Life on an island with a historically strict protectionist food policy. There is no potato shortage, per se (per the article, I'm surely no expert). There's a shortage of potatoes from Hokkaido, and domestic consumers aren't prepared for (or allowed to) buy them from an international market.

Japan isn't the only nation to do this, of course. But they're one of the worst.

>Life on an island with a historically strict protectionist food policy. There is no potato shortage, per se (per the article, I'm surely no expert). There's a shortage of potatoes from Hokkaido, and domestic consumers aren't prepared for (or allowed to) buy them from an international market.

Yeah, if only they gave up their autonomy and local agriculture to have more access to chips from abroad.

It's not just chips. Japan's generally protectionist/sheltering attitude towards businesses makes their whole economy structurally inefficient. Japan's nominal GDP per capita is like 40% lower than the US these days.

There is more to life than GDP per capita.

Yes, but economic productivity is still pretty important.

Surely there is a middle ground between "stupid chip shortage" and "loss of local agriculture" though. Japan can grow potatoes and trade them too.

Like I said, everyone does this to some extent. But Japan is among the worst

That middle ground would be something like price regulation. Instead of just imposing quotas or forbidding imports of specific goods, require the imported goods to be sold at the market rate of the locally produced good.

It would allow imports to prevent shortages in the market without killing the local producers because there is no reason to stop buying from local producers if the imported goods cannot be sold at a price lower than what the local producers are willing to bear. Distributors would continue buying local, while also adding some imports as a cushion against production fluctuations.

Tax the difference between the local market price and the lower imported good price, when the imports are cheaper. Don't tax when the import is at the same cost/more expensive.

Why is local agriculture more important than local customers?

The idea from what I gather is that the country is capable of supporting itself, and did for centuries, and shouldn't let industries wither and die for short term profit that would kill off industries that allow that ability of self support.

Because being self-sufficient and having a good import/exports sheets makes you more resilient in the mid- and long-run that having all the chips that local customers demand.

You can always allow for more chips whenever you really want. Reversing a damaged trade deficit or self-sustainability? Not so much, and not anywhere near as fast.

I don't see it as totally outlandish to protect domestic industry at the cost of not being able to get produce as cheaply or easily as you could otherwise. It's not as though Japan is suffering from starvation.

There are government subsidies being given to every farmer, iirc no matter how small or inefficient your operation.

Given that the country is heavily in debt, it's pretty fiscally irresponsible to continue with such a handout.

vs. what? Having no domestic production? And what happens if China decides to start WWIII and they face a prolonged siege with no domestic food production capabilities?

Or should they leave the feeding of their entire population up to the whims of the US government? I think the last election should make obvious the folly in that line of reasoning.

I am guessing that you are not familiar with the inefficiency of agricultural land ownership regulation in Japan? Start by making it easier for corporations to own farmland and improve the per area output of the relatively little flat land that the country has (Japan is 73% mountainous[1])

Corporate involvement in agriculture is restricted by the Agricultural Land Law and related laws. Joint stock companies are permitted to participate in the farming sector in two ways. One is as “agricultural production corporations,” which can be established anywhere in the country and are allowed not only to lease farmland but also to acquire ownership rights. These corporations, though, are subject to various conditions, including that they derive over half of their sales from agriculture; that over three-quarters of the total voting rights are held by full-time farmers, farmland rights providers, agricultural cooperatives, and other parties involved in farming; and that full-time farmers account for a majority of the company’s directors. In addition, only joint stock companies that restrict stock transfers are eligible for this status. In short, this designation is for incorporated family-run farms, rather than for ordinary companies.

...

At the time it was enacted, the Agricultural Land Law did not even envisage the possibility of farmland being owned or cultivated by corporate entities. [2]

Even the Agriculture Minister conceded this problem in 2008, but little has changed over the last decade.

At his inaugural press conference in September 2008, newly appointed Minister of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries Shigeru Ishiba expressed his intention to reform Japan's farmland system in the following statement.

"I recognize that the biggest problem in Japanese agriculture lies, in fact, in the farmland system. The crux of the matter, to put it in extreme terms, is that we need a mechanism in which farmland becomes concentrated in the hands of those who are ready and willing to farm it, regardless of whether they are individuals or corporations. We have to put in place a farmland system that includes effective incentives to make this happen. This may raise fears that farms could be resold for speculative purposes or used as illegal dumping grounds, but we must focus on the sickness currently afflicting agriculture and must not lose sight of the way things ought to be. Another problem is that even though there are legal guarantees in place to ensure that farmland is not used for purposes other than farming, many aspects of this mechanism are, in reality, ineffective. I do not believe that such practices as having municipal leaders make recommendations on the use of farmland are truly effective in addressing this issue."

The first half of Ishiba's statement addresses the issue of corporate entry into the agricultural sector, which farmers' organizations have claimed will lead to joint-stock companies reselling farmland for residential or other development or using it for the illegal dumping of industrial waste. The second half addresses the problem that rules empowering municipalities to forcibly transfer unused land to other farmers in order to prevent the abandonment of farmland have become dead letters and do not fulfill their intended function.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Japan

[2] http://www.tokyofoundation.org/en/articles/2008/let-corporat...

[3] http://www.tokyofoundation.org/en/articles/2008/the-issues-i...

Remind me again how allowing large corporate entities to own farmland improves farm output over allowing farmers who... you know... farm to own the land.

In the US, corporate farms = animal abuse, complete indifference to pollution, and a general lack of accountability to the communities the farms are a part of. Furthermore, it has decimated rural communities across the US.

Please allow me to conjecture that you have an overly idealized view of the state of Japan's "microfarm" agricultural makeup. I encourage you to read my citations in the GP post.

some excerpts:

Losing Farmland That Is Essential to Food Security

Of the 2.5 million hectares of farmland that Japan has lost over the past 50 years-equivalent to the total area of rice paddies in Japan today-about half has been converted for residential or industrial use.

...

The end result of this situation is that town halls, pachinko parlors, and other buildings are constructed in the middle of rice fields, leaving Japan's farmland riddled with holes like a moth-eaten dress. Developments like this not only do nothing to lower costs by enabling farmers to consolidate; they even block the sun from surrounding farmland.

France has secured its farmland resources by clearly delineating urban areas from agricultural areas through zoning and by limiting the benefits of agricultural policies to full-time farmers who derive at least half of their income from farming and expend at least half of their labor in farming, thus actively concentrating farmland in the hands of these farmers. These policies have enabled France to raise its food self-sufficiency ratio from 99% to 122% and the average size of its farms from 17 hectares to 52 hectares (as of 2005).

(note: you can collect your farmer's subsidy by being a "part time" farmer and using your land very unproductively. Productivity doesn't matter to these people since they just want to hit the bare minimum requirement to get their handout. My own maternal grandfather was one such part time farmer -- though not as unproductive as some.)

The Issue of Corporate Involvement

Farmers' groups strongly oppose the acquisition of farmland by joint stock companies, claiming that it would encourage land speculation. It is not joint stock companies but farmers themselves, however, who have profited by converting half of the 2.5 million hectares of lost farmland to other uses-equivalent to the total area of rice paddies in Japan today.

You still haven't explained how corporate ownership is a solution. The problem you describe is farmland being converted - OK, pass a law stating certain areas of farmland cannot be converted to any other use. That doesn't require corporate ownership, and corporate ownership doesn't fix the problem, it makes it worse.

Japan has a farmland abandonment problem due to elderly farmers retiring and their children not wanting to become farmers. There are documentaries, news articles, and even segments on prime time TV shows chronicling some of these families trying to bring in an "adopted son" from cities. Such a personal commitment, naturally, is a detriment for many.　Here is some demographic data published in a general public facing article by the Ministry of Agriculture [1]

Corporate ownership allows for legal structures and arrangements that introduces flexibility into this traditionally all-or-nothing arrangement. [2]

Also, corporate ownership structures allow farm operators to pool the risk and capital requirements of a larger scale operation. Business loans that limit personal liability in the event of insolvency is greatly preferable to personal loans when undertaking expansion and improvement towards the preexisting operation.

I'd appreciate it if you could explain to me how corporate ownership of farmland by virtue of corporate ownership alone would reduce land productivity, as you have asserted. While I certainly agree that factory farming methods have created problems with antibacterial and hormonal health, greenhouse gas production, etc., I have a difficultly seeing how such abusive practices would decrease land productivity, separate from the other problems they cause.

[1] http://www.maff.go.jp/j/pr/aff/1207/spe1_02.html

[2] "Creating Jobs Through the Specified Corporation Lease Program" http://www.tokyofoundation.org/en/articles/2008/let-corporat...

> OK, pass a law stating certain areas of farmland cannot be converted to any other use.

Japan already has such laws. They simply circumvent them and build more and more seven-elevens on agricultural land.

How is corporate ownership going to solve that problem? If anything I think it'd worsen it because a large corporate holder is going to be far more adept at skirting the regulations.

I haven't advocated corporate ownership, however what hkmurakami describes is an extremely accurate picture of the rural Japanese situation.

I'm not sure how much we can trust your vague, half-remembered understanding of Japanese farming subsidies, but it's not clear to me that the right move for a country that's been in a long slump is to start making moves that will destroy domestic industries.

Overhauling exsiting regulation that promotes small scale family farming to one that promotes larger scale, modernized farming methods with improved outputs would strengthen and bolster the domestic ag economy vs its international counterparts, not weaken them.

The current handout to family farmers (many of whom produce paltry crops and own tiny parcels) and their collective lobbying efforts to continue the country's protectionist farming policies is a handout to these rent seekers and stifles the actual long term agricultural output of the country.

I buy imported-from-Japan Kataage [0] potato chips at my local Nijiya market and to my taste these chips are much higher quality than, for example, Kettle brand and Frito-Lay brand potato chips.

Not sure if it's due to the potatoes, but the quality is undeniably (to my taste) higher.

[0] https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=japan+K...

I suspect that Frito Lay would possibly be capable of using higher quality ingredients/making better quality chips if the market demanded it. Perhaps you are in the minority of people who cares enough to notice the difference?

Agreed; you can also see the recent butter shortages in Japan for an example of the same issue.

As for why that happens; the farmers are (were?) a huge political ally for the LDP. (The TPP was going to be a huge change for that, but alas, it won't be happening..)

I was wrong about the TPP being completely dead.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/04/16/national/tokyo-s...

Life on an island whose population has proven itself exceptionally, uniquely, mindblowingly capable of running af civilized society and carving out their own distinct and highly successful niche in the world, or rather on top of it.

They will emerge alive from this potato calamity, trust me.