Haruo Maekawa
Japanese banker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Haruo Maekawa (前川 春雄, Maekawa Haruo; February 6, 1911 – September 22, 1989), also romanized as Mayekawa,[1] was a Japanese businessman, central banker, the 24th Governor of the Bank of Japan (BOJ).
Zenko Suzuki
Yasuhiro Nakasone
Haruo Maekawa | |
|---|---|
| 前川 春雄 | |
| |
| 24th Governor of the Bank of Japan | |
| In office 17 December 1979 – 16 December 1984 | |
| Prime Minister | Masayoshi Ohira Zenko Suzuki Yasuhiro Nakasone |
| Preceded by | Teiichiro Morinaga |
| Succeeded by | Satoshi Sumita |
| Personal details | |
| Born | February 6, 1911 |
| Died | September 22, 1989 (aged 78) |
| Alma mater | Tokyo Imperial University |
Early life
Maekawa was born in Tokyo.[2]
Career
Before rising to become head of the Bank of Japan, Maekawa held other bank positions, including director of foreign-exchange operations.[3]
Maekawa was Governor of the Bank of Japan from December 17, 1979 through December 16, 1984,[1] having previously served as Deputy Governor from 1974 to 1979.[4] Along with Finance Minister Noboru Takeshita, he was credited with negotiating a Saudi-Japan petrodollar accord in 1980.[5]
Maekawa Commission
In 1986, the Maekawa Commission (the "Advisory Group on Economic Restructuring" headed by Maekawa)[6] proposed economic reforms designed to make the living standards of Japanese more comparable to levels enjoyed in the West.[7] Maekawa is credited as the chief author of the commission report.[8] Maekawa Report into effect. His two reports argued that Japan should seek switch from an export-oriented economy into a domestic demand-led economy. They downplayed the need for achieving economic parity using foreign exchange rate adjustments. A new reorientation would require more spending and less saving. There would have to be demand-side improvements in the quality of daily life, changes in Japan's industrial structure and more imports. It proposed industrial structural transformations using market-incentive mechanisms.[9] however the report was merely a statement of long-term goals, and contain no meaningful action programs. Even so it was opposed by many Liberal Democrats, by angry interest groups, and a few prominent economists. The report had very little long-term impact.[10]