Keywords

1 Introduction

The concept of endogenous development, or development from within, frequently appears in Japanese discourse on development. Endogenous development, as used in Japan, is usually traced to the work of sociologist Kazuko Tsurumi, who theorized it as naihatsuteki hattenron (endogenous development theory, 内発的発展論). Tsurumi’s naihatsuteki hattenron has been applied in a wide range of fields in Japan, including economics and rural studies, and has served as a reference point for carrying out international development cooperation and community development in Japan (Inui 2017; Matsumoto 2017).

Conversely, this theory is little known internationally (Sato 2011). This is also the realization of the author, who studied development at a graduate school in England. Needless to say, concepts and ideas similar to endogenous development have often been discussed in Western development theory. Most symbolic, for example, was the criticism of modern industrialization under the idea of “another development” proposed by the Dag Hammarkskjold Foundation (1975). Although not referring to the works of Tsurumi, Holocombe (2014) has called for an endogenous development approach in development assistance projects in Africa, defining endogenous development as a process in which the regions and people of developing countries take the initiative in their development. Moreover, this perspective has similarities with other concepts of development approaches such as participatory development approaches, which emphasize and place importance on local residents taking the initiative in development projects. While it may seem difficult to recognize clear differences between these existing development concepts and theories, Miller (2014) suggests that endogenous development is unique in that it emphasizes consideration for the natural environment and the use of local traditional culture and traditional knowledge.

During the 1970s, adverse effects of modern industrialization, such as environmental pollution and human rights violations, were becoming evident throughout the world. Criticism towards development policies that focused solely on economic growth was becoming increasingly strident in international discourse. Under such circumstances, Tsurumi proposed naihatsuteki hattenron as a theory of social change, seeking a third path, separate from both modernization theory born in the West and the dependency theory that critiqued it (Tsurumi 1989). The theory was based on the idea that communities should be able to seek diverse development paths in line with their natural ecosystems and traditional cultures and lifestyles. While the meaning of development was often recognized as synonymous to Western modernization in those days, the development (hatten) in Tsurumi’s naihatsuteki hattenron does not hold such a connotation. Tsurumi explains that in her theory, development does not refer solely to Western modernization, but should be based on the presumption of multiple systems on a global scale (Tsurumi 1989). Today, more than half a century later, the significance of Tsurumi's naihatsuteki hattenron seems even more relevant.

This chapter organizes and compares Tsurumi's naihatsuteki hattenron in terms of how it is rooted in the Asian experience, how it differs from similar Western ideas on endogenous development, and in what ways it offers a new perspective. It also discusses considerations for applying the theory in contemporary development context and concludes by making a case for “translating” and “updating” Tsurumi’s naihatsuteki hattenron to build on her work in international development research and practice.

2 A History of Endogenous Development

2.1 Endogenous Development in International Development History

The usage of the term “endogenous” can be traced to the work of American sociologist Talcott Parsons in An Outline of the Social System (1961), where he presented a typology consisting of endogenous and exogenous changes as a conceptual tool for analyzing social change. Drawing on Parsons’s work, sociologists—particularly those based in the West—began classifying societies into two types based on whether industrialization in a given society was instigated domestically (endogenous change) or in imitation of a process elsewhere (exogenous change). Britain, the cradle of the industrial revolution, the United States, and Western European countries, which followed in Britain’s footsteps, were placed in the endogenous development category and labeled as developed nations. Other nations were classified under the rubric of exogenous development and were assumed to be able to catch up with the West by imitating the Western development model.

This typology of social change was influenced by the modernization ideology widespread in the West at that time. Modernization theory was proposed by various Western researchers. A particularly well-known example was Rostow’s (1959) social development model, which proposed five stages of economic growth: (1) the traditional society, (2) the preconditions for take-off, (3) take-off, (4) the drive to maturity, and (5) the age of high mass consumption. These stage development models to social change served as reference points to view Western modernization as the sole model of development.

The emergence of endogenous development ideas could also be traced back to the nineteenth century. When Britain became the “factory of the world” in the nineteenth century, the liberalism and universalism of British political economics began to engulf the world, Nishikawa articulates that endogenous thinking emerged as an opposing ideology in areas such as Germany, France, and the United States (Nishikawa 1989). Samuel Smiles’ work Self-Help (1859) is also considered influential in promoting endogenous thinking in the nineteenth century. Smiles’ idea of self-help suggested that one’s progress is not dependent on laws and institutions but on the independent and self-reliant actions and efforts of each individual.

Furthermore, ideas that forged endogenous development thinking are found in the movements of the “third world” countries in the early twentieth century, in particular in Zedong Mao’s slogan of “self-reliance” in China and Gandhi’s philosophy of “Swaraj” in India. Mao adopted the thought of socialist revolution, which has its origins in and against Western societies, and translated the idea to fit to China's indigenous conditions using the Buddhist term “self-reliance” (Nishikawa 1989). In India, Gandhi critiqued the Western modernization process critically in 1908 for not expanding people’s well-being but as exaggerating people’s thirst for materialistic needs. He talks of “Swaraj,” meaning “self-rule,” as the foundation for India’s freedom from British colonial rule.

It is Swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves. It is, therefore, in the palm of our hands […] But such Swaraj has to be experienced, by each one for himself (Gandhi 1908, pp. 68–69).

Regardless of the emergence of ideas related to endogenous development as stated above, the presumption that development is synonymous to Western modernization was strengthened further after World War II due to the international situation, which directly influenced international development policy. The establishment of U.S. hegemony, the Cold War structure, and the independence of Asian and African former colonies led Western countries in the 1950 and 1960s to emphasize development assistance as a “containment” strategy to prevent the expansion of communist power in emerging countries (Suzuki 2001). The modernization theory supported this strategy. The development strategies based on the modernization theory established along these lines were dominated by an approach that transplanted the Western experience of modernization directly to developing countries. It was claimed that if developing countries succeed in modernization through development, they would be able to “catch up” with the advanced societies of the West (Suzuki 2001). Therefore, development projects took the approach of technology transfer under the assumption that developed countries had advanced technology and knowledge. This approach often lacked consideration for local communities’ point of view and natural ecosystems.

Aid recipient nations were critical of this approach, and post-development theorists were vociferous in their criticism. In the midst of this discourse, the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation1 presented a report, What Now, on the occasion of the Seventh Special Session on Economics of the United Nations General Assembly in 1975 (Dag Hammerskjold Foundation 1975). According to Nishikawa (1989), this report was the first to frame endogenous development in the context of international development cooperation. It defined endogenous development as follows:

If development is the development of man, […] it cannot but stem from the inner core of each society. It relies on what a human group has: its natural environment, its cultural heritage, the creativity of the men and women who constitute it, becoming richer through exchange between them and with other groups. It entails the autonomous definition of development styles and of lifestyles. This is the meaning of an endogenous and self-reliant development (Dag Hammerskjold Foundation 1975, p. 34).

The Foundation’s report referred to development that is endogenous and based on self-reliance as “another development,”2 and advocated seeking alternatives to conventional approaches to development. This was consistent with trends in discourse on development, such as Seers’ The Meaning of Development (1969) and the Limits to Growth report by the Club of Rome (1972). Behind this “another development” also lay the fact that colonized nations such as Tanzania and Indonesia had begun to take steps toward independence under the banner of self-reliance, seeking to take the lead in developing their countries (Sato 2021). The initial concept of endogenous development, which was regarded as virtually synonymous with self-reliance, strongly implied a situation in which developing nations became independent from their dependency on advanced countries and development aid institutions.

Since the publication of the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation report, the concept of endogenous development attracted greater attention in the international development community, particularly at the United Nations University (UNU) and UNESCO. At UNESCO, research projects on issues regarding cultural aspects in endogenous development took form in the late 1970s and published various reports on the issue3 (Nishikawa 1989). Similarly, at the UNU, an international symposium “Asian Symposium on Intellectual Creativity of Endogenous Culture” was held in 1978 (Mushakoji and Tsurumi 2004). In 1979, the research project Endogenous Intellectual Creativity and the New International Order: with Special Reference to East Asia was launched in UNU (Nishikawa 1989). However, despite the shared interest by academia, especially from the developing countries, the endogenous development concept did not take root or become widely accepted as an international development strategy in the following years (Mushakoji and Tsurumi 2004).

Esteva attributes this to the fact that its emphasis on recipients’ autonomy runs counter to the premise of the need for outside intervention upon which international development is based (Esteva 1992). Furthermore, in response to the deteriorating global economic outlook beginning in the late 1970s, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund’s structural adjustment policy began that adopted strict conditionalities on financial aid to developing nations (Suzuki 2001). Inevitably, the very limited scope left for autonomous initiatives by developing nations also stymied the mainstream debate of endogenous development.

Nevertheless, the concept of endogenous development was not entirely forgotten. In early 1990s, a joint platform known as the COMPAS network was created, with endogenous development as its main focus. Universities, non-governmental organizations, and community organizations from Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America participated in the COMPAS network (COMAPS 2007). Each project engaged in research and conducted a broad spectrum of rural development and community development projects worldwide reflecting the endogenous development approach.

Building on existing initiatives and programmes of these organisations, the Compas network and its partners have been experimenting since the mid 1990s with ways to develop effective approaches and methods to support endogenous development in interaction with local communities and their leaders (COMPAS 2007, p. 2).

Endogenous means ‘growing from within’. Endogenous development is, therefore, development based on people’s own resources, strategies and initiatives. The available resources and solutions developed at the grassroots include material, socio-cultural and spiritual dimensions. It is local people with their own resources, values, knowledge and organisations who drive local development. Support to endogenous development aims at strengthening the resource base of the local population, enhancing their ability to integrate selected external elements into local practices and to broaden the options available to the people, without romanticising their local views and practices (COMPAS 2007, p. 1).

Their endogenous development projects formulated various community based activities. For example, there were projects to create manuals compiling traditional knowledge aimed at preserving the local environment. Another was a governance-strengthening initiative that respected a region’s traditional feudal system. As its rationale for undertaking this kind of endogenous development, COMPAS cited the lack of respect for traditional customs, culture, and knowledge exhibited by many conventional international development cooperation projects (COMPAS 2007). In order for local regions to achieve development by capitalizing on their own resources, COMPAS called for policy dialogue and skills development on the adoption of an endogenous development approach (Boonzaaijer and Apusigah 2008).

The COMPAS network as a program ended in 2011. The accumulated knowledge from their community-based activities across the globe has contributed to spreading the idea of endogenous development especially in certain community-based international NGOs and universities.4 Holcombe (2014) has utilized this lineage to advocate endogenous development in Africa. Her work highlights the effectiveness of the endogenous development approach in international development practice and emphasizes its potential in the African context.

Voices from Africa may call for endogenous approaches to development, meaning variously African-defined and led development or more specifically development, particularly at the community level, that is based on community values and customs. There are multiple barriers within the African environment to moving towards any of these dimensions of endogenous development. Key among these are weak governance at all levels, and the focus of endogenous development on the local as opposed to the national (Holcombe 2014, p. 757).

2.2 The Concept of Endogenous Development in Japan: Tsurumi’s Contribution and Its Impact

“Wa-kon yō-sai” is a phrase used in Japan, which means “Japanese spirit with Western learning.” It means learning technologies and knowledge from Western countries, while maintaining the spirit and value system inherent in its own Japanese society. The phrase was popularized as a slogan by the Meiji Japan government (1868–1912) to contain risk inherent in modernization after more than two centuries of national isolation. The slogan was intended so that Japan might modernize without losing its own identity. This slogan was modified from the phrase “wa-kon kan-sai,” meaning “Japanese spirit with Chinese learning.” Before the Western influence, Japan received influences from China in various aspects of nation-building. Looking back at this long history from “wa-kon kan-sai” to “wa-kon yō-sai” and beyond, Hirakawa (1971) argues that this history of encounter with foreign influence over time has created a common psychological pattern among Japanese people to unconsciously think in terms of what is from “within” and what is from “outside.”

More than half a century before Parsons presented his typology consisting of endogenous and exogenous development, the literary giant Sōseki Natsume stated in a lecture he delivered titled “Modern Japan’s Civilization (Gendai Nihon no Kaika)” in 1907 that Western civilization was endogenous in nature, whereas civilization in Meiji Japan was exogenous (Natsume 1986, p. 26). Many scholars, including Tsurumi, see this as the first usage of the term “endogenous.”

The Meiji government was dismayed by the gap between the technological capacities of Japanese and Western civilizations. They were desperate to catch up with the West. The race to do so through modernization led to prosperity, but much of Japan’s social system, culture, and customs disappeared as a result of the rapid industrialization and centralization of power. Many intellectuals shared the concerns of Natsume.5 One of them was Kunio Yanagita,6 who is said to be the father of Japanese folklore studies. Yanagita’s work documented the un-written stories and folklores that tell indigenous beliefs and the lived experiences of the “common man (jō-min)” in rural Japan. While the Japanese government and majority of Japanese citizens were busy transplanting technology, knowledge, and lifestyles from Western countries to accelerate Japan’s industrial modernization, Yanagita feared that the perspectives of common man would be forgotten. For Yanagita, leaving out the common man’s perspective meant a loss of values that were inherited in each locality based on their own beliefs and lifestyles. Tsurumi was inspired by his work and interpreted his approach as a method to understand organic forms of social change process, which she later termed endogenous development.

Having explained the roots of the Japanese concept of endogenous development, we will now turn to briefly introduce Tsurumi’s history. Tsurumi studied comparative modernization theory under Professor Marion Levy at Princeton University, receiving her doctorate in the United States in 1966. Her doctoral research analyzed the relationship between social change and the individual before and after the Pacific War in Japan. By researching Japan’s social change, Tsurumi questioned the applicability of the established modernization theory to non-Western countries. She came to think that modernization theory was constructed on the basis of development in the developed nations, particularly those of the United States and Britain, and that a different path of development and process of social change should exist for other regions and nations.

After returning to Japan, Tsurumi established a research group named “Study Group for Rethinking Modernization Theory.” She and her colleagues began to explore approaches to endogenous development in Japan during its period of rapid economic growth. This was when Tsurumi discovered Yanagita’s work and interpreted his folklore studies as a theory of social change grounded in Japanese experiences. Based on this interpretation of Yanagita’s work, Tsurumi published a paper titled “Kunio Yanagita’s Work as a Model of Endogenous Development” (1975), in which she first adopted the term “endogenous development.”

The implication of Yanagita’s approach for a theory of modernization of latecomers is that we should study their development not through the concepts of a single model, but through diverse models, proving endogenously oriented development among the common people as well as the exogenously oriented course of modernization likely to be led by industrializing elites (Tsurumi 1975, p. 236).

Around 1976, when Tsurumi’s framework of endogenous development theory had begun to coalesce around the study of Yanagita’s work, Tsurumi joined the Shiranui Sea Comprehensive Academic Research Team7 and commenced fieldwork in Minamata, a site of severe mercury poisoning in Japan. Tsurumi later related that the idea of endogenous development was further inspired by this fieldwork experience, which illustrates the immense impact of what she saw and heard in Minamata (Tsurumi 1998). Tsurumi’s fieldwork there added a tangible human element to the theory of endogenous development that had begun to emerge based on Yanagita’s folklore studies. With more confidence that there needs to be a theory to explain social change from a non-Western perspective, Tsurumi further expanded her case study of endogenous development in Thailand’s and Sri Lanka’s self-help movements, and China’s rural town industrialization processes. Each of these case studies illustrates that interaction between drifters, temporary drifters, and settlers is essential to create opportunities for acquiring new knowledge that induce endogenous social change. By articulating autonomous forms of social change in these three case studies utilizing Yanagita’s work, Tsurumi proposed her endogenous development theory—naihatsuteki hattenron. In her theory, she defines endogenous development as follows:

Endogenous development […] is a process of social change that is rich in diversity. … It involves the creation of conditions whereby all people and nations on earth can meet their basic needs in terms of food, clothing, shelter, and health care and can each achieve their full individual potential. […] Based on their cultural heritage (tradition), people and groups in each region create their autonomous path to that goal and society and lifestyle that allow these aims to be achieved, in line with their unique natural ecosystem while also drawing on imported knowledge, technologies, systems and so on (Tsurumi 1989, p. 49).

The analytical framework used to understand the process of endogenous development proposed in the theory could be summarized in three points. First, Tsurumi clearly states that the unit of analysis shall be that of the local community. Second, by building on Yanagita’s work, the analysis will focus on the interactions between drifters, temporary drifters, and settlers to understand the flow of knowledge transmitted and created in the community. When analyzing the individuals who make up the community, Tsurumi proposes to use these three categories to understand human interactions in the local community in order to identify opportunities for endogenous knowledge creation (Tsurumi 1993). Referring to a story of a Minamata disease patient's interaction with a Canadian Indian who had the same disease, Tsurumi realized that, “By cross-checking our mutual experiences, we became aware of the contextuality and commonality of our experiences” (Tsurumi 1983, p. 235). Tsurumi believes that the exchange between settlers and drifters is the key to achieve contextualization and universalization of what people in the local community experience, of matters that would be difficult to recognize if the community were only inward looking and not interacting with the outer world (Tsurumi 1983). This understanding of the state of a community becomes especially important as Tsurumi’s naihatsuteki hattenron encourages local communities’ eco-system to be in the state of an open system, rather than a closed eco-system, in order to realize endogenous development. In other words, being endogenous does not mean turning inward in a closed way, rejecting influence from others. Rather, it places importance on the openness of the local community for endogenous development. Because the etymology of the theory’s name gives the impression that it rejects local communities’ engagement with others in order to be endogenous. Even in Japan, there seems to be confusion whether the theory encourages interaction with the outer world or not.

Finally, Tsurumi’s emphasis is placed on recreating local traditions as a key process in realizing endogenous development. Tradition is defined here as “a pattern (structure) that has been passed down from generation to generation in a given region” (Tsurumi 1989, p. 58). Therefore, she states the need to identify and analyze the personal history of “key persons” who initiate endogenous development processes (Tsurumi 1989). Understanding who, in what circumstances, has the potential to create and update local traditions and how they initiate the process is articulated in detail. What becomes important, then, is the “key person” theory that Tsurumi borrowed from Saburo Ichii. Tsurumi uses Ichii's definition of a “key person” who is rooted in the community and practices re-creation of traditions. Ichii conceptualized key persons as those people who are able to choose his or her own creative suffering and take on that suffering for himself or herself, in order to alleviate suffering from unjust in a society (Ichii 1963).

It is important to note that Tsurumi did not propose endogenous development theory as a definitive one, but as a work-in-progress theory that requires further research. She provided constant reminders that to achieve the vision of endogenous development happening spontaneously in different communities across the globe, the theory needs to be challenged and updated with more case studies from different localities (Tsurumi 1989).

After she had independently devised the idea of endogenous development, Tsurumi learned of the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation report. She stated that her concept of endogenous development and the “another development” described in that report could be considered virtually synonymous. As reasons for this, she cited the fact that the definition of “another development” in the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation report was based on communities (groups) as the unit of change and the fact that the report mentioned a harmonious relationship with the natural environment, local cultural heritage (tradition), and the creativity of people (Tsurumi 1989). Nevertheless, Tsurumi remained committed to continue to use the term “endogenous” development. For the rest of her life, she sought to formulate an endogenous development theory distinct from that of “another development.” Her work continued to emphasize the point that not only advanced nations but also less developed nations and regions have their distinct endogenous modes of development, which exist independently rather than in reference to that based on Western modernization theory. From this perspective, the phrase “another development” falls into a dualism of modernization theory or an alternative. Tsurumi (1999) argued that “endogenous” refers to development not based not on “an other development,” but on pluralistic advocacy of multiple developmental trajectories.

Tsurumi’s endogenous development formulated a theory of social change that explores different modes of development in forms compatible with each community’s unique ecosystem (the complex of culture, nature, and lifestyle). Today, many researchers use her theory as an analytical framework for conducting case studies of community development inside and outside of Japan. In Japan in particular, Tsurumi’s naihatsuteki hattenron continues to attract interest today, for example in relation to rural revitalization in face of rural depopulation.

Nevertheless, Tsurumi’s theory has also been criticized for failing to incorporate clear implications for policy and for lacking a frame of reference for analyzing power structures (Matsumoto 2017). Cross-disciplinary efforts have been made to overcome these drawbacks. For example, the economist Ken’ichi Miyamoto has presented principles of endogenous development that incorporated a more practical perspective,8 and the development economist Jun Nishikawa has researched the endogenous development of developing nations.9 The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), which is responsible for Japan’s development cooperation, often conducts research and training aimed at drawing on Japan’s experience in community-building to strengthen agricultural communities in developing nations and to develop the capacities of local governments (Kano 2003). Nearly half a century after Tsurumi proposed her endogenous development theory, its impact remains.

2.3 Similarities and Differences

Analyzing the historical discourse on endogenous development concepts proposed in the Western context and Tsurumi’s naihatsuteki hattenron reveals both similarities and differences. Let us first examine the shared features. As is evident from Tsurumi’s statement that the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation’s definition of endogenous development resembled her notion, the definitions of Tsurumi’s endogenous development in Japan; and that of the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, used in development practice such as the COMPAS network community development projects, are in some ways commensurate. It is also clear that both theories stem from a similar concern—a critique of development policies that view Western-style modernization as the sole goal of development. Moreover, both are motivated by movements of people in developing countries trying to initiate change. It could also be said that both perspectives recognize the meaning of endogenous as some form of “creativity,” rather than the literal meaning “from within” (nai in Japanese; endo- in Latin).

One difference between the two is that whereas the Western concept of endogenous development has been discussed in terms of a principle and approach within the framework of development aid and community-building, Tsurumi’s naihatsuteki hattenron has been theorized as a matter of social change, as described above. It is not intended as a means of or research method for carrying out development projects. Instead, based on value pluralism, her theory views the process whereby communities undergo autonomous change as a creative phenomenon. Focusing on such phenomena, Tsurumi’s theory highlights the efforts made by the local people to achieve social change in diverse communities. Since it drew theoretical support from research by Yanagita, the father of Japanese folklore studies, and was inspired by interactions with local people through fieldwork in Minamata, this theory is firmly rooted in Japanese experiences. Furthermore, as emphasized earlier, Tsurumi attached a strong emphasis on using the term “endogenous” instead of using “another development,” which was more impactful in global discourse. Her motivation strongly lies in the advocacy of diverse paths and models of development, by using the term “endogenous.”

In the following sections, I outline the elements of Tsurumi’s naihatsuteki hattenron from four perspectives: its value premises, epistemology, ideology, and analytical perspective.

3 The Uniqueness of Tsurumi’s Endogenous Development Theory

The characteristics of Tsurumi's endogenous development theory as a theory on development based on Japanese experience could be articulated from four perspectives: (1) compatibility between value pluralism and normativity, (2) the relationship between changes in the lives of ordinary people and social change, (3) the philosophy that humans are a part of nature, and (4) the analytical perspective of endogeneity as creativity.

3.1 Balancing Value Pluralism and Normativity

Rather than navigating social change based on a single value standard, Tsurumi’s theory of endogenous development is premised on value pluralism. Yet she is not arguing that any change is beneficial. Tsurumi clearly states that endogenous development theory aspires to eliminate unjust aspects of society and the destruction of nature and seeks sustainable social development. Therefore, the theory is value-normative, not value-neutral. This tension between value pluralism and normativity is a feature of Tsurumi’s theory.

Tsurumi said that modernization theory, which treats Western experiences as universal, can be supplemented from the views of non-Western societies. Referring to Talcott Parsons’s classification of societies into primitive, pre-industrial, and modern in line with their developmental stage, Tsurumi noted that modernization theory is epistemologically premised on a linear “staged model.” By contrast, Tsurumi’s proposal in endogenous development theory is to view the world as portrayed in Yanagita’s folklore studies, where the primitive, ancient, medieval, and modern value systems simultaneously coexist within a society, like a “nest of boxes.” This understanding of time seems to refute the superiority or inferiority of any set of values (Tsurumi 1993). Thus, no judgments can be made to say which societies are superior or inferior to another. It is clear from these explanations that Tsurumi’s theory is based on value pluralism and that she believes different value systems can coexist.

However, when value pluralism is praised, the risk is to fall into cultural relativism where no criticisms to the other culture can be made. Nevertheless, for Tsurumi, value pluralism does not mean indiscriminately accepting any cultural practices or customs. For example, Tsurumi’s theory opposes unjust practices such as discrimination against women and racial discrimination, which is value-explicit and normative. So how can value pluralism and value-explicit thinking (normativity) be balanced? In response to this question, Tsurumi proposes the idea of setting coexistence as a common value for all beings. In order to achieve this value of coexistence across various layers of difference, Tsurumi believes that animism10 should be revisited as a motivational structure for endogenous development. She viewed animism as a foundational belief in humans’ search for coexistence (Tsurumi 1999).

3.2 The Relationship Between Changes in People’s Lives and Social Change

The second aspect that is particular to Tsurumi’s theory of endogenous development is that it seeks to understand social change by analyzing changes in ordinary people’s lives. Tsurumi adopted methodological insights from Yanagita’s folklore studies and incorporated them into her theory.

An example of the benefits of analyzing changes in people’s lives is the way in which accumulating empirical case studies makes it possible to present from non-Western perspectives values that are absent in Western modernization. Yanagita provides an example in relation to marriage in rural Japan. Where marriages arranged by one’s parents were the norm, it was possible for young people who belonged to organizations such as local youth activity groups or young women’s groups to collectively resist absolute authority in a way that an individual could not. In contrast to individualism regarded as a universal value in Western modernization theory, this case offers a counterexample where continuance of the collective is viewed as beneficial for the protection of the individual. In this way, Tsurumi learned from Yanagita’s folklore studies that people’s individual histories can reveal ways of thinking that, in Western modernization theory, seem simply contradictory. Tsurumi incorporated this into her concept of endogenous development (1993). The originality of Tsurumi’s theory, which emerged by drawing on Yanagita’s folklore studies, lies in this attempt to understand changes in society on the basis of people’s lives.

3.3 The Philosophy that Humans are a Part of Nature

The pursuit of development that is in harmony with, rather than destructive of, the natural ecosystem of each society is not unique to Tsurumi’s theory of endogenous development. What is distinctive in her theory is the declaration that it is based on an epistemology of human beings as part of nature, instead of regarding the natural ecosystem as subject to human custody and control.

Tsurumi visited Minamata in 1976 and, over the next 5 years, she conducted oral history interviews with 32 people about their personal experiences, focusing on villages with a high incidence of Minamata disease (mercury poisoning) (Tsurumi 1983). In the process, she noticed how Minamata patients, although suffering from poisoning and discrimination, were determined to regenerate. Tsurumi viewed their resolve as a form of endogenous development that emerged from the profound destruction of nature (1998, p. 153). Minamata patients told her they became ill due to the human destruction of nature, so recovery had to begin with restoring their ties to nature (Tsurumi 1998). Tsurumi became firmly convinced that humans were a part of nature after encountering the stories and practices of these Minamata patients (1998). Western modernization theory—and most likely the Western concept of endogenous development—regards humans and nature as separate entities, viewing nature as a resource for development that people monitor, control, and utilize. By contrast, Tsurumi’s theory stressed the importance of a sensitivity that learns from personal experience that humans are also a part of nature.

For nature and human beings to coexist, empathy with nature and a sense of unity between nature and humankind are vital. Current knowledge has lost sight of sensitivity. … I would like to incorporate within knowledge the sensitivity that Minamata patients have toward nature. Only then can we create knowledge that does not involve pollution or the destruction of nature (Tsurumi 1998, pp. 91–92).

The philosophy underpinning Tsurumi’s endogenous development theory held that moving toward the desired social change required re-examining the relationship between humans and nature and creating a society where all beings can coexist.

3.4 The Analytical View of Endogeneity as Creativity

The fourth perspective on Tsurumi’s theory is the perception of local endogeneity as autonomous creativity. Her theory is one of creativity based on the community unit.

Taking a clue from the analysis of interactions among newcomers, temporary residents, and long-term residents in Yanagita’s folklore studies, Tsurumi argued that incidental encounters between actors trigger creation. This perspective has similarities with the focus of neo-endogenous development theory on networks in and outside a community as social capital. Tsurumi, however, took the view not only that creativity involves diverse ties internally and externally, but also that processes of long-term residents passing on the community’s traditions and culture are essential. She argued (1993) that recreating traditions is possible only when there are interactions among settlers, who know the local natural ecosystem well and pass down local traditions; drifters, who have moved to the area from elsewhere; and temporary drifters such as travelers. If knowledge and information do not flow in from outside and a community becomes isolated, it will fall behind the times. Conversely, without long-term residents, there is a one-way influx of knowledge and technologies, which differs in nature from local autonomous creativity. For endogenous development, it is therefore vital to have venues where newcomers and long-term residents can interact, such as festivals that have been traditionally celebrated in the community (Tsurumi 1993). Tsurumi’s theory of endogenous development holds that the foundation for endogenous creation is keeping the community both grounded in local life and open to the outer world.

4 Revisiting Tsurumi’s Endogenous Development Theory in a Contemporary Context

The possibility that Tsurumi's endogenous development theory can further enrich the foundation of international development theory is worth pursuing. However, the world we live in has undergone a major transformation between the 1970s and now. Because the theory is not value-neutral but value-normative, it will be necessary to reexamine its theoretical framework in light of the contemporary context. In addition, because the theory is rooted in the Japanese experiences and some case studies from Asia, it is necessary to consider whether the theoretical framework is appropriate to be applied in other regions as well. This need for reconsideration is also something Tsurumi mentioned before her passing.

It is a challenge for the future to consider how to gradually link various local endogenous development attempts on a global scale, beyond national borders, through the accumulation of case studies on endogenous development (Tsurumi 1989, p. 59).

The first issue to be considered is the framework for analyzing the opportunities for creativity found in Yanagita's folklore of drifters, temporary drifters and settlers. The nature of local communities in Japan has changed dramatically since the time Yanagita and Tsurumi discovered this mechanism. Not only in Japan, but in most countries across the globe, young people from rural villages continue to migrate to cities in search of education and job opportunities, and the various socio-cultural functions that supported rural communities are disappearing. Tsurumi frequently refers to the example of how local festivals function as a meeting place for drifters, temporary drifters, and settlers, and serve as an opportunity for creativity, but the decline in the social function of local communities means that in many cases, these sites have lost their function as well.

For example, in a rural town in Northern Japan, where I have often conducted fieldwork, I frequently heard stories of local people's dwindling participation at festivals that had originally existed in the community, and that such traditional events had become a mere skeleton, or were not being continued due to lack of bearers. In such circumstances, it is not likely for settlers, drifters and temporary drifters to interact, and foster creativity for social change. For this reason, what was happening in the town was that in-migrants were initiating new events to design a space where newcomers and locals could meet, like what festivals used to do. When considering endogenous development of a community, it will be important for the local community to have some capacity to make change. For many communities, especially those who have inherited traditional ways of doing things over time, finds difficulty in being open to make adjustments or change.

In addition, the increasing mobility of people has recently given rise to the concept of the “related population” (kankei-jinkō) in Japan. This is a concept that places value on relationships with people who do not live in the area but visit several times a year. In order to incorporate these new relationships between people and communities into the framework of endogenous development theory, I believe it is necessary to clarify the nature of the connections between each actor and the community in more detail, rather than categorizing the people involved into 3 uniform categories such as drifters, temporary drifters, and permanent residents.

Next, while the main feature of Tsurumi’s endogenous development theory lies in defining community as the unit of analysis, defining and setting the boundaries of a community could be difficult especially in the context of developing countries. As we have seen, the case studies that Tsurumi referred to when conceiving her naihatsuteki hattenron were not limited to but mainly the cases of Minamata and Yanagita’s folklore studies in the Tohoku region of Japan. In Tsurumi’s definition, communities are “A place with the potential to create new common bonds through the interaction of settlers, drifters, and temporary drifters” (Tsurumi 1989, p. 53). From this definition, we understand that the meaning of community is not defined by geographical administrative boundaries. However, it is undeniable that such a definition of “community” has its origins in the context of Japan, where communities have not experienced colonial rule by foreign power. On the other hand, in the contexts of most developing countries, foreign powers through colonization or even industrialization had immense impact, such as setting artificial geographical boundaries or demolishing local ethnic groups, its culture, language and traditions. In addition, newly established communities such as those in refugee camps may not fall into the definition of “community” defined by Tsurumi. However, in light of the principles of the naihatsuteki hattenron, it is precisely in such areas that we need to capture and understand how endogenous forms of creativity can occur. In this sense, a more context-specific and careful framing of the definition of the “community” might be necessary.

Finally, in keeping with the above problematics, although Tsurumi has put certain emphasis to the notion of the “recreation of traditions” as a critical factor for endogenous development, it must be noted that it would be difficult to do the same in some developing country context for the reasons raised above. Where “organic” forms of communities have been demolished and were strongly influenced by exogenous forces and foreign cultures under colonial rule, identifying “traditions” for endogenous community development would be challenging. No matter the context, what is more important is to explore the creative activities that are emerging among the people who live there today, and to discover the relationships and enabling factors that make it possible. In doing so, if we get too caught up in the idea of recreating “traditions,” we may overlook the opportunities for creativity that are already happening there.

5 Conclusion: Situating Tsurumi’s Theory in International Development Studies

This chapter reviewed the genealogy of endogenous development thinking in the West and Japan, particularly that of Tsurumi’s theory. Both streams of endogenous development thinking were motivated by their critique of the stage-development model view towards development that assumed Western modernization as the sole model, and the rise of former colonized countries seeking their own development path under the slogan of self-reliance. While they share many commonalities, not limited to the points raised here, Tsurumi’s naihatsuteki hattenron differs, having its foundation in the Japanese experiences and case studies from other Asian countries.

As we have seen, ideas of development based on self-reliance, and the call for alternative development paradigms, existed long before Tsurumi. Today, the need for development projects to learn from local knowledge, traditions, and to respect natural environment when implementing community development projects, has become the norm in the international development sphere. With that in mind, I would like to conclude this chapter by asking: what does Tsurumi’s naihatsuteki hattenron bring to us in the field of development studies?

Tsurumi’s biggest contribution is that she theorized the idea of endogenous development as a theory of social change, and articulated the meanings, values and epistemology of what endogenous development means. She successfully presented an analytical framework to understand the process of endogenous development, which will assist our analysis of endogenous development processes when conducting case studies.

Another major contribution is that her theory focuses on people’s creativity as a source of social change and highlights encounters with “others” as essential stimuli in unleashing creativity (in her words, the interaction between settlers, drifters, and temporary drifters). From this understanding, we as development researchers or practitioners could reflect on our own positionality, and, further, we could rethink our role in designing encounters that may induce the autonomous agency inherent in the community. In doing so, Tsurumi’s analytical framework should be useful.

Finally, I would like to mention that Tsurumi’s naihatsuteki hattenron requires us to ask ourselves: what does it mean for communities or people to be endogenous? The development industry has almost unquestionably valued the state of independence or self-sufficiency as an ideal state of human being (Sato 2021). Tsurumi’s perspective is to the contrary. She recognizes that people are situated in various kinds of relationships, among and beyond community members. Tsurumi’s naihatsuteki hattenron invites us to view a person’s autonomy not through their degree of self-sufficiency, but through the person’s agency to act according to his or her own values, which are also influenced by the surrounding socio-cultural and natural environments. From this point of view, setting self-sufficiency as an indicator of human development becomes inadequate. It challenges us to think how we could construct a more relational view to understanding human agency. This is something Tsurumi has left for our generation to think about.

One response to this understanding of human agency would be to question how Tsurumi’s naihatsuteki hattenron would react to communities that are systematizing the oppression of certain members of the community (such as gender discrimination, and other minority issues). The author believes that this is exactly why it was important for Tsurumi to emphasize that communities should be open systems, welcoming interactions, and learning new ways of thinking and doing things, so as to obtain opportunities for self-reflection and social change. There is much to do in development studies to study and facilitate learning among various communities across the globe and to validate the importance of a facilitator’s role in the international development community.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation is a non-governmental organization that was established in 1962. The organization aims to accelerate dialogue and policy that contributes to the sustainable development and peace.

  2. 2.

    In my view, endogeneity and self-reliance are, strictly speaking, different concepts. Self-reliance was an idea originally formulated by colonized countries in an effort to spearhead their own development to resist domination by advanced nations. The concept of self-reliance extols the process of not depending on advanced nations or aid institutions, whereas endogenous development does not necessarily reject external ties.

  3. 3.

    For example, Ribes et al. (1981), Reiffers et al. (1982), and Tri et al. (1986).

  4. 4.

    Although removed from the context of international development cooperation, neo-endogenous development theory is now being advocated in the context of rural studies in Europe. For reference, the following studies provide a comprehensive overview: (Ray 2000; Gkartzios and Lowe 2019).

  5. 5.

    Other thinkers of the time who shared the sense of crisis about the excessive Westernization of the early Meiji period are, to name a few, Soho Tokutomi, Setsurei Miyake, Shigetaka Shiga, Katsunan Kuga, etc.

  6. 6.

    The folklore scholar Kunio Yanagita (1875–1962) is known as the founder of folklore studies in Japan. Setting out from the question of why Japanese farmers were poor, he studied agricultural administration and then worked as a government official handling agricultural matters. While visiting villages around Japan and conducting surveys, he came to believe that the culture of everyday life in agricultural villages and these people’s folk beliefs and folklore contained hints for considering Japan’s modernization, and he switched careers to become a folklorist. Yanagita’s house in Tokyo was across the road from Kazuko Tsurumi’s family home, and she was on friendly terms with him from when she was about 29 years old.

  7. 7.

    The Shiranui Sea Comprehensive Academic Research Team was a team of 12 people, including researchers, doctors, and teachers, that was formed to carry out investigations over a 5-year period between 1976 and 1981 in Minamata in Kumamoto Prefecture, the site of Minamata disease. Minamata disease is known as one of Japan’s four major diseases caused by industrial pollution.

  8. 8.

    As his principles of endogenous development, Miyamoto cited (1) endogeneity, (2) synthesis of aims, (3) industrial development, and (4) the participation of local residents. After developing an argument that incorporated the role of administration, which does not appear in Tsurumi’s theory, he focused on the practical question of how to ensure that community-building activities are not short-lived but are sustainable (Miyamoto 2010).

  9. 9.

    See, for example, (Nishikawa 2001, 2014).

  10. 10.

    Animism was originally a term coined by an English anthropologist. It refers to the belief that all things, even abstract concepts, have their own distinct spiritual essence (Tsurumi 1998). This means that people who believe in animism can respond to nature and things, as well as phenomena.