INTRODUCTION

Reappearance of Americanization in the 1990s

AMONG THE MOST important trends in the international economy during the 1990s was the tremendous influence of the American economy, which manifested itself globally. This has led to a renewed debate about a possible Americanization. The argument for Americanization has been fiercely contested with counter argument. This controversy has been linked with that on globalization, which has developed along with Americanization. The debate on convergence or divergence has also developed, arguing whether or not each nation's capitalism with its own character will change through Americanization and globalization. This debate has been continuing even after the prosperity that long-persisted in the United States began to decline after 2000. In spite of the economic downturn, Americanization itself seems not to have lost its dynamics. It is interesting to ask why it persists. Moreover, its consequences are still unclear.

The word Americanization itself has a long history. One of the earliest meanings of the word was nation building in the early history of the United States. Today it is used in a variety of contexts: politics, the economy, society, culture and civilization. Here, we use the word for the transfer of technology, management ideas and practices as well as institutional frameworks from the United States. We call this influence Americanization when institutions and organizations in other countries use the United States as a ‘reference’ for local changes. Thus, in our view, Americanization is not a model (or several models) of values and behavior as such, but a process. Its results are characterized by selection, transfer, change and adaptation to local, regional or national circumstances. Americanization does not mean that, after it had taken place, all organizations, institutions, values and behavior had become identical to those in the USA, although they were definitely closer to American models than before.

During the 1990s, re-unified Germany and Japan came under considerable pressure from Americanization and globalization. They were not exceptional in this respect, but these developments had a special meaning for both countries: during the immediate post Second World War period both had already been subject to a significant US influence. Subsequently, for about two decades, during the 1970s and 1980s, they came to represent alternatives to the United States as an example of successful capitalist economies.