海外供给侧改革回顾：日本篇

Report Summary 1. Investment Rating The provided content does not mention the industry investment rating. 2. Core View Japan's steel industry entered a stagnant period in the 1970s due to multiple pressures such as the oil crisis, yen appreciation, and trade frictions. The Japanese government implemented supply - side reform policies in stages, and through equipment elimination, mergers and acquisitions, and industrial upgrading, the steel industry successfully transformed from scale expansion to high - value - added operations [2]. 3. Summary by Directory 3.1 Japan's "Supply - Side Reform" Background - Macroeconomic Pressure: From 1973 to 1980, Japan's GDP average growth rate dropped from 8.8% to 3.9% due to "two oil crises, yen appreciation, and trade frictions" [7]. - Steel Industry Situation: Japan's crude steel production reached a peak of 119 million tons in 1973. After that, demand declined, costs soared, equipment utilization was low, and enterprises suffered losses as urbanization demand decreased and energy costs rose [7]. 3.2 Supply - Side Regulation Policy Implementation - Administrative Capacity - Reduction Policy Stage (1978 - 1983): In 1978, the Japanese government issued the "Temporary Measures Law for the Stabilization of Specific Depressed Industries" (the "Temporary Safety Law"), which allowed the government to designate "structurally depressed industries" and implement "government - funded equipment acquisition and scrapping." From 1978 - 1981, about 5.5 million tons of steel - making capacity was dismantled, and the government paid about 22 billion yen. In 1983, the "Temporary Measures Law for the Improvement of Specific Industrial Structures" (the "Industrial Structure Law") included blast furnace enterprises in capacity - reduction and provided tax incentives and low - interest financing. The "Temporary Measures Law for the Unemployed in Specific Depressed Industries" was also introduced to support employment [10][12]. - Policy Shift to Market - Oriented Capacity Reduction (1987 - 1999): The "Temporary Measures Law for the Smooth Transformation of Industrial Structure" (the "Smoothing Law") in 1987 marked a shift towards a market - oriented approach. The "Special Measures Law for Industrial Revitalization" in 1999 upgraded the previous administrative - order - based capacity reduction to a new framework of "enterprise - led, government - incentivized, and market - cleared" [13]. - Enterprise - Driven Capacity Reduction, Mergers, and Overseas Expansion (After 2000): Steel enterprises continued to adjust production capacity according to market conditions. For example, Nippon Steel shut down plants and reduced production. There were three major mergers in the Japanese steel industry in 1970, 2001, and 2012. After 2000, the CR4 of the Japanese steel industry increased from 68.9% (1980) to 88.8% (2023). Enterprises also transferred some production capacity overseas and focused on high - value - added products at home [14][15]. 3.3 Policy Effects - Capacity Disposal: After the implementation of the "Temporary Safety Law" and the "Industrial Structure Law", the average completion rate of excess equipment disposal in specific depressed industries reached 95%. The number of blast furnaces decreased from over 60 to about 25, and the capacity index dropped from 124.8 in 1980 to 88.5 in 2025 [17]. - Market Competition Pattern: The CR4 of the Japanese steel industry increased significantly after 2000. - Product Structure: Low - end production capacity was transferred overseas, and high - value - added products such as automotive sheets and special steel were focused on at home. Japan accounted for 71% of global special steel patent applications, and plates became the leading export product, supporting the increase in export unit prices. - Efficiency and Profitability: Giants such as Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal and JFE achieved capacity intensification through mergers, reducing unit production costs. The profit margin of the steel industry after 2000 exceeded the level during the bubble economy period, and the R & D investment ratio was higher than equipment investment [17].