Michael Pettis
{
"authors": [
"Michael Pettis"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "AP",
"programs": [
"Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"East Asia",
"China",
"Japan"
],
"topics": [
"Economy",
"Trade"
]
}Source: Getty
Japan's Past Has Lessons For Beijing
Chinese policymakers looking to learn from Japan's policy missteps should recognize that Japan's lost decade grew out of its failure to implement early and gradual economic adjustment policies, not its decision to reevaluate the yen.
Source: South China Morning Post

After five years of strong growth and surging stock and real estate markets, in 1990 Japan was forced into a painful 20-year adjustment.
For many Chinese, there was a causal connection between the two events. The post-1985 rise in the yen, they believe, caused the bubble whose subsequent collapse ended Japanese growth and threw the country into a lost decade.
This view is mistaken. What is worse, to the extent that it affects Chinese policy it almost certainly increases the chances that China will suffer its own lost decade.
It was not the post-1985 rise of the yen that caused Japan's lost decade. Tokyo had waited so long before the inevitable currency adjustment that policymakers were then forced to choose between a sharp slowdown and a disastrous policy response. They chose the latter.
For Japan in the mid-1980s, a sharply undervalued currency and extremely low interest rates had helped to generate tremendous growth in the previous 15 years. But as in China today, this growth came with low and declining household consumption as a share of GDP. This left Japan extraordinarily dependent on investment and on a large trade surplus to generate growth.
Once it became clear, however, that the rest of the world, especially the United States, was unable to absorb Japan's rising trade surpluses, in 1985 under threat of trade sanctions Tokyo allowed the yen to soar in value against the dollar.
This should have caused Japan's trade surplus to fall sharply, and with it Japanese growth should also have dropped sharply.
But in an attempt to forestall the drop, Tokyo turned to the only set of policies that might reverse the impact of the devaluation. It reduced interest rates and forced banks to expand credit dramatically.
But Tokyo overdid it. The net result was the economy and asset markets soared. This in no way resolved Japan's underlying imbalances. In fact, it made them worse than ever.
Investment always causes growth, but misallocated investment always subtracts more growth from the future than it causes in the present. Japan's economy grew ferociously for five years, to the astonishment and admiration of the rest of the world, but at the cost of sharply worsening imbalances and massively wasted investment.
Finally in 1990, worried about rising risks, Tokyo finally did what it should have done years earlier. It began to raise the cost of capital in an attempt to choke off the out-of-control investment spree.
It was too late. Years of wasted investment had to be paid for, and they were paid for by a suffering household sector. Japan rebalanced the only way it could, with an even sharper contraction in economic growth.
The lesson of the 1980s is not that Japan should have resisted US demands to appreciate. It had no choice. Trade surplus countries have no bargaining power in a trade war.
Instead, the lesson is first, that Japan should have begun the rebalancing process much earlier, and second, that once the yen was forced to appreciate, it should not have responded by lowering interest rates and forcing investment to surge. This is the real lesson for China, although it will be a tough one to learn.
About the Author
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie China
Michael Pettis is a nonresident senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. An expert on China’s economy, Pettis is professor of finance at Peking University’s Guanghua School of Management, where he specializes in Chinese financial markets.
- Who Paid for China’s Last Debt Cleanup, and Who Will Pay for the Next?Commentary
- Is China’s High-Quality Investment Output Economically Viable?Commentary
Michael Pettis
Recent Work
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- As It Turns 25, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Reflects the New World OrderCommentary
With the growth in points of friction between the great powers, organizations like the SCO will continue to play a role in the strategic adaptation of the smaller powers caught between them.
Temur Umarov
- The Two Key Takeaways From Xi’s Egypt VisitCommentary
Amid celebrations of bilateral ties was a deeper focus on stability in the Middle East.
Amr Hamzawy
- Taking the Pulse: Is Canada Leading a Third Way?Commentary
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has twice inspired praise for standing up to U.S. President Donald Trump: at the 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos and on Canada-U.S. trade negotiations. Is Carney showing a third way better than the EU has in dealing with the Trump administration?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- Is the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Performance Art or Meaningful Collaboration?Commentary
Xi, Putin, and other regional leaders are back-slapping in Bishkek, but the SCO has yet to answer the most serious questions about continental Asia's economic future.
Evan A. Feigenbaum
- Gas and Peace: Can Energy Trade Contain Egypt-Israel Conflict?Commentary
Can economic ties help contain conflict between Egypt and Israel, or do they simply postpone confrontation? Drawing on the German-Russian experience, the article examines how the gas deal creates mutual dependence, keeps channels of cooperation open, and raises the cost of conflict, without necessarily delivering lasting peace.
Nourhan Hefzy