This book focuses on the Japanese challenge to the American neoliberal world order, centered on Tokyo's proposal in 1997 to create the Asian Monetary Fund (AMF), which excludes the US. It adopts a constructivist approach, and explores two main questions. First, it addresses the question of what made it possible for Japan to challenge US-led neoliberalism. The analysis concludes that what made this possible was the structure of meaning within Japan, which centers on the notion that state-led economic development is a normal practice. Second, it explores why Japan proposed the creation of the AMF. Here the study sheds light on the conception of identity among the officials of the Japanese Ministry of Finance (MOF), concluding that the basis of Japan's proposal was their binary conceptions of Tokyo and Washington, as two rivals promoting different models of development. They interpreted the operation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Thailand as Washington's attempt to destroy the Asian or Japanese model of development, and thus proposed the AMF in its defense. This book makes both theoretical/methodological and empirical contributions, and thus should be read by both constructivists and Japanese experts.

On the theoretical/methodological side, this book makes at least two significant proposals. First, it proposes a systemic way of connecting constitutive and causal analyses – i.e., enquiries into ‘what made something possible?’ and ‘why?’ Its central message is that a causal analysis can be complemented by a constitutive one: the reason why Japan challenged neoliberalism cannot be fully understood without answering the question of what made it possible for Tokyo to do so (p. 15). Second, it sets out what it calls an ‘identity-intention analytical framework’ – an analytical framework designed to establish causal links between identities and actions in a non-tautological and falsifiable way. Its main focus is on the interpretation of the situation on the part of actors: on the basis of their situational interpretation, which is shaped by their identity, actors do what they think they should do to achieve their ends, which are founded on their identity.

Yet each of these proposals points to a certain issue, which could well be explored further by constructivists, including the author of this book. The first issue is the relationship between constitutive and causal analyses. It is debatable whether it is worth trying to establish their complementarity. This book portrays their relationship as complementary, by using them in sequence. It first concentrates on its constitutive analysis, covering the development of meaning structures in Japan from the 19th century to the early 1990s, and then goes on to investigate the cause of Tokyo's proposal in 1997. However, this kind of attempt may result in conceptual confusion. It is uncertain whether these two forms of analysis should be conducted separately. They may be the two sides of the same coin, in that the notion of causality may contain a constitutive element for constructivists.Footnote ¹

The second issue is the relationship between constructivism and rationalism. The attempt of this book to put forward a falsifiable causal claim indicates that, when constructivists make such an attempt, the logic of their argument may easily resemble that of the rationalist argument. Rationalists would probably have few problems in accepting the core of the identity-intention analytical framework – the logic of its causal links between driving factors and actions. Rationalism is about what actors believe in a given situation: on the basis of this belief, actors do what they think they should do to achieve their fixed ends. It is indifferent about the components of their ends – whether material or ideational.Footnote ² To the extent that the identity-intention analytical framework focuses on the actors' consistent pursuit of their ends, on the basis of their interpretation of – or their belief about – the situation, this framework is consistent with rationalism. To be sure, this book calls for an additional analytical step, before applying this framework to the case under study – i.e., to focus on the process of the internalization of identity on the part of actors (see pp. 109–110). Yet such a process is exogenous to the causal links between identities and actions delineated in this framework. In this respect, rationalists may simply regard this book as one more constructivist attempt to complement rationalism by specifying the components of actors' ends.Footnote ³

On the empirical side, this book raises an interesting question and offers an original answer to it – that the Japanese proposed the AMF, informed by their binary identification of Tokyo and Washington as rivals. Arguably, some of the empirical claims of this book may by disputed by skeptics. For example, they may ask for stronger empirical evidence of the claim that MOF officials interpreted the IMF operation in Thailand as Washington's attempt to destroy the Asian/Japanese model.

Nonetheless, this book is significant because it adds a new dimension to the scholarly debate over the role of identity in Japanese diplomacy. It effectively challenges the common assumption that Japan identifies itself with the US as a security partner and as a fellow advanced-industrialized democracy. Tokyo today is making strenuous efforts to involve Washington in an East Asian community, by seeking to develop this community within the framework of the East Asia Summit, rather than that of ASEAN Plus Three. It is also strengthening its security alliance with Washington, thereby enhancing the sense of partnership between the two nations.Footnote ⁴ However, this book demonstrates that, in the area of development at least, MOF officials have identified the US as Japan's rival to be challenged. It can be concluded that the identity of the Japanese is multidimensional, affecting the country's policies on many different issues in many diverse ways.