学館　日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)について　情報 | 凡例