Introduction

All of the authors in this book downplay Confucianism as a contemporary aspect of social policy in East Asia and, instead, emphasise the role of political ideology. What emerges is a sophisticated understanding of the role of Confucianism, not as a monolithic set of precepts but as being malleable to local circumstances. Moreover, while Confucianism undoubtedly played a critical political role in the industrialisation of East Asia, its cultural influence has been overestimated in the past as well as being so in the present. Japan shares a common Confucian root with China but, as Kono shows in Chapter Six, it was moderated by the Japanese to suit their own native traditions. In particular, the ruling class manipulated the moral code to suit its own purposes. Thus a distinct interpretation of Confucianism emerged in Japan espoused by the new governing elite that comprised the first modern government of Japan in the late 19th century. In South Korea the rationality of industrialisation clashed with the normative precepts of Confucianism with the result that the latter were relaxed (Chapter Eight). In both Japan and South Korea (Chapters Six and Eight) Confucianism was one of the critical conditions that enabled rapid industrialisation and economic growth. Echoing Weber’s (1958) analysis of the role of Protestantism in the 19th-century European industrial revolution, it is clear that Confucian traditions allowed authoritarian states to take the interventionist measures they deemed necessary to facilitate rapid industrialisation without worrying overly about their political and social implications. In fact, they worried more about the political than the social costs as it was the job of the family to deal with these. In other words, Confucian norms were not powerful enough on their own to quell popular unrest and therefore government action was necessary. For example, in Hong Kong there was massive public investment in housing. This emphasises that, despite the rhetoric surrounding the East Asian ‘tiger economies’, none of them is a pure market system and the state has played, and continues to do so, a significant role – for example, in protecting industries, investment in infrastructure and research, education, housing and even some public enterprises.