A painting that marks the beginning of the Meiji Restoration (1868), symbolizing Japan's modernization.

Why was Japan the only one in Asia able to compete with the Western powers?

In Asia, there is one myth. That is, only Japan reached a level where it could compete with the Western powers during the era of imperialism in the late 19th century. Not only Japan’s victory in the First Sino-Japanese War (1895) but also its victory in the Russo-Japanese War (1904) shocked the world enormously, and Japan even earned a place as one of the victorious nations in World War I. At that time, most parts of Asia were not free from being colonies or protectorates of the Western powers. China, once the dominant power in East Asia that Europe once feared, experienced two Opium Wars with Britain and fell to the status of the “sick man of Asia.” Joseon, the main subject of this essay and the predecessor of both North and South Korea, fought 1,000 Joseon soldiers against 1,200 U.S. troops during the Sinmiyangyo (1871), suffering a deplorable defeat with recorded casualties of 243 Joseon soldiers killed, 100 drowned, and 3 U.S. soldiers killed, and thereafter nearly gave up fighting. Around the same time, in 1863, it was not the Japanese nation but a single domain, Satsuma, that independently waged war against Britain (1862). As a result, although Britain won, Japan managed to destroy one British steamship and caused 13 British casualties, while the Japanese forces recorded fewer than 10 casualties. From this record, we see that although there was a difference in national strength from the start, the more striking difference was not simply the outcome of the war but was due to the subsequent actions of the two countries. Joseon, after wars with the United States and France, firmly closed its doors, while Japan, taking this shock as a turning point, vigorously pursued modernization. Where does this difference come from? The elites who led Japan’s modernization, such as the Iwakura Mission and Sakamoto Ryoma, played a significant role. However, in this essay, I intend to focus on the structural elements rather than the chance appearance of a few leaders in explaining Japan’s success.

Was it due to the limitations of geographical factors?

There is a representative geographical factor among the structural elements. As pointed out in <Why Nations Fail>, while geography has many limitations in explaining the failures of modern societies, it appears to be quite effective in evaluating societies of the modern or earlier eras where politics and institutions were not sufficiently developed and global differences were minimal. In terms of geography, Joseon was in the worst position for modernization. The Korean Peninsula was always under the powerful influence of China, connected by land, and that influence was particularly strong when China had a stable, unified dynasty. At the time when modernization was needed, China, with the Qing dynasty established as a strong centralized, unified state, had information from the West altered and transmitted by China. For example, Joseon believed that the outcome of the First Opium War was a victory for the Qing. To the east, the Japanese archipelago acted like a breakwater, and historically, interactions with the West were mainly conducted through Japan. However, I believe that even with these geographical limitations, there were certainly opportunities. There were individuals in Joseon who had the will for reform within those limitations, but in the end, they failed to change the closed national system.

Japan’s comparatively decentralized competitive feudal system

Revisiting the Satsuma war mentioned in the first section, an interesting point is not that Japan achieved a much better exchange rate compared to Joseon, but that it was Satsuma—one of the administrative regions rather than the Japanese central government—that unilaterally waged war against Britain. Such a war was impossible in Joseon. This is because Joseon was a highly centralized system, and local governments did not have appropriately established standing armies. On the other hand, Japan had a system similar to the European feudal system, so despite having a centralized system, there existed hereditary administrative regions known as daimyo, which were local lords, and they were in competition with one another. Therefore, each domain needed to have its own military strength. Since the unification process under the shogunate was based on power rather than legitimacy, it meant that any domain could betray at any time if the central authority weakened. The Japanese culture represented by the samurai is based on the pragmatics of power rather than on loyalty or honor. In fact, when the shogunate surrendered to Commodore Perry of the United States (Kurofune incident, 1853), from that moment on, the domains began to seriously consider overthrowing the shogunate. As a result, through such competition, elites who led modernization emerged in Japan, and the Satcho Alliance (formed in 1866), a coalition of local forces, overthrew the shogunate. Later, they became the core force of the rampaging Japanese military during World War II.

The centralized Joseon severely limited local competitiveness

When you think about it, a centralized system can potentially possess stronger economic and military power than a less centralized one. However, why did Joseon’s centralized system come to the point of not having adequate economic strength or a standing army? First, from an economic perspective, it was because it had an exploitative economic system. The yangin did not work at all, and countless nobi, following the principle of “one for one,” naturally had no need to work hard. Until the end of the Joseon period, social mobility was impossible, and even if one achieved economic success, it was difficult to gain recognition in society. From a military perspective, it is even more ironic. Joseon was founded by the legendary warrior Yi Seong-gye, and through the years of brutal wars with Japan that began in 1592 and the two wars with China that followed, the need for military strength should have been strongly felt. Nevertheless, during the war with the Qing, King Injo of Joseon, who had come to power through a coup, experienced a mutiny of the elite troops guarding the borders after his accession. Because of this, out of extreme concern for the possibility of local forces rebelling, Joseon did not establish standing armies in the provinces but instead, in the event of an invasion, organized local forces under the direction of the central government in a rather inefficient manner. While this might not have been an issue if the situation were stable, in a subsequent war that broke out immediately after dismantling the system that allowed for local defense, the king made a humiliating surrender to the Qing’s mobile forces at a mountain fortress near his capital.

Complete decentralization is impossible, and a certain level of centralization is necessary

This is not to say that centralization should be unconditionally criticized. Without centralization, nothing can be advanced. The reason why the hot topic of cryptocurrency has developed within decentralized systems is not solely because of decentralization. Even if it is not a representative centralized cryptocurrency like Ripple, many teams advocating decentralization in cryptocurrency development are, in fact, centralized. To quote <Why Nations Fail> again, the example of Somalia is given when discussing the necessity of at least a minimal centralized government. Somalia is highly decentralized, but because there is effectively no central government, it is institutionally incapable of doing anything. Furthermore, even if a system appears to be decentralized to a similar degree, its form can vary, and it is important whether that decentralization structurally pursues incentives efficiently. In the cases of Poland and Hungary, where the king’s authority was weak, the power did not go to the common people but was entirely concentrated in the political aristocracy. As a result, Poland was divided up by neighboring powers, and Hungary ended up handing over its throne to Austria for centuries due to the greed of the aristocrats. It can be said that a decentralized system, in which each pursues its own incentives, is the core of a national system.

It is unfortunate, however, when considering regions where this is impossible. Territories formerly under Ottoman Turkish rule, and sub-Saharan Africa are examples of this. Without a government that takes care of its own people or the assurance of private property, it becomes impossible for individuals to pursue their own incentives through any system implemented by the government. The true wound of colonization is not the exploited economic scale, but rather the destruction of mindset caused by this continuous exploitation. Because the inertia of mindset is so strong, once it is established, it takes an extraordinarily long time to change.