mobilize private resources in order to achieve public purposes, and to achieve specific development objectives.After World War II, the U.S. occupation government imposed an antitrust law modeled after U.S. law. Following the American withdrawal, however, the Japanese law was weakened, and enforcement was subordinated to the needs of industrial policymakers. For example, in the mid-1960s, over one thousand government-sanctioned cartels were in place.Since the late 1970s, Japanese antitrust enforcement has been somewhat resurgent, but the value of collaboration remains substantially ingrained in Japanese behavior. This is reflected in the continuing prominence of cartels and the purchasing practices of the keiretsu, which cause tensions with trading partners.Cartels in industries with chronic excess capacity, such as steel, for example, require public or private restraints on imports to maintain prices above international levels. In turn, that creates opportunities for Japanese dumping in foreign markets, and the combination of private import restraints and dumping tends to shift unemployment onto foreign producers.In industries where Japanese firms have achieved dominant positions, such as video cassette recorders, and more recently, fax paper, they have run afoul of U.S. antitrust laws prohibiting price fixing. Although keiretsu networks permit interbrand competition in Japan, their purchasing practices and control over distribution channels can impose significant barriers to foreign products and firms, as well as to new domestic competitors, in retail markets.Following the Structural Impediments Initiative (SII) Report (1991), Japanese law and enforcement were strengthened, and Japan essentially has a U.S. style antitrust law. However, in most areas, enforcement by the Japanese Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) is much less aggressive than that of the U.S. antitrust agencies. The remedies available through private suits are very limited, an...
