Search This Blog

Tuesday, 20 May 2014

History of Toyota. Part 27B (1953-1968): Liberalization of Car Imports

After World War II, Japan gradually rejoined the international economic community, for example by setting an exchange rate of 360 yen to the dollar. It also selectively brought in foreign investment and technologies while keeping external trade under strict control. Then, in 1952 when the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into force, Japan joined the International Monetary Fund (IMF1) and also gained provisional membership in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT2) in 1953. However, Japan was still recovering economically and was not yet in a position to completely fulfill the obligations required by the IMF or GATT. Therefore, special conditions were attached to its membership that allowed Japan to restrict imports and control the yen exchange rate based on its international balance of payments.
Subsequently as the major European nations gradually restored the exchangeability of their currencies and trade and exchange within Europe began to be liberalized, pressure began to mount on Japan to also liberalize its trade and exchange. Therefore, in January 1960, the Japanese government established the Trade and Exchange Liberalization Promotion Cabinet Conference, through which it drew up a basic policy for trade and exchange liberalization, and developed the Trade and Exchange Liberalization Plan in June of the same year.3
As part of its major move toward a more open economic system, Japan liberalized imports of completed trucks and buses in April 1961. The timing for liberalizing imports of completed passenger cars was delayed because Japan's production volume was much smaller than those of foreign automakers and Japanese automakers lacked price competitiveness, among other factors.
Meanwhile, in May of the same year, with the goal of strengthening the international competitiveness of Japanese-made passenger cars, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) set down its Plan for Organizing Passenger Cars into Three Groups4, which divided Japanese passenger car manufacturers into the following three groups:
1.Mass-produced car group
2.Sports car and luxury car group
3.Minivehicle passenger car group
Each group was to consist of two or three automakers. The announcement of this plan carried a profound impact, heightening motivation for reassessing Japan's industrial structure itself.
Against this background, the Industrial Structure Investigation Committee, established as an advisory body to the MITI minister, created a passenger car subcommittee in April 1962, which began surveying and researching future demand for passenger cars and international competitiveness. Based on the resulting research, a passenger car policy special subcommittee was also established as a specific policy evaluation body, which returned the following recommendations in December of the same year:
1.It is essential to establish mass production structures before liberalization occurs, and therefore partnerships and mergers must be promoted.
2.The Japanese government must provide funds to automakers that can be expected to derive benefits of economies of scale.
3.The prices of domestically produced cars must be lowered and their performance must be improved.
Separately from these moves by the Japanese government (including those by MITI), most Japanese automakers felt that they would rather go as far as they could on their own to strengthen the international competitiveness of their passenger cars. Therefore, they hurried to expand their plants dedicated to the production of passenger cars and twice reduced their prices-in September 1963 and June 1964 (with some more in September of that year)-for a total reduction of around 10 percent. They also made strenuous efforts to improve the performance of their passenger cars through numerous redesigns.
These efforts by Japanese automakers clearly paid off. The import quota for foreign cars was increased beginning in the second half of the Japanese government's 1963 April-March fiscal year and a system was adopted beginning in fiscal 1964 of unrestricted allocation (with the exception of exports from just a few countries). Nevertheless, the number of imports increased only slightly from 11,703 units in fiscal 1963 to 13,577 units in fiscal 1964, accounting for less than 3 percent of the total Japanese car market.
Witnessing this healthy growth of the Japanese automotive industry, the Japanese government took the bold step of liberalizing imports of completed passenger cars on October 1, 1965, despite having some concerns about Japan's passenger car production volume and the sizes of its automakers.

Capital Liberalization and Automotive Industry Reorganization
The passenger car import liberalization implemented in 1965 nearly completed trade liberalization related to automobiles, leaving only a few items restricted such as engines and their parts. Thus, trade and currency exchange liberalization was nearly complete, but the issue of capital liberalization still remained before Japan's economy could become truly open.
The need for liberalizing capital transactions in Japan became a real issue when Japan joined the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD1). Giving Japan high marks for its extraordinary economic growth rate and the liberalization of its trade and currency exchange, the OECD decided at its directors meeting in 1963 to invite Japan to join. Japan became an official OECD member in April 1964 and enjoyed such benefits as the elimination of import restrictions by European nations. At the same time, however, Japan was obliged to liberalize capital transactions according to the general principle of capital liberalization.
Facing the challenge of foreign capital liberalization in Japan, Japanese automakers were striving to establish mass-production structures, increase their owned capital, and strengthen their technology development capabilities. As these efforts to enhance corporate structure progressed, competition among the companies intensified and the differences between them became noticeable, making the time ripe for a reorganization of the Japanese automotive industry. Then in 1964, a merger proposal with Prince Motors was brought to Toyota Motor Co., Ltd. Eiji Toyoda, as Toyota Motor Co., Ltd. chairman, recalled the event as follows:
This was brought up by Shojiro Ishibashi, founder and former chairman of Bridgestone, in 1964, the year of the Tokyo Olympics. ...
We turned down the offer. Ishibashi had made it clear that 'if things don't work out with Toyota, we'll have to go elsewhere.' So we foresaw, more or less, that Nissan would take over Prince if we didn't. And that's exactly what happened. ...
When Nissan and Prince merged, the Fair Trade Commission gave its official sanction, citing as justification that 'the Nissan-Prince merger results in a market share smaller than that of Toyota'. What this meant was that, as the top automaker, Toyota was not free to merge with anyone.
The August 1966 merger between Nissan and Prince paved the way for accelerated regrouping of the Japanese automotive industry, with the goal of strengthening its international competitiveness.
Meanwhile, the domestic automotive industries of the United States and Europe had already matured and therefore were being forced to explore new overseas markets. As noted, in 1967, Japan surpassed West Germany to become the second largest car-producing nation in the world. As such, American and European automakers were eyeing Japan as a promising market and began to strongly demand liberalization of foreign capital in the Japanese automotive industry.
The first country to demand liberalization of foreign capital in the Japanese automotive industry was the United States. In January 1968, at a subcommittee meeting of the Japan-U.S. Trade and Economy Joint Committee, the U.S. side strongly demanded liberalization of foreign capital in the Japanese automotive industry. The negotiation surrounding capital liberalization remained difficult, but soon a position promoting liberalization began to gain momentum, even within Japanese financial circles and the Japanese government. The reasoning was that since the Japanese automotive industry had climbed to the second place in the world in production volume and was increasing exports, it was sufficiently competitive to withstand liberalization. Japanese automakers, on the other hand, experienced the massive corporate power of the U.S. Big Three as a major threat.
Japanese car exports in 1969 had grown by 40 percent from the previous year to 860,000 units. Because exports to the United States amounted to 340,000 units, accounting for 39 percent of total car exports, the demand for capital liberalization from the Big Three continued to intensify with every passing day.
Meanwhile, in May of the same year, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI) announced a partnership with Chrysler Corporation, and began preparations to form a joint venture, with 65 and 35 percent of its capital to be provided by MHI and Chrysler, respectively.
Against this backdrop, in October 1969 the Japanese government made a cabinet decision to implement capital liberalization in the Japanese automotive industry beginning in October 1970. It also decided that the foreign capital ratio must not exceed 50 percent when a new joint venture is formed, and that capital participation in existing automakers would be individually examined.
In response, then-President Eiji Toyoda, made it clear both internally and externally that Toyota was committed to remaining a 100 percent Japanese-owned corporation and would establish an annual production capacity of 2 million vehicles as quickly as possible:
“What Toyota must do in preparation for the imminent capital liberalization is solidly establish our mass production system. By the time liberalization is implemented-that is, by 1971-we hope to have established an annual production capacity of 2 million vehicles. For Toyota, our basic philosophy of protecting Japan's national capital has not changed. Furthermore, capital liberalization will rekindle the issue of industry regrouping. I believe regrouping will be promoted but will not go as speedily as expected.
We will continue to increase the subcontracting of production to Daihatsu and Hino Motors over the long term. In any case, we must establish an annual production capacity of 2 million vehicles as quickly as possible, including that of our affiliates. For this reason, we are currently building a new plant and are also looking to purchase land for other plants.”

Toyota's policy during this period could be condensed into the following two goals:
1.Enhancing the model lineup to establish a complete product lineup in response to the diversifying demand in the Japanese market
2.Establishing a 2 million-unit capacity as the immediate goal and achieving cost reduction as a result, in order to cope with capital liberalization

Since Toyota's production volume had just reached 100,000 units per month and 1 million units per year in 1968, 2 million was a distant goal. Back then, only General Motors and Ford Motor Company had achieved annual production volumes exceeding 2 million units.

Source: Toyota Motor Corporation 

For more on theory and case studies onhttp://expertresearchers.blogspot.com

No comments:

Post a Comment