Japanese corporate governance and managerial practice is at a critical juncture. At the start of the decade pressures mounted for Japan to move to a shareholder-value driven, "Anglo-American" system of corporate governance. Subsequent changes, however, may be seen as an adjustment and renewal of the post-war model of the Japanese firm. In adapting to global corporate governance standards, Japanese managers have also been reshaping them according to their own agenda of reform and restructuring of decision-making processes.
The board's role is seen in terms of strategic planning rather than monitoring, and external directors are viewed as advisers, not as representatives of the shareholders. Managers have adopted a variety of defences against hostile takeovers, including poison pills in some cases. Although shareholder influence is more extensive than it was, central aspects of the Japanese "community firm" remain in place. The commitment to stable or "lifetime" employment for a core of employees, although coming under severe pressure, is still an important point of reference for Japanese management.
Corporate Governance and Managerial Reform in Japan is based on detailed and intensive field work in large Japanese companies and interviews with investors, civil servants, and policy makers in the period following the adoption of significant corporate law reforms in the early 2000s up to the months just before the global financial crisis of 2008. The Japanese experience suggests that there are limits to the global convergence of company law systems, and that the widespread association of Anglo-American practices with the "modernization" of corporate governance has been misplaced. This conclusion is unlikely to be altered--it may be reinforced--by reactions to the financial crisis.

Are entrepreneurs essentially the same everywhere? Are the processes of entrepreneurship similar? Or are they shaped by their environments? If so, how?
We know a lot about national differences in management practices, corporate governance, and even innovation systems, but we know surprisingly little about national differences in entrepreneurship. Comparative Entrepreneurship compares processes of entrepreneurship in the UK and Japan, countries associated with liberal market economies and coordinated market economies respectively.
Focusing on high tech manufacturing it identifies basic similarities and key differences. Similarities are found in approaches to opportunity and business creation, which are strikingly different from recent policy emphases in the UK and Japan, inspired by Silicon Valley (hence the entrepreneurs live in Wthe shadow of Silicon Valley"). Differences--in the backgrounds of entrepreneurs, founding teams, attitudes to growth and risk, innovation, competitive advantages, HRM emphases, and inter-firm collaborations--are summed up by the concepts of "project entrepreneurship" and "lifework entrepreneurship." These are closely related to the respective environments, especially the nature of markets in both countries. They also embody different time orientations, with implications for financing and governance.
This study brings insights from entrepreneurship to comparative institutions and varieties of capitalism, and vice versa, and draws on two surveys and 25 case interviews in both the UK and Japan. It concludes with a discussion of dilemmas for entrepreneurship policy in the UK, Japan, and other countries.

After sweeping all before it in the 1980s, 'Japanese management' ran into trouble in the 1990s, especially in the high-tech industries, prompting many to declare it had outlived its usefulness. From the late 1990s leading companies embarked on wide-ranging reforms designed to restore their entrepreneurial vigour. For some, this spelled the end of Japanese management; for others, little had changed. From the perspective of the community firm, Inagami and Whittaker examine changes to employment practices, corporate governance and management priorities, in this 2005 book, drawing on a rich combination of survey data and an in-depth study of Hitachi, Japan's leading general electric company and enterprise group. They find change and continuity, the emergence of a 'reformed model', but not the demise of the community firm. The model addresses both economic vitality and social fairness, within limits. This book offers unique insights into changes in Japanese management, corporations and society.

How did Japan fall from challenger to US hegemonic leadership in the high tech industries in the 1980s, to stumbling giant by the turn of the century? What is it doing about it? This book examines the challenges faced by Japan's high tech companies through successful emulation of some of their key practices by foreign competitors and the emergence of new competitive models linked to open innovation and modular production. High tech companies were slow to respond, relying at first on formulae which had worked in the past, but in a new environment, some of these traditional strengths had now become sources of weakness. Stability and success, moreover, had decreased their appetite for risk. Early in the new century, however, there were signs of a more concerted response, which opened up past practices to scrutiny, and modification through selective learning and adaptation of the new models. The 'MOT' (management of technology) movement provided a vehicle for this change. It was linked, in turn, to efforts to change the national innovation system, giving universities a more central role, and encouraging spin-offs and startups. The book features contributions from Japanese and Western scholars and practitioners who have distinctive insights into the nature of these challenges and responses, with substantial introductory and concluding chapters. The result is a highly accessible account of innovation, technology, and change management in the world's second largest economy.

After sweeping all before it in the 1980s, 'Japanese management' ran into trouble in the 1990s, especially in the high-tech industries, prompting many to declare it had outlived its usefulness. From the late 1990s leading companies embarked on wide-ranging reforms designed to restore their entrepreneurial vigour. For some, this spelled the end of Japanese management; for others, little had changed. From the perspective of the community firm, Inagami and Whittaker examine changes to employment practices, corporate governance and management priorities, in this 2005 book, drawing on a rich combination of survey data and an in-depth study of Hitachi, Japan's leading general electric company and enterprise group. They find change and continuity, the emergence of a 'reformed model', but not the demise of the community firm. The model addresses both economic vitality and social fairness, within limits. This book offers unique insights into changes in Japanese management, corporations and society.

How did Japan fall from challenger to US hegemonic leadership in the high tech industries in the 1980s, to stumbling giant by the turn of the century? This work examines the challenges faced by Japanese companies through emulation by foreign competitors, and the emergence of new competitive models.

This book proposes a new way to approach comparative international development by focusing on time and timing in economic and social development. The UK industrialized over two centuries, and then started to de-industrialize in the late 1960s. Today, the most rapid developers experience aspects of industrialization and de-industrialization simultaneously. It is no longer clear that industrialization offers the path of growth it once did; industrialization has become 'thin.' Demographic and social challenges that earlier developers faced sequentially now come at the same time. Rapid growers experience compression most acutely, but the spatial and temporal fusing of past and present is widespread, affecting high-, middle-, and lower-income countries alike. Timing refers to the differences in historical periods in which development takes place. The geopolitical, institutional and technological environment for countries recently integrated into the global economy has been vastly different from that of the preceding postwar decades of 'embedded liberalism,' although it does contain echoes of the 'first globalization' and 'first financialization' a century ago. The first era of liberalism did not end well, and the second is similarly foundering on the rocks of nationalism and protectionism, as it is being battered by a global pandemic. The authors propose an interdisciplinary conceptual framework based on co-evolving state-market and organization-technology dyads, which will help readers make sense of contemporary development across multiple societies, sectors and geographies, and provide a template for historical comparison.