Dr. Yusuke Narita, Assistant Professor of Economics at Yale University, spent four months at the Institute of Economic Research as a specially appointed Associate Professor for the CEI. Dr. Narita is an expert in educational economics, labor economics, and market design, using data and algorithms to conduct not only academic research but also joint research and projects with companies and governments. Before he left CEI, we had the opportunity to interview him about his multipotentiality, as a scholar, an entrepreneur, critic of art, etc... etc... and of his current interests, and what he hopes to convey through this Coronavirus pandemic.
Q: What was your childhood like?
I don't have very clear memories of my childhood. But I have heard that I was a very troubled child, and was in a state of endless rebellion. I guess I was born with a character that is pointlessly anti-establishment and anti-authority without any deep reason or motive.
From kindergarten to the first half of elementary school, I was told that I was a hyperactive child who could not sit still (a trait that I still carry...) who was angry at everything around him, and had done some malicious mischiefs.
Q: Can you remember now how you felt at that time?
I think it's the kind of feeling that's difficult to put into words. From the very beginning, I had a conflict with the world that I didn't understand. I've always had a sense of discomfort and repulsion, and as a child, I think that's what triggered my causing trouble to others.
I also had a severe sleep disorder, and I couldn't live a 24-hour cycle normal life during the first half of elementary school. I started to fall asleep on the way to school, or on some days I couldn't wake up until noon, so I had difficulty going to school.
Q: When did this go away?
It still hasn't gone away, and I can't live in a 24-hour cycle. I often sleep until evening, and sometimes I suddenly wake up at three AM and start working at full capacity. So, I guess I knew from childhood that it would be difficult for me to lead a normal social life and a normal working life.
Q: As a child, you were "going your own way" child, but now you are involved in various aspects of society, aren't you?
That's right. I knew that I won't be able to lead a life as an 'ordinary' member of society, so I have managed to find a different way to get involved.
I think I've always unconsciously focused on the reverse side of things. If there is something that you cannot do, you should look from the reverse side of it. On the other side, there are often things that you can do which others can't, something that only you have experienced.
Q: Not consciously, but unconsciously?
I don't think I've been doing it consciously, I think I've just been doing it out of choice. From the very beginning, I couldn't go to school or go to work at the same time every morning, and it was also impossible for me to live according to rules that I didn't understand. I can't live as a member of an organization, and I can't live in an environment where I have to work under a "boss", so I guess I've been unconsciously thinking about what I can do by myself instead.
Q: What were your favorite things to do as a child?
Well...there is a part of me, where the subject of interests and concerns endlessly shifts, rather than having something that I could be crazy about. Maybe it's more like I am interested in everything. It's not that I'm only interested in research, or that I'm only interested in working with business, but that I'm going back and forth between completely different things, doing different activities one after another. My interests move around as if the sun shines on different parts of the earth. I feel like I've always had a sense of hyperactivity or divergent interests. Maybe it's because my interests and views are so broad that I can't concentrate on what's lying right in front of me, and this in turn may have led me to broaden my views.
Q: You must have been a very difficult child for adults. Did you have any mentors as you grew up?
Well, I don't have any particular mentor-like person now or in the past. Especially when I was a teenager, I was stagnant. Keeping to myself...
Q: I've read some of your articles, and you mentioned that you had been in contact with the philosopher Kojin Karatani's group since you were in junior high school.
It was more or less like that. I was in my early teens in the late 90s. It was a time when communication through the Internet and the Web was just beginning to flourish, and a lot of information was being put on the Web, and it became possible to communicate with people on the Internet. I guess these things were helping me in a good direction.
Q: So it has become much easier to join different circles than in the past?
I think so. One of the things that the Internet has changed is that now we have the opportunity to get to know groups of people who are in completely different places, and we have a way to contact them. I think the Internet has made it much easier to get information from around the world. Thanks to the web, I started reading academic papers written in English when I was a teenager, even though it was still a bit difficult for me to understand. But I didn't have much real face-to-face communication with people then.
Q: Looking at your background, I thought you were on the so-called elite path, so I was a little surprised to hear what you have told us so far about your childhood.
I think it's just that I happen to be good at playing the elite evaluation games. In Japan, for example, even if you don't interact with people at all, if you get a good score in the entrance exam, you can get into Hitotsubashi University. In this sense, I think that Japanese society is such that you can go on what appears to be an elite course by doing the bare minimum without interacting with people. I think that's a feature of Japanese society that can be used in both good and bad ways. On the other hand, I think it would have been more difficult if I were in the US.
Q: Listening to your talk, I think we could say that the Japanese system is more likely to catch interesting people, and does not give up on them.
In that sense, yes. Some people say that American education and American universities have an educational system that respects diversity and allows an opportunity for a wide range of people. I think that is a misconception, and I think it's fundamentally wrong. What happens when you have a system where people are evaluated through a variety of aspects, or comprehensively on a broad-based approach, is that everyone tries their best to be beautiful in all directions. Typical elite high school students in the U.S. study hard and get good grades in school, they also participate in sports activities to show that they are not only studying, and on their days off, they go out to volunteer somewhere with their parents' money and do social activities. You have to build up a portfolio and prove to society that you are a decent person no matter which way you are looked at. That kind of pressure is very strong. In comparison, the system of Japan's elite education is such that as long as you get a good grade, anything else is fine, so I see it as a society that guarantees diversity in terms of aspects other than grades, where you can do whatever you want.
Q: What kind of research are you working on the most at the moment?
I do a lot of research, but what might be interesting to talk about here is my research on democracy. In a nutshell, I am working on the idea that democracy is a cursed system in the 21st-century world. What I mean by this is that if you think about the COVID Year 2020-21, you will find that the more democratic a country is, the more people die of COVID. In other words, countries like the USA, the UK, and France have been damaged by COVID, while despotic countries like China and Egypt have been very successful in containing it. In addition, in 2020, the more democratic a country is, the lower its GDP growth rate was. If you look at the reasons why these democracies have suffered in the last year, both in terms of the economy and in terms of human life, you can see that the democratic political system is the cause of these difficulties.
In this sense, the COVID disaster shows that democratic political systems have hurt both the economy and human life. I feel that this is a kind of counterexample to the rules of thumb of modern society. One of the lessons of modern economic history, from the Industrial Revolution to the end of the Cold War, is that a democratic policy will lead to economic growth in the long run, and people will be able to live in a safe and secure society. I think that such trust in democratic political systems had been a common-sense approach. This common-sense seems to have started to break down in this century, and the COVID has made this very clear.
There is a concern that the bad and poor aspects of democracy will become even more apparent in the future. This is related to data, and I think it is clear from looking at countries like China, that industries and policies that centralize data and create value by having smart people analyze and utilize the aggregated data are incompatible with the mechanisms of democratic countries. I feel that the more the society begins to be designed and directed by data the more it will be hampered by its democratic system.
It is difficult to say whether we should give up on democracy or not. We don't necessarily adopt a democratic political system because we want economic growth or because we can contain problems like infectious diseases or natural disasters as soon as they occur. Perhaps more fundamentally, we see in democracy a normative value that is different from easily understood outcome indicators. It is seen more as the value of a democratic political system as a good thing in itself or the value of making decisions transparently through democratic procedures. Therefore, I have a feeling that there will be a kind of battle between values that do not appear on performance indicators and values that emphasize outcomes on performance indicators. When we see countries that have sacrificed things like democracy and individual liberty, that have become very rich, that have grown very fast, and that can respond very quickly to emergencies and contingencies, the question is whether or not we will be able to continue to believe in the survival of the democratic systems. This is a question that I expect will be very important in the coming decades.
Q: Is it possible that when there is a lot of data available before people make careful considerations, undemocratic decisions will be carried out without us being aware of it?
Yes, it is. I think it's a kind of inevitable experiment that will proceed whether we want it to or not. In the 19th and 20th centuries, when data was not so rich the so-called democratic system we imagine made a lot of sense. To have elections and elect representatives who debated and decided things for us. But gradually, as data allows us to make decisions in ways other than by consciously collecting information and consciously thinking, we start to feel that voting in elections and having politicians gather in the Diet to discuss things is a waste of time. I think it is natural that some people will begin to think that instead of wasting time on such procedures, we should just collect data and decide what we think is best based on that data.
I think it's a challenge that has never been tested by humanity before, to see what happens when we let the data and our unconscious decisions make all the choices. It might be the nature of us, humans, to first try out challenges before considering if they will produce the desired results. So, I guess the inevitable direction some countries will take in the future will be to follow what the data shows as correct and not towards the direction of making decisions considering personal freedom or personal choice.
Q: It seems like Japan might be going in that direction...
For better or worse, Japan is a typical example of a mature and stable democratic society, where everyone has their own opinions and public opinion is very noisy. In this kind of society, it is difficult to have a dogmatic leader or to be pushed into a particular direction based on aggregated data. Japan is a highly inertial society. In that sense, it may take a major crisis for a society like Japan to deviate from the fragile and stable democratic consensus, for better or worse. Only when there is a crisis that threatens the country, such as a major earthquake or a major volcanic eruption, will there be a possibility for Japan to abandon its current social structure.
Q: Is the current COVID crisis not that big?
It's still not that big, and the political and administrative systems in Japan are far from visibly changing. After the 2011 earthquake, some people expected a change, but after ten years, we still have not seen a big difference in our political or the social system. So maybe we need a bigger crisis than the 2011 earthquake or the COVID, to change this country.
Furthermore, I don't even know if it has to change. This country has been able to maintain its status as the third richest and third-largest country in the world through this kind of system, and I think there is a way of thinking that it should stay that way.
However, if you think about the pre-war world including Japan, there were a series of major crises such as the Great Kanto Earthquake, the Great Depression, and pandemics, which combined to create a very big transformation of the political system. I think it is possible that we could see something like that in this century. One candidate for such a combination is the combination of a major natural disaster, such as an earthquake or a volcanic eruption, and external pressure from the tense situation in East Asia. I have a feeling that we are living in an age where there is a good risk of falling into a very dangerous situation.
Q: Do you think that the crisis of democracy is the reason why you are studying it?
Thinking about it, yes. (laughs) Haven't the people been talking about the crisis of democracy since before COVID started? We have seen the growth of undemocratic societies like China, we have seen the stunning collapse of pro-democracy protests like the Arab Spring, we have seen the emergence of dazzling populist politicians in the US and South America, and we have seen the failure of the basic requirements of democracy (access to high-quality education, and information) due to fake news and information pollution on social media. We have been hearing all these problems for the past 10 years. I have the impression that COVID has made this more visible, more largely, and more intensely. Looking at what is happening in the US and Japan has led me to the research I am doing.
Looking at it from a longer perspective, the relationship between democracy and economics, and between democracy and human life is one of the most important issues in the fields of science and philosophy. I've always been essentially interested in such matters. But I couldn't figure out the right approach method. I've been doing a lot of research on more technical issues or on finding tools that can be used more directly, but recently I've been thinking that I should go back to the fundamental issues of social science.
The YouTube program(https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwYx57BBCEc29AtxmoHt5b5O8n8Ho4q8v) where I talk with politicians is part of my awareness towards such issues.
Q: Where do you think Japan should go from here？
If we knew that, we wouldn't have any trouble (laughs). Rather than trying to be the best according to some easy to understand criteria that something is good or bad, it would be more important to clarify what is important to us, what we are satisfied with as long as we can produce it, and what we are willing to give up. To understand our identity as a nation. For example, I have never seen the French government or the French people discouraged by the fact that France or French companies are not creating innovation or GAFAM in the Internet industry. I think they accept the fact that it's not their game. I think the lack of such resignation may be a problem for Japan. I don't think we need to compare ourselves too much with others. In competition, someone will become a loser.
The Japanese game industry and Kyoto brand have succeeded in doing that, haven't they? They don't have to evaluate themselves by other people's standards. They have created things and ways of doing things from within the domestic culture of this country and have somehow been recognized as an exotic value by people outside of Japan.
Q: As an ex-pat how do you feel about young Japanese researchers going abroad to do research?
I think it depends on what you want to do and what you are good at. If you want to compete with universal tools such as logic, data, and mathematics, I think 
it would be more interesting to go abroad, and not stick to the context of Japan. As athletes should not be obsessed only with comparisons between other Japanese athletes, but they should go out to the world.
However, research, science, culture, and literature do not necessarily need external stimulus. Being involved in academic activities such as researching Japanese history, studying the Japanese economy, and in some cases, being involved in the current Japanese society, policies, and industries are also necessary to create change. In such cases, it is important to confront the particular community and the history of our country and the historical information accumulated in our mother tongue, Japanese. There are some types of studies that have value only because they are local and internal, and I believe that there is value in things that cannot be translated or value that cannot be understood by outsiders. As there is a value in family and hometown which is not the same as the values found in McDonald's or Starbucks.
I think that applying values such as international competitiveness half-heartedly to such things is simply a value destroyer. I am concerned that if Japanese universities only emphasize international competitiveness half-heartedly, they will go in a direction where they will not be able to create the kind of academic culture that only Japan can produce.
For example, if we evaluate only by whether or not something has been published in an internationally acclaimed English-language journal or by the international community, we will be left with only those things that can be evaluated according to global standards. However, what happens when you bring global standards into a society like Japan, which lives in a place that is cut off from the global community, is that you are left with only low-quality products that conform to global standards. A typical example of this is a study that says, "I repeated a study done by a famous overseas researcher using American data with Japanese data." It's just a degraded version without its worldview or aesthetic.
I think it would be sad to become a second-class nation, and it would be more important to create studies that are unique to Japan and might be only appreciated here, but not to the rest of the world. How non-Japanese people imagine Japan as a country, and not just in terms of research, is that it is a place that has all sorts of things that are kind of weird and unique, and I think this is the main value of our country. In comparison, I rarely see people evaluating Japan today in terms of its high-quality products, strength, or size. Even in terms of food, I think that people value Japanese food because it is something different from anything else, something that they don't understand, rather than something that is tasty. The same should be true of academia, and I think it is just as important to deviate from the axis of evaluation itself and create something that cannot be found anywhere else, as it is to compete hard and create something that can be evaluated on an axis that can be evaluated everywhere.
Q: Do you have any message you would like to convey to Japanese students?
Not particularly (laughs), but then it wouldn't be an interview, would it? To put it bluntly, I think it's important to properly face up to your preferences and habits. As is the case with economics researchers and people in other industries, some too many people care too much about what others think. There is a lot of talk about getting published in famous journals or how to do well in job markets. If you are good at maximizing your reputation and you love doing it, you can go for it, but it is also a dangerous path to take. It means that you are competing on the same axis as other people, which means that you are almost worthless unless you are very talented or lucky. For most of us, it is more beneficial to try to find a different way of looking at things, a different way of asking questions, a different way of approaching problems that only you can create. In short, you have to confront your preferences and habits. In that sense, it might be better for us Japanese to take advantage of this "for good or worse secluded Japan" situation and deeply think over how you can bring out the theme or the problems that lay deep in your mind, rather than care too much about global reputations.
Q: Do you plan to return to Japan in the future?
Ideally, I'd like to have a 50/50 split or to belong to several places at the same time. In a way, to belong to several places at the same time means to belong to nowhere, which would make it possible for me to be a stranger all the time and not be too immersed in any one community. By not being too immersed in any one community, I would like to aim to create a world of my own, picking up only the best parts of several countries and several communities. Rather than belonging 100% to Japan, I'd rather live a multiple life of belonging to other countries and being involved with Japan at the same time.
Q: It seems like your childhood days of surfing the net are still going on...
Yes, that's right. I'd like to keep that kind of hyperactive world going.
I want to go back and forth between the Internet and real life. Thanks to the Internet, I can live multiple life as I do now. Right now, I work in Japan during the daytime (Japan time) and in the U.S. at night (Japan time), which would have been completely impossible twenty years ago. It is now possible to belong to multiple societies and multiple industries at the same time. I think that the Internet has always been a decisive influence on me.
Q: You seem to be leading a very busy multiple life and it suits you, doesn't it?
That's right. I'm the type of person who gets tired easily if I keep doing only one thing. If I keep doing the same thing all the time, I quickly fall into a kind of identity crisis. By doing various things in sequence, I feel that I can have a change of pace, and it keeps me away from falling into needless anxieties, keeps me feel always fresh.
Q: How do you spend your free time away from your work? or do you work most of the time?
I'm doing so many different jobs these days that I don't know whether I'm playing or working. Of course, I spend a lot of time doing research and writing papers, but I also spend a lot of time dealing with business data at a web company. I visit museums to write reviews of art exhibitions and also spend my time chatting about satellites in the workshop of a space-related startup. So, I feel that there is no boundary between work and non-work in my mind.
Q: I read in one of your articles that your hobby is walking.
That's right. Walking is important! I'm the kind of person who can work forever because the boundary between work and non-work is blurred, but I've learned that if I do that, my body will break down very quickly. I think it is very important to walk, take a bath, and go to the sauna before your body screams for help. This may be the most important message I can give to young people (laughs).
I think there's something magical about walking because it doesn't create a sense of guilt even if you're not thinking or creating anything. When I'm lying on the futon or in bed, I feel like I'm not doing anything. But when I'm walking, I don't have to feel like I'm doing nothing. I think that while walking and moving around, you are using your brain, unconsciously thinking, and feeling something.
Q: Finally, and this may be a bit of a big question, what is your motto?
I believe it is important not to have a motto or principle, which seems to me is like a dream. I think there are too many people in today's world that can make an effective presentation of who they are and what their aims are. And also, there is a lot of pressure to be able to do so. It doesn't matter if you are a researcher, manager, or of any other profession. After all, we are just animals, so we probably don't have any real motto. And yet, unfortunately, humans are animals that have the ability to feel anxious about not having a motto, asking ourselves what our motto is, what aim we should have in life, whether there is any meaning to this, etc. I would like to live and wander aimlessly so that I can be as free as possible from falling into that obsession.
***********************************************************************************************************************************
Thank you very much, Dr. Narita, for taking time out of your busy schedule to answer our questions for this interview.
He was very sincere in answering the simple questions we had during this COVID 19 pandemic and we felt that we were able to touch his warm personality through this interview. We are sure he will continue to explore the fundamental issues of social science as his interest leads him. And we look forward to his achievements in the future.
Interviewer: Michie Kano and Eriko Yoshida, CEI Office (Recorded on May 12, 2021)
Hitotsubashi University Official Web Site ≫