• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUUkraine
  • Donate
{
  "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

In The Media

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.

Link Copied
By Michael Pettis
Published on Oct 18, 2010

Source: South China Morning Post

Japan's Past Has Lessons For Beijing Many Chinese respond worriedly to calls to raise the yuan by looking back at the Plaza Accord of September 1985, after which the value of the yen rose more than 60 per cent, from 240 to the US dollar to less than 150, within two years.

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

Michael Pettis

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. 

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    The Plaza Accord and Its Relevance for China

      Michael Pettis

  • Commentary
    Who Paid for China’s Last Debt Cleanup, and Who Will Pay for the Next?

      Michael Pettis

Michael Pettis
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie China
Michael Pettis
EconomyTradeEast AsiaChinaJapan

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    The EU’s Middle-Power Puzzle

    While the EU and European governments are embracing the much-lauded middle-power moment, this entails three difficult conundrums.

      Richard Youngs

  • The Scramble for Europe. Russia, China, and Turkey Challenging Regional Order
    Book
    The Scramble for Europe. Russia, China, and Turkey Challenging Regional Order

    Europe is facing rising populism internally as well as external pressures from Russia, China, Turkey, and the United States.

      Dimitar Bechev

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    How the EU’s Single Market Could Unlock Enlargement

    Much has been said of the changes Brussels is trying to make to the EU enlargement process. Here’s why gradual integration might—or might not—be the answer.

      Dimitar Bechev

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Can the EU Stare Down China on Trade?

    The European Commissioner for Trade is headed to China. But after President Xi’s bridge-building visit to Washington, can a more isolated EU overcome Beijing’s stranglehold on critical raw materials? Who will blink first?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    How Le Pen Benefits from the Stalemate in Ukraine

    The domestic impacts of how long it is taking to end the war in Ukraine have pushed the French electorate to the political extremes and compromised the country’s diplomatic capacity.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.