Every year, the Tokyo Forum discusses a big contemporary issue, and this year’s theme was “Rethinking Capitalism: Varieties, Contradictions, and Futures” (https://www.tokyoforum.tc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/index.html).
The forum started with economists, and Marianne Bertrand opened her talk with Milton Friedman’s famous quote that “the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.” But Bertrand reminded us that Friedman hastened to add “in the absence of market imperfections,” which never holds true in reality.
Everybody at the forum (including business executives) recognized major flaws in the current manifestation of capitalism, and they readily pointed out issues like pollution, erosion of social values, information asymmetries, and concentration of power. However, Bertrand cautioned against the simplistic urge to overthrow markets. Capitalism has powered historic reductions in poverty and proved adaptable; “Do not throw out the baby with the bathwater,” urged Bertrand, and other economists agreed. Abandoning capitalism without a workable replacement would likely hurt the vulnerable the most.
A panel on “Prosperity Without Democracy” asked why modernization theory is fraying. Instead of rich societies smoothly turning democratic, we now see authoritarian regimes delivering growth and elected governments quietly hollowing out their own institutions. Political scientist Erica Frantz described that the recent democratic decline in the last two decades was less driven by military coups. Rather, they were driven more by democratically elected leaders who gradually weakened courts, media, and election rules while keeping a façade of legality. Takeshi Kawanaka added that in Southeast Asia, poverty, corruption, and frustration with the status quo made people vote for “strongmen” who promised order and development. Kim Sunhyuk focused on South Korea and critiqued the dominant narrative of its democratic turn through capitalism and economic growth. He remembered living through that time, and he argued that Korea’s democratic turn depended more on the particular circumstances of South Korea at that time, and it was not a natural or inevitable consequence of capitalism. People were interested in the state of democracy in Japan, and the panelists generally assured us that Japan looks safe for the time being. However, panelists pointed out a few worrying signs: poor economic performance, populism, and personality politics. Sunhyuk argued that even the most stable democracy is not safe if it cannot deliver economic performance.
One of the most striking conversations came from business leaders and university administrators. The Japan Association of Corporate Executives (Keizai Dōyūkai) promoted “collaborative capitalism” as a Reiwa-era alternative to both laissez-faire and an overburdened welfare state. Instead of assuming that companies make money and governments clean up the mess, it called on firms to work with the public sector and civil society on problems like child poverty, regional decline, and disaster recovery as part of their core mission. Acting chair Mutsuo Iwai described projects where corporations pool funds and expertise with universities, local governments, and NPOs. SK Group chairman Chey Tae-won explained how his conglomerate assigns a monetary value to “social value” by providing money for environmental performance, labor environment, and desirable behavioral changes. These suggestions reminded me of public benefit corporations mentioned in Bertrand’s opening talk.
Another panel noted that universities are also increasingly drawn into “academic capitalism”: competing in rankings, courting donors, patenting discoveries, and partnering with industry. Market forces can spur innovation, they argued, but must be balanced by academic freedom, broad access, and long-term knowledge creation. In both boardrooms and universities, the question was how to use market tools without letting market logic swallow everything else.
Even the panel on degrowth agreed with the rest that we should not ignore economic growth. Rather, we should not let economic growth be the only value. In this respect, everyone in the forum was in agreement. However, this panel argued for a greater importance of other values, such as nature, dignity, connection, fairness, and purpose, and they argued for a radical reduction in resource use to promote these values.
The youth session illustrated how these students came to be aware of capitalism as a force that shaped their everyday lives through their university project. While their immediate responses were modest, the project suggests how educators can help students to engage with big social issues like capitalism.
Even the final panel on space resources revolved around familiar questions. Nobody in the panel thought that space exploration would change our basic stance on capitalism, but off-planet resource extractions are creating complex legal questions about who should benefit from it and how to enforce some of the current international agreements that these resources belong to the global commons.
After two days of discussions, I learned about many experiments and efforts to respond to the current problems of capitalism. However, none of the proposals struck me as compelling enough, and I think there is a continued need to work on the issue at all levels: thoughtful conceptualizations of possible solutions, legal frameworks, compelling incentives, implementations, enforcement mechanisms, and so on. Yet, I still found it encouraging that some people are actually taking concrete actions: running public benefit corporations, implementing well-being budgets, and undertaking collaborative-capitalism projects. There is still hope for humanity and, perhaps, for capitalism as well.
(My reflection from Tokyo Forum 2023 is here: https://toshtachino.com/index.php/2023/12/03/tokyo-forum-2023-shaping-the-future-cultivating-humanity-amid-social-divisions-and-digital-transformation/)