'Japan’s Development Cooperation: A Historical Perspective': Research Findings Presented at JASID Conference

At the beginning, Moore spoke about how in Southeast Asia in the 1950s and '60s, Japan rolled out an integrated development package centered on large-scale infrastructure development such as dam construction. As part of this package, Japan also provided assistance in sectors including industrialization, the promotion of agriculture, regional planning and river improvement. Moore discussed what in Japan's colonial experiences made this integrated development style possible for the Baluchaung hydroelectric development project in what was then Burma. He also talked about Japanese engineers who contributed to the heavy industrial development of Southeast Asia in the prewar period, the lineage of Pan-Asianism and the continuity of human networks.

Next, Shimomura took up two puzzles: 1. Why the anti-Japanese sentiment that spread throughout Southeast Asia in the 1970s and '80s abated around 1990? and 2. Why the ideas of the Fukuda Doctrine, which were lauded in Japan and abroad, did not lead to a softening of anti-Japanese feelings? He reported on how pressure from Southeast Asia changed Japan's diplomatic posture and the state of its development cooperation, and on how, as a result, a Japanese-style development cooperation approach that matches the needs of Southeast Asia came into being. Specifically, this approach refers to comprehensive economic cooperation packages consisting of three parts: assistance, direct investment and importation (opening of markets).

After listening to these presentations, discussant Fumiharu Mieno, a professor at Kyoto University, asked how we should evaluate the struggle to find subsequent post-infrastructure assistance or a combination of infrastructure and non-infrastructure approaches. He said he looks forward to continued historical research on the 1960s, which was not covered by the presentations, because it is an important period in relation to Japan's industrialization.

Forty-four people participated in the session, and there were many comments from researchers and consultants, including questions on defining the success or failure of a project, creating guidelines for executing agencies on responding to criticisms of ODA, responding using knowledge accumulation, how criticism of ODA relates to foreign policy including military and defense, and the viewpoint of generational change when discussing continuity or discontinuity before and after 1945.