Sixth industrialization???
Laurie Berman
次 産業化 in reference to agriculture. It appears to be a Japanese
government policy of encouraging agricultural producers to branch out
into processing and distribution and so forth. Why 第６次? Well, as
best as I can make out, the author of this concept added the first,
second, and third sectors together and came up with six. At least,
that is how the Wikipedia entry explains it. (Another source suggests
that the numbers were MULTIPLIED.)
A recent government white paper translates this as the "sixth
industrialization of agriculture," implying that agriculture has
experienced five previous industrializations. The DPJ's latest
manifesto talks about "transforming agriculture into a 'sixth
sector'"--which sounds a little better but doesn't make much more
sense to me. Anyway, I object to this proliferation of sectors.
It sounds like vertical integration, actually, but I guess that
doesn't have a very progressive ring. Any thoughts?
Laurie Berman
Richard Thieme
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%85%AD%E6%AC%A1%E7%94%A3%E6%A5%AD
Apparently the idea is to combine the advantages of 1. agriculture (growing
things), 2. processing, and 3. sales and distribution. So you get the total
of all three sectors 1+2+=6
Regards,
Richard Thieme
Laurie Berman
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Honyaku Mailing
list.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/honyaku?hl=en?hl=en
Richard Thieme
Subject: Re: Sixth industrialization???
(snip)
> So you get the total of all three sectors 1+2+=6
That should be 1+2+3=6
Regards,
Richard Thieme
Hart Larrabee
> I am trying to wrap my head around--and translate--the term 第６次 産業化 in reference to agriculture.
I've come across the same term in the past in a local tourism pamphlet. In my case the idea was that the producers (first order), processors (second order), and distributors (third order) were all local and integrated, creating synergy that benefits consumers. It's always been explained to me as a multiplicative process (1 x 2 x 3) rather than additive (1+2+3). I went with "sixth-order industry" primarily because this term also appeared on a number of web sites quoting Hatoyama speeches and policy (the English in which was competently rendered), and because it seemed to hit the mark closer than any of the other renderings found.
If you Google for "sixth-order industry" you'll quickly find a handful of sites carrying the speeches.
Good luck!
Hart
ha...@valley.ne.jp
Nagano, Japan
Minoru Mochizuki
AD%E6%AC%A1%E7%94%A3%E6%A5%AD
六次産業（ろくじさんぎょう）とは、農業や水産業などの第一次産業が食品加工・流
通販売にも業務展開している経営形態を表す
It's a new term I have never heard of and I am not bashful about that.
Minoru Mochizuki
Shinya Suzuki
> It's always been explained to me as a multiplicative process (1 x 2 x 3) rather than additive (1+2+3).
It's the sum, according to 今村奈良臣 who coined the term.
「六次産業」とは何か。「一次産業」と「二次産業」と「三次産業」を足し算すると「六次産業」ということになる。
http://www.chiiki-dukuri-hyakka.or.jp/book/monthly/9611/html/t0.htm
> If you Google for "sixth-order industry" you'll quickly find a handful of sites carrying the speeches.
Apparently those who invented/adopted "sixth-order industry" did not
know Colin Clark's primary-secondary-tertiary classification* or what
comes after quinary**.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-sector_hypothesis
** http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/page/124
Anyway "senary sector/industry" may sound as confusing as 六次産業, IMHO.
Shinya Suzuki
Marc Adler
>> It's always been explained to me as a multiplicative process (1 x 2 x 3) rather than additive (1+2+3).
>
> It's the sum, according to 今村奈良臣 who coined the term.
>
> 「六次産業」とは何か。「一次産業」と「二次産業」と「三次産業」を足し算すると「六次産業」ということになる。
> http://www.chiiki-dukuri-hyakka.or.jp/book/monthly/9611/html/t0.htm
So is the 第 in Laurie's original is a stray addition? The Wiki entry
seems to use X次 and 第X次 interchangeably, but it's my understanding
that 第X次 indicates a chronological order, while X次 indicates, well, an
order order (?), as in "first-order," "second-order," etc.
--
Marc Adler
http://www.linkedin.com/in/adlerpacific
Gauçac eztira multçutu eta berretu behar, mengoaric eta premiaric gabe.
गते गते पारगते पारसंगते बोधि स्वाहा
Shinya Suzuki
> So is the 第 in Laurie's original is a stray addition? The Wiki entry
> seems to use X次 and 第X次 interchangeably, but it's my understanding
> that 第X次 indicates a chronological order, while X次 indicates, well, an
> order order (?), as in "first-order," "second-order," etc.
non-chronological things such as 二次方程式 or ３次元空間.
The reason why the 第 in 第＊次産業 is optional may be that the
sequence or ordering is partially chronological (more correctly
developmental).
Shinya Suzuki
Laurie Berman
On Oct 11, 2010, at 1:13 AM, Shinya Suzuki wrote:
> Apparently those who invented/adopted "sixth-order industry" did not
> know Colin Clark's primary-secondary-tertiary classification* or what
> comes after quinary**.
I imagine they did know the classification, as it comes up all the
time in economics-related material. The problem is not only that
"senary" is very obscure (just as you point out) but also that no one
actually seems to be proposing this as a sixth industrial sector--not
if the 6 is indeed arrived at by adding (or multiplying) 1, 2, and
3. (And anyway, according to some, the sixth sector is the
environment.) This was my issue from the start. Sixth-order industry"
doesn't make a huge amount of sense, either, but at least it's less
blatantly misleading than the other options.
Laurie Berman