Meiji Japan’s Path Towards Modernisation in the Nineteenth Century: A Reinterpretation of Japanese Policy of Hiring Foreign
Workers in The Country
Mohamad Firdaus Mansor Majdin1*
1 Abdul Hamid Abu Sulayman Kulliyyah of Islamic Revealed Knowledge and Human Sciences, International Islamic University Malaysia, Gombak, Malaysia
*Corresponding Author: [email protected]
Accepted: 15 April 2022 | Published: 1 May 2022
DOI:https://doi.org/10.55057/ijbtm.2022.4.1.10
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: The study attempts to revisit the policy of hiring foreign experts and advisers in the Japanese public institution especially in the essential sectors such as bureaucracy, military, education, and economic sectors following the takeover of the Bakufu government by the Meiji leadership in 1868. This study also intends to investigate how successful such a policy was in paving the way for the modernization of the Japanese public institutions and economy as far as the Meiji leadership was concerned. In so doing, the study adopts a method of content analysis, deriving its observation from a wide range of archival and scholarly sources which are later selected for their relevance to the study. Eventually, the study demonstrates that the Meiji Government employed foreign experts, advisers, and employees in a way that would serve twofold purposes, namely of enforcing reforms in the country by having the Japanese workers acquire the know-how in related fields by working hand in hand with their foreign supervisors and co-workers. Soon thereafter, as the local Japanese workers were getting trained and later became experts by themselves, the Meiji Government had slowly reduced the number of foreign experts and advisers employed in the country.
Keywords: Meiji Japan, meiji ishin, policy, foreign employees
___________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
As the Meiji Government was now in power, efforts towards centralisation and modernization of Japan were running high in the country which was to be realized in almost all walks of life.
In doing so, the Meiji Government looked at the West as a model of which it became the standard of modernization of the day to emulate and secondly as an attempt on part of the Meiji Government to impress the West that it could reform the country as the West did. This reform agenda was primarily done so that the sovereignty of Japan as an independent sovereign state could be safeguarded and protected against powerful Western Powers.
Furthermore, an interesting observation that the researcher wants to highlight here is that in carrying out reforms in the country, the Meiji Government seemed to deliberate that it would be practical and desirable for them if they could hire several Western experts and advisers in certain public institutions (such as administration, governance, public works, legal, and economic sectors to name but a few) as the Japanese themselves were not yet ready to do so as far as technical knowledge and know-how were concerned.
Another interesting observation that the researcher attempts to highlight here is that after some time, the number of foreign experts and workers was slowly and significantly reduced as the Japanese workers soon were able to catch up with their foreign counterparts. This whole situation indicates that such a Western borrowing was not a mere imitation; rather the Japanese had benefited from this knowledge transfer (including technology know-how) which the Meiji Government had possibly anticipated by resorting to the above-mentioned policy. In the subsequent section, a further discussion will address how the Meiji Government ran through the policy of hiring foreign experts and advisers and how the local Japanese employees and workers used (made use of) the engagement that they had with the former had contributed towards the modernization and centralization of modern Japan.
2. Discussion
There seems little doubt that the entry of Japan into the modern world was made possible in part by Meiji's policy of hiring Western experts and advisers on one hand and by sending Japanese students overseas to learn the art of western science and technology in various aspects on the other. Of course, one must bear in mind that Japan's efforts towards modernization and industrialization were not abruptly started during the time of the Meiji era as initial efforts towards the agenda had already been there during the late Bakufu administration.
In this respect, Kenichi Ohno (2019) mentioned even before the commencement of the Meiji era in 1868, the Shogunate administration had already built specialized factories or mills like Nagasaki Steel Mill and Shipyard in 1857 and the Yokosuka Steel Mill in 1866 as ancillary facilities for the Nagasaki Naval Training Centre. These facilities, which later became Mitsubishi Nagasaki Shipyard and Yokosuka Naval Arsenal applied Western mechanized factory production techniques and transferred technology to the Japanese under the supervision of foreign engineers and technicians during the subsequent Meiji era. Another classic example would be the Kagoshima Spinning Mill, which was established in 1867 by Satsuma han that also reflected the same scenario as above. In short, these early factories became a model for the Meiji government that now began to hire foreign employees, advisers, instructors at a considerable number for both factory’s construction and operation.
Now with the commencement of a new era under the enlightened leadership, Japan’s pursuit of modernization was intensified and formalized. In this regard, Kenichi Ohno (2019) has pointed out to Meiji Japan’s stunning ability to catch up with her Western counterparts with a steady pace after they employed foreign employees (including advisers, experts, teachers, instructors, etc.) in the country. In this respect, the Meiji Government had taken several initiatives or steps that would facilitate the technology and knowledge transfer from the West to Japan which include industrial human resources, competitive domestic enterprises, industrial infrastructure, proper business institutions, and constructive engagement between the state and the private sector.
Nevertheless, since Meiji Japan was not well versed in matters concerning modernization, the author seems to suggest that Meiji Japan was ‘forced’ to acquire such technology and knowledge transfer, and this, therefore ‘compelled’ the Government to do what he termed as
‘import-substitution’. This approach, according to Kenichi Ohno (2019), requires ‘import- substituting’ engineers and technicians to be employed in the country’s critical fields. In hindsight, this seems to be true as the Meiji Government had to turn their eyes to the Western countries as to what were the best ways or approaches that they could adopt and implement in pushing centralisation and modernization forward in the country. As one can observe in
subsequent discussions, the Meiji leaders later experimented those approaches which again, interestingly, were not all taken from one single Western country, rather they took up certain practices (ranged from administration, governance, military to socio-economic models) from a different number of Western countries instead whichever they saw fit.
In addition, speaking about the employment of foreign workers in Meiji Japan, this was manifested largely in one document that regulates and stipulates rules and procedures for the employment of foreign employees that this paper intends to highlight. According to Hazel J.
Jones (1968), ‘all matter relating to foreigners were handled by an office for foreign affairs (gaikokukan) in the Council of State (Dajokan), and Meiji officials in that office were previously heirs of the bakufu official in charge of foreign matters (gaikoku bugyo)” during Edo period. The author further mentions that according to a council of state public notice on 22 August 1868, all hans (domains) were required to obtain prior permission from the foreign office to hire foreigners. In so doing, there happened certain administrative difficulties in handling foreign employees as far as the administrative setup was concerned. This situation was demonstrated as follows:
At this time in various offices, foreigners are employed. However, some who are not known to the foreign office. When each country inquires about these persons, inconvenience arises. Therefore, everything from the foreigner's employment date and name to salary, treatment, etc. should be written in detail and reported to the foreign office by each ministry. Also in the future, at the time of employment, the application should be made after an inquiry is held with the foreign office.
Hazel J. Jones (1968) further observed that owing to this difficulty, it had therefore compelled the Meiji Government to reorganize the country’s administration by taking prompt steps such as introducing a full-fledged Ministry for Foreign Affairs (Gaimusho), the Ministry of Finance (Okurasho), and later the Ministry of Public Works (Kobusho), and few other ministries. The author mentioned that as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was the single government body responsible to monitor and supervise foreign employment in the country, the ministry took a further step forward by formulating and designing one uniform policy on this. As a result, in February I870, the Instructions for Hiring Foreigners (Gaikokujin yatoiirekata kokoroe jojo) were drafted and therefore constituted the key document for all relevant administrative policy relating to the employment of foreign specialists by the government.
Additionally, the policy’s official statement made a point that care should be exercised in all matters concerning the employment of foreign workers in the country to avoid future complexities and issues. This note was well expressed in Article 1 of the following statement:
In contact with foreigners, trust is the first consideration. It should be uppermost in our minds not to lose the honor of the Empire. In reference to employment, consultation should be approached only after full knowledge of the candidate's depth of learning and propriety of character, for deceitful and frivolous persons are not excluded from among the foreigners who come to oriental countries. In many cases their selection is imprudent; irresponsible rumors, etc., are believed or trusting their empty boasts, there are instances in which the foreigners are unsuitable for the situation for which they are hired. Thus, it has come to notice that salaries are spent uselessly. It is decreed, therefore, that employment should take place only after repeated careful investigation
Hazel J. Jones (1968) further mentioned that this article applies to foreigners employed in the first two years of the Meiji era. For instance, as early as I869, Guido F. Verbeck, the Dutch American missionary, was invited to Tokyo at a $5000 annual salary to teach at Nanka and carry through a general house cleaning. Interestingly, his classes at the Nagasaki language school (seibikan) had been attended by some fifteen Meiji leaders too. With the coming of Verbeck to Japan, the author commented that this had led to the better future employment of qualified foreign employees in Nanka in comparison to previous situations where butchers, sailors, and braumeisters from the ports were normally found their way in the school. The same situation could be observed in other technical fields before more rigorous processes were made to hire foreign machinists and mechanics who knew little or nothing of the tasks for which they applied.
The author has further mentioned the existing incompetent foreign workers were labelled as
‘ikasama’ by their fellow Japanese counterparts and as they were not competent enough to fulfill their assigned tasks, Hazel J. Jones (1968) further remarked that salaries were indeed wasted on these persons. Most of these ikasama were foreigners from the ports already in Japan and many were wandering around looking for their employment. Nonetheless, a selection and recruitment of foreign employees were later improvised especially for hiring workers from overseas. Throughout the Meiji era, there was only a handful out of thousands were discharged for incompetence and improper conduct. About the foreign employee’s dismissal, Article II has clarified the matter, where it outlines
When employing foreigners, application must be made; and since it is necessary that the Foreign Ministry or officials of the open ports, according to the status of the employee, report to the officials of the country of the foreign employee, the dismissal [of said foreign employee] also must be communicated.
There seems also at hand one difficult task lay before the Ministry of Foreign Affairs especially relating to the conduct of foreign employees in the country as their respective representative of foreign governments in Japan did not always view the conduct of their nationals with pure objectivity, and under the port treaties, foreign representatives tend to assert consular jurisdiction over their nationals even in case of their nationals’ employment. The Japanese government, and specifically the Foreign Ministry, however, was obliged to keep foreign consulates informed of their nationals’ employment and related activities. This matter was also relevant to Article III on the kinds of activities permitted by the Meiji Government. It stipulates that
In the matter of employment in various fields, the employee should be used only in his area. Among these foreigners, even if desirous of their own profit they wish to engage in business, etc., with Japanese in addition to their special occupation, permission may not be granted. Furthermore, in the event of exercising his influence in the channels of foreign trade or of appearing to engage secretly in trade, the foreign employee naturally, but also the person responsible for hiring him should be punished. This injunction [against business] must be agreed upon from the outset.
Moreover, on the same note, John M. Maki (1983) pointed out that, foreigners who worked for the Japanese government have been referred to as Oyatoi gaikokujin (foreigners employed by the government) or Oyatoi gaijin kyoshi (foreign instructors employed by the government). He opined that the former Japanese term is perhaps the most accurate as many were not instructors in a real sense, though almost all were teachers performing tasks that were the Japanese
themselves never saw or heard. The author has also provided us with statistics as to how many foreign employees were hired in the 1870s. According to a table published in 1872, 214 foreigners were employed in the government sector and the number reached 527 in 1875.
Nonetheless, the number slowly declined until the early 1880s although more than 200 were still employed. By about 1890 only a small number remained in the country. Here, the author rightly points out that though the foreign employees were a short-lived phenomenon, their role and impact were considerable. The 1872 chart also provided the following positions occupied by foreigners: manager of the mint, language teachers, heads of government departments, illustrators, accountants, tax lawyers, architects, silk spinning instructor, silk mill employees, doctors, military men, teachers, mine foreman, locomotive engineers, carpenters, ship captains, blacksmiths, builders, surveyors, and others. The author further observed that the listing mentioned above also indicates both the needs of the Japanese at that time on one hand and the general activities of the foreign employees on the other.
In another remark, the author has also described that the distribution of foreign employees provides a clue as to the hierarchy of Japanese priorities in the 1870s. The fields with the greatest number of foreign employees were as follows: railroads (53); lighthouses (47);
shipbuilding and education (each 24); telegraphy (11); military (9); and the mint and agricultural development (each 9). In terms of foreign nationality, it revealed that the British, French, and Americans were among the most widely recruited. The proportion was as follows:
the British accounted for 119 employees, followed by the French with 50, the Americans with 16, and the Prussians with 8. John M. Maki (1983) has also mentioned that the British completely dominated three major fields, namely railroads, lighthouses, and telegraphy, and occupied all types of positions except for a few minor positions which the Asian labourers found their way in. Additionally, the French monopolized shipbuilding, filling all 24 positions.
Of the Americans, six were in education and five made up the Capron mission to Hokkaido.
John M. Maki (1983) has also provided a short glance of a few important foreign employees out of hundreds in Japan such as Gustave Emile Boissonade, who came from the University of Paris to Japan in 1873. He had spent 22 years in Japan from 1873 until 1895. He emerged as a leading legal expert in Japan that brought about the introduction of French law into Japan and in the drafting of the Meiji civil and criminal codes. Secondly, Hermann Roesler, the German legal scholar, arrived in Japan in 1878 as a legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry. Not long after that, he was tasked to draft the Meiji Constitution of 1889 under a constitution commission that was headed by Ito Hirobumi. Thirdly, the American philosopher, Ernest Fenollosa, who had spent eight years between 1878 and 1886 teaching western philosophy at the Tokyo Imperial University. He was fond of Japanese artistic traditions which he gladly promoted within and beyond Japan.
Fourthly, Lafcadio Hearn, who spent his seven years (1886-1903) teaching in Japan became perhaps the greatest popularizer of Japanese culture in the West. In addition, William Elliot Griffis’s life experience was also an interesting one as his books revealed much of Japan to many Americans. Finally, William Smith Clark, who was later considered as the most famous out of all foreign employees employed in Japan due to his instrumental roles in the development of Hokkaido. This was particularly so owing to his efforts in developing the area’s agricultural fields through knowledge and the building of an institution dedicated to the region’s development.
Now, let us consider the impact the policy had on the overall process of Meiji’s Japan efforts towards modernization and westernization. In this respect, as Kenichi Ohno (2019) has implied in his work, this process of technology transfer would consume a bit of time if the local Japanese employees were not fast learners. He has observed that Japanese enterprises did not need prolonged foreign assistance to operate modern and complex equipment within the country given the fact that the Japanese themselves were relatively quick at absorbing those practical skills. Throughout the employment of foreign employees in the 1870s until the late 1890s, Kenichi Ohno (2019) has rightly pointed out that there were already competent Japanese managers and engineers who could easily replace foreigners. It is thus not an exaggeration to say the policy of hiring foreign employees served as a springboard or platform for the development of Japan’s industries and economies for the years to come.
Therefore, it seems not surprising that even after the departure of the foreign advisers, Japanese engineers for instance had already assumed the role of internalizing and diffusing Western technologies in Japan. This was made possible as they already understood the core Western technology and eventually translated this knowledge into practical use. This transfer was also possible given the fact they also collected the latest technical information when abroad and purchased appropriate models from European and American manufacturers. After a factory was built, they supervised its operation. This smooth transfer of Western technology owed much to the fact that Meiji Japan trained many Japanese engineers to a remarkably high standard in a short time. Additionally, industrial training was also realized by sending students abroad as well as by establishing domestic institutions for technical education and training.
The following are such examples where this technology and knowledge transfer uniquely benefited Meiji Japan in a variety of interrelated manners. In hindsight, as one may notice, the policy of hiring foreign experts, advisers, instructors, teachers, etc in part would not be so successful if there were no proper infrastructures put in place by the government. In this sense, the Meiji Government had established several technical institutes including the Nagasaki Naval Training Centre in 1855 (was already there before the Meiji era), the Yokosuka Shipyard School (1870), the Telegraphic Service Technical Training College (1871), the Imperial Naval Academy’s Institute for Maritime Studies (1873), and the Railway Engineering Training Centre (1877). These institutions, interestingly, were taught in a foreign language, usually English and sometimes German. The side-by-side training had made possible the transfer of knowledge and know-how necessary to the fellow Japanese workers to perform assigned functions after foreign management left.
One crucial step taken by the Meiji Government that substantially helped to facilitate the transfer of technical knowledge and prepare future expert specialists, for instance, was by establishing specialized universities, colleges, and schools and sending them to study abroad.
Future graduates later worked as foremen or junior technicians in the Japanese army, telegraphic service, railways, and shipbuilding. To illustrate this, for instance, in 1878–80, according to Kenichi Ohno (2019), graduates from the Railway Engineering Training Centre supervised and completed the construction of a railway from Kyoto and Otsu which included tunneling process through Osaka Mountain. In addition, some of the early Meiji engineers were derived from those who were sent abroad to study by the government. For instance, the Ministry of Education and the military selected the best graduates from educational or training institutions for a study abroad programme. The initiative proved instrumental as they were found themselves to be extremely good and hardworking students despite the limited stipends provided by the government.
These students later worked as senior technical experts for government ministries or the private sector upon their return. Historically, the very first overseas students were seven men sent to the Netherlands by the Edo government to learn military navigation in 1862. With the commencement of the Meiji era, this initial effort was intensified and expanded as the navy later sent many trainees abroad from the Yokosuka Shipyard School and the Naval Academy to learn shipbuilding and arms manufacture. Nonetheless, some chose foreign education at their own expense, and even others went abroad without official permission. By the end of the 1880s, the government had dispatched around eighty students abroad in total to be trained as engineers.
According to Kenichi Ohno (2019), of these numbers, twenty-one studied shipbuilding, seventeen mechanical engineerings, thirteen civil engineerings, ten mining and metallurgy, six arms manufacture, and four studied chemistry. By destination, twenty-eight were sent to the United Kingdom, twenty to the United States, fourteen to France, nine to Germany, and eight to the Netherlands (excluding unknowns, Uchida, 1990). They were taking not only formal courses at universities but also went to renowned technical schools, where they received on- site job training at factories or had private lessons to deepen their knowledge. By experiencing this, these students were now considered competent enough to shoulder modernizing efforts in the country. In addition, another instance that one can observe is in terms of Japan’s military build-up. One classic example would be the Japanese navy. Early Meiji-era engineers, for instance, were largely trained in Britain and France, as well as shipbuilding and armaments engineers who were also at the same time graduating from naval technical schools proven to be instrumental in constructing the modern Japanese navy.
Throughout the Meiji period, the principal battleships were imported mostly from the United Kingdom, with Japanese naval shipbuilding and armaments engineers travelling to Britain as observers while state-of-the-art battleships were built and readied for delivery. Japanese preference to Britain and French were largely understandable since the British and French navies were superior in terms of armaments and equipment which then explained why these Powers had large colonial possessions across the globe. This had certainly provided them with ample opportunity to learn about ship design and construction from the British navy and shipyards. Their knowledge proved invaluable to the domestic production of arms and support vessels by the Japanese naval arsenals. Over time, Japan acquired the capacity to build even major ships. This indicates that technology transfer throughout the 1870s until 1890s took place mainly through the import of machinery and acquisition of know-how that accompanied such machinery and most importantly it points to local Japanese’s ability to catch up with current modern science and technology that owed much to the government policies.
3. Methodology
The article aims to revisit the policy of the Meiji Government in the periods between the 1870s until the 1890s particularly regarding the policy of hiring foreign experts and advisers in various institutions in the country as far modernization was concerned. Sources for this analysis will be taken from studies on a wide range of scholarly works which are written by Western and Japanese scholars alike. Furthermore, using mainly library research methods and archival documents, this paper used existing published works on the policy to ascertain how successful was the plan in enforcing the intended reforms in Japan on one hand and how this policy benefited the Japanese workers at the same time for the long run on the other.
Additionally, archival documents obtained touched on a wide range of political and social- economic commentaries (both in Japanese and English languages) relating to the Meiji era that
is accessible via digitalized copies (a greater number of them) contributed by the National Archives of Japan, National Archives of the United Kingdom, the Diplomatic Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, and the National Institute for Defense Studies of the Ministry of Defense of Japan. Lastly, this study also adopts a method of content analysis which can be defined as “a research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from texts (or other meaningful matter) to the contexts of their use”. That said, the researcher uses analytical constructs or inferences, making sense of texts found in contexts where the current study is conducted (White & Marsh, 2006).
4. Conclusion
In conclusion, it seems safe to conclude that the Meiji Government had successfully carried out the reform’s agenda in various Japanese politics, administration, economy, and socio- cultural realms albeit amounting challenges that they faced. This was especially obvious by looking at the policy of hiring foreign experts and advisers that would not only aim at teaching the local Japanese the know-how but most importantly to transfer that foreign technical and expert knowledge to the latter. Nevertheless, this specific policy of hiring foreign employees in the country, to a greater extent, would be not so successful if the government did not put proper infrastructures to facilitate the ‘groom’ of local Japanese workers as well as the transfer of technical and non-technical knowledge to the former. This again demonstrates active government efforts in creating such a ‘conducive’ ecosystem for Japan to transform itself into a modern country with strong and resilient political, military, and economic foundations.
References
Akagi, Roy Hidemichi. (1936). Japan's foreign relations 1542-1936: A short history. Tokyo:
The Hokuseido Press.
Akita, G. (1967). Foundations of constitutional government in modern Japan 1868-1900.
Massachusetts: Harvard Univ. Press.
Akita, George. (2020). Ito Hirobumi: Prime minister of Japan. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ito-Hirobumi Earl.
Alcock, R. (1863). The capital of the tycoon: A narrative of a three years' residence in Japan.
London: Longman.
Beasley, W. G. (1973). The Meiji restoration. London: Oxford Univ. Press.
Beasley, W. G. (1963). The modern history of Japan. Tokyo: Charles E. Turtle.
Beasley, W. G. (1987). Japanese imperialism 1894-1945. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Beasley, W. G. (1995). Japan encounters the barbarian: Japanese travellers in America and Europe. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Bendix, Reinhard. (1978). Kings or people: Power and the mandate to rule. University of Berkeley: California Press.
Bendix, Reinhard. (1977). Nation-building and citizenship. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bennet, John W., Passin, Herbert., McKnight, Robert K. (1958). In search of identity: The Japanese overseas scholar in America and Japan. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.
Black, Cyril, B. (1967). The dynamics of modernization: A study in comparative history. New York: Harper.
Borton, Hugh. (1970). Japan’s modern century. New York: Ronald.
Brown, Alexander D. (2005). Meiji Japan: A unique technological experience. Student Economic Review, 19, 71-83.
Burks, A. W. (1985). The modernizers: Overseas students, foreign employees, and Meiji Japan. Boulder: Westview Press.
Chang, Richard T. (1970). From prejudice to tolerance: A study of the Japanese image of the west 1826-1864. Tokyo: Sophia University.
Checkland, O. (1989). Britain's encounter with Meiji Japan, 1868-1912. London: Macmillan Press
Cobbing, Andrew. (1998). The Japanese discovery of victorian Britain: Early travel encounters in the far west. Richmond, Surrey: Japan Library.
Cobbing, A., Ohta, A., Checkland, O, and Breen, J. (1998). The Iwakura mission in Britain,1872. London: STICERD, London School of Economics.
Crowley, James B. (1966). From closed door to empire: The formation of the Meiji military establishment. In Bernard S. Silberman & Harry Harootunian (Eds.), Modern Japanese leadership: Transition and change (pp. 276-277). Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Devere. Brown, Sidney. (1956). Kido Takayoshi (1833-1877): Meiji Japan’s cautious revolutionary. Pacific Historical Review, 25(2), 151-162.
Dore, Ronald, P. (1973). (Ed.). Aspects of social change in modern Japan. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Earl, David M. (1964). Emperor and nation in Japan. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Fait, O. K. (1990). The clash of interests: The transformation of Japan in 1861-1881 in the eyes of the local Anglo-Saxon press. Oulu: The Historical Assoc, of Northern Finland.
Flottman, Augustus. (2012). The Meiji education system: Developing the emperor’s ideal subject [Undergraduate honours thesis]. The University of Colorado.
Fujitani, Takashi. (1996). Splendid monarchy: Power and pageantry in modern Japan.
Berkeley, University of California Press.
Frazer, James G. (1955). The golden bough. (Vol. 3). London: Macmillan and Co.
Gollin, Albert, E. (1962). Foreign study and modernization: The transfer of technology.
International Social Science Journal 19, 359-377
Goto-Jones, Christopher. (2008). The way of revering the emperor: Imperial philosophy and bushido in modern Japan. In Ben-Ami Shillony (Ed.), The emperors of modern Japan (pp. 23-54). Netherlands: Brill.
Gubbins, J. H. (1911). The Progress of Japan 1853-1871. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gubbins, J. H. (1922). The making of modern Japan. London: Seeley, Service & Co. Ltd.
Hoare, J. E. (1994). Japan's treaty ports and foreign settlements: The uninvited guests 1858- 1899. Folkestone, Kent: Japan Library.
Howe, C. (1996). The origins of Japanese trade supremacy: Development and technology in Asia from 1540 to the pacific war. London: Hurst & Co.
Humphreys, Leonard A. (1995). The way of the heavenly sword. The Japanese army in the 1920s. California: Stanford University Press.
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Univ. Press.
Irokawa, D. (1985). The culture of the Meiji period. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Univ.
Press.
Iwata, Masakazu. (1964). Okubo Toshimichi: Bismarck of Japan. California: University of California Press
Jansen, M. B. (1980). Japan and its world: Two Centuries of Change. Princeton University Press.
Jansen, B. Marius. (1983). The Meiji modernizers. In Clark L. Beck & Ardath W. Burks (Eds.), Aspects of Meiji modernisation: The Japan helpers and the helped (pp. 11-39).
New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Jansen, M. B. (1989). The Cambridge History of Japan. vol. 5: The Nineteenth Century (Vol.
5). Cambridge University Press.
Jansen, M. B., & Rozman, G. (2014). Japan in transition, from Tokugawa to Meiji. Princeton University Press.
Jones, H. J. (1980). Live machines: Hired foreigners and Meiji Japan. Paul Norbury Publications.
Kashioka, Tomihide. (1982). Meiji Japan’s study abroad program: Modernizing elites and reference societies (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Duke University.
Keene, D. (2005). Emperor of Japan: Meiji and his world, 1852-1912. Columbia University Press: New York.
Lehmann, Jean-Pierre. (1982). The roots of modern Japan. Palgrave Macmillan.
Lockwood, William. (1968). (Ed.). The state and economic enterprise in Japan. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Maki, John M. (1983). The Japan helpers. In Clark L. Beck and Ardath W. Burks (Eds.), Aspects of Meiji modernisation: The Japan helpers and the helped (pp. 21-39). New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Masamoto, Kitajima & Hurst, G. Cameron. (2020). Japan from 1850 to 1945: The Meiji restoration. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/place/Japan/The-opening-of- Japan
Michio Nagai. M. (2005). Westernization and Japanization: The early Meiji transformation of education. In Donald H. Shively (Ed.), Tradition and modernization in Japanese culture (pp. 53-94). New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005.
Nakamura, T., & Feldman, R. A. (1983). Economic growth in prewar Japan. Yale University Press.
Norman, E. H. (1940). Japan’s emergence as a modern state: Political and economic problems of the Meiji period. New York: Institute of Pacific Relations.
Obispo, Joanna Luisa. (2017). Japan’s fukoku Kyohei: A continuous pursuit of economic and military powers. Ugong,9, 56-80.
Ohno, Kenichi. (2013). Learning to industrialize: From given growth to policy-aided value creation. London: Routledge.
Ohno, K. (2019). Meiji Japan: Progressive learning of western technology. In Arkebe Oqubay and Kenichi Ohno (Eds.), How nations learn: Technological learning, industrial policy, and catch-up (pp. 85-106). Oxford University Press
Ohno, Kenichi. (2018). The history of Japanese economic development: Origins of private dynamism and policy competence. Routledge.
Oka, Yoshitake. (1986). Five political leaders of modern Japan: Ito Hirobumi, Okuma Shigenobu, Hara Takashi, Inukai Tsuyoshi, and Saionji Kimmochi (Andrew Fraser &
Patricia Murray, Trans.). Tokyo: Tokyo University Press.
Presseisen, Ernst. (1965). Before aggression: Europeans train the Japanese Army. Tucson:
University of Arizona Press.
Ramseyer, J. Mark, and Rosenbluth, Frances M. (1995). The politics of oligarchy: institutional choice in imperial Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schwarts, William. (1919). Japanese government students in America. School and Society 10, 202-204.
Shively, Donald, H. (1971). The Japanization of the middle Meiji. In Donald H. Shively (Ed.), Tradition and modernization in Japanese Culture (pp. 92-138). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Silbermann, B. S., and Harootunian, H. D. (Eds.). (1966). Modern Japanese leadership:
Transition and change. Tucson, Arizona: Univ. of Arizona Press.
Sims, R. L. (1991). A political history of modern Japan 1868-1952. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House Ltd.
Smith, T. C. (1955). Political change and industrial development in Japan: Government enterprise, 1868-1880. California: Stanford Univ. Press.
Soviak, Eugene. (1971). On the nature of western progress: The journal of the Iwakura embassy.” In Donald H. Shively (Ed.), Tradition and modernization in Japanese Culture (pp. 25-52). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Sugiyama, Shinya. (1988). Japan’s industrialization in the world economy 1859-1899:
Export trade and overseas competition. London: The Athlone Press.
Sumikawa, S. 1999. The Meiji Restoration: Roots of Modern Japan. Retrieved from https://www.lehigh.edu/~rfw1/courses/1999/spring/ir163/Papers/pdf/shs3.pdf
Takane, Masa’aki. (1972). Factors influencing the mobility of Japanese political elites: 1860- 1920 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.
Takii, K., Manabu, T., Murray, P., & Fister, P. (2014). Itō Hirobumi Japan's first prime minister and father of the Meiji Constitution. Routledge.
Tames, Richard. (1991). Encounters with Japan. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Theodore De Bary, W., Ryusaku Tsunoda, R., Keene, D. (1964). Sources of Japanese tradition. (Vol. 2). Columbia University Press: New York
Tsuzuki, Chushichi. (2000). The pursuit of power in modern Japan 1825-1995. New York:
Oxford Univ. Press.
Umegaki, Michio. (1998). After the restoration: The beginning of Japan’s modern state. New York: New York Univ. Press.
Umetani, Noboru. (1968). Hired foreign advisors (Vol. 1). Tokyo: Kajima Research Institute Publishing House.
Uyehara, G. E. (1910). The political development of Japan 1867-1909. London: Constable &
Co. Ltd.
Ward, Robert. (1968). (Ed.). Political development in modern Japan. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Watanabe, Minoru. (1965). Japanese students abroad and the acquisition of scientifc and technical knowledge. Cahiers d’histoire mondiale 9, 254-293.
Wahyuni, Dina. (2012). The research design maze: Understanding paradigms, cases, methods, and methodologies. Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research, 10(1), 69- 78.
White, Marilyn Domas & Marsh, Emily E. (2006). Content analysis: A flexible methodology.
Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2142/3670
