後進國에 있어서의 內資의 調達과 그 産業別 配分 (其2)

The Mobilization and Allocation of Domestic Capital (Part II)

The economic development plan in underdeveloped countries should include two aspects as its target of development policy; on the one hand the social change, and on the other, the structural change. The social change means reforming of traditional economic institutions, in which precapitalistic primitive accumulation of capital, unproductive investment of capital and so-called comprador capital can easily be prevailed. The structural change means the transformation of industrial structure into independent or self-sustained structure from dependent or subordinative one, which have grown up under long-continued colonial rule in the past and become nowadays the ground for a new form of the primitive accumulation of capital of the advanced monopolistic capitalism. The social change is related to the mobilization-programme of industrial capital, and the structural change to the allocation of capital among industries, i.e., the investment-programme of capital in the economic development plan in underdeveloped countries. In the first part of this paper we discussed the problem of capital mobilization accompanied with the "social change," and here in the second part, the problem of capital investment accompanied with the "structural change." Both problems, however, are closely related to one another, and can not be inquired into separately. In other words, here we discuss the strategies of capital investment inspiring the structural change. The characteristics of the industrial structure of underdeveloped countries can be summed up in a word of "subordination" to advanced economy. Generally speaking, the subordination of industrial structure was one-sidedly compelled by advanced monopolistic capitalists at the stage of imperialism in the late 19th century, and today it has changed into a new form by the modern expansionism that has tried to maintain the 19th century's subordinative relations. But there are substantially few differences between the 19th century's subordinative relations and those of today. In the underdeveloped economy, the mining industry is not linked up with its own country's manufacturing industries but with the producer's goods or heavy industries of advanced countries. And the modernized estate agriculture except the traditional small farming in underdeveloped countries is linked up not with its own country's manufacturing industries but with the consumer's goods or light industries of advanced countries. In the cities of underdeveloped countries there are few productive enterprises except handicraft and production of simple tools or instruments; but there are only the usuries, the landlords, the bureaucrats and the parasitic merchants who export their own country's primitive products and import the consumer's goods of advanced countries. Thus the underdeveloped countries with those subordinative industrial structure have few economic linkages among mining, agriculture and manufacturing, and socially, they constitute the plural or dualistic society which has few interactions between rural and urban areas. In the underdeveloped economy with those characteristics the principle of development policy should be strictly distinguished from that of advanced economy. First, the precapitalistic traditional economic institutions such as merchant capital, usuries and semi-feudal land system should be reformed; and also all the traditional social institutions that hinder the enlarged-reproduction and force the simple reproduction should be also reformed. This means the overall social change. Secondly, the structural change of industry should proceed toward the independent self-sustained structure, getting out of the situation of ground for primitive accumulation of capital of the advanced countries. In other words, the underdeveloped countries should establish their own mixed economy that could reform the social institutions as well as change the industrial structure simultaneously. The word "their own" implies t