Volume 71, Issue 2 p. 593-616
ARTICLE

The expanding Empire and spatial distribution of economic activity: the case of Japan's colonization of Korea during the prewar period

Kentaro Nakajima

Kentaro Nakajima

Kentaro Nakajima, Hitotsubashi University; Tetsui Okazaki, The University of Tokyo

Search for more papers by this author
Tetsuji Okazaki

Tetsuji Okazaki

Kentaro Nakajima, Hitotsubashi University; Tetsui Okazaki, The University of Tokyo

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 09 June 2017
Citations: 1

We thank Yutaka Arimoto, Asuka Imaizumi, Kaori Ito, Nak Nyeon Kim, Changmin Lee, Tomohiro Machikita, Toshihiro Okubo, Keijiro Otsuka, Masayuki Tanimoto, Eiichi Tomiura, and participants in the Japanese Economic Association meeting at Nagoya University for their helpful comments and discussions. We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (nos. 25380275, 25220502, 26245037, 26285051, 15H03344, and 16H02018). We also thank Yuta Kuroda and Takeru Sugasawa for their excellent research assistance. We claim any errors as our own.

Abstract

In 1910, Japan annexed Korea and integrated it into the Empire of Japan. According to its policy of assimilating colonies, the Japanese government intended to remove the tariffs between Japan and Korea, an aim which had almost been realized by 1923. The removal of the tariff barrier was supposed to improve market access between Japan and Korea. This article explores the implications of this event, focusing on the spatial distribution of economic activity in Japan. The regression results suggest that the integration of the Korean market increased population growth rates more in the regions close to the former border between Japan and Korea than in the other regions. Furthermore, after integration, the regions close to Korea that specialized in the fabric industry, whose products were the primary goods exported from Japan to Korea, experienced more population growth than other regions close to Korea did. These results suggest that market accessibility was indeed a determinant of the spatial distribution of economic activity. Our findings also indicate that the economic effect of colonization on the mainland was spatially heterogeneous and that a spatial viewpoint of the history of imperialism is important.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.