“Industrious Revolution” Revisited: A Variety of Diligence Derived from a Long-Term Local History of Kuta in Kyô-Otagi, a Former County in Japan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper attempts to link a detailed study of a single district/village with the theme of the Industrious Revolution, which has both Japanese and European historical variants.  It is a worthy approach, and the authors deal fairly with the literature they seek to engage, but the paper at present fails to state clearly just  how the empirical material from the village of Kuta confirms or requires modification of the Industrious Revolution concept.  The problem is partly related to a lack of clarity in the text that can be attributed to weaknesses in the English translation, but I believe the greater problem is a failure to specify what is meant by such terms as 'diligence' and 'industriousness'.  If this could be clarified,  the paper would be considerably stronger.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall very informative and interesting. Here are some critical observations (which are provided for the sake of minor revision/improvement, not to be taken as a "challenge").

(1) The Abstract is misleading.

The main goal of the paper is not to revisit the differences between Japan and the West, but the Abstract is likely to give such an impression to the readers.

(2) "Living Space"; do not assume that readers know what this expression means (at least sketch out a definition; footnote 22 is not helping much).

(3) The article brings into focus three periods, medieval, Meiji, and the 20th century, which are collapsed into "medieval times to present" (between two time periods), but all three periods seem to carry similar weight in the discussion, no?

(4) The author should INTERPRET the text after making block quotations.

E.g. lines 41-50, what is that you are getting out from Totman here? Are you agreeing with him altogether? What do you want your readers to notice?

E. G. lines 441-455, what are you expecting readers to observe in her words?; just listening to her memories?

(5) What is the ultimate goal of this paper?

E. g. it is said, "This is an aspect which is largely absent from de Vries’ and Hayami’s theory of the Industrious Revolution" (lines 234-235).

Is your GOAL, then, to show that something is missing from the views of Hayami and de Vries? Or are you inviting readers to recognize that in fact "Japan has not experienced the industrious and consumer revolution"?

E.g. It is also said, "This point is missing from Hayami’s and de Vries’s discussion of ‘industrious’ revolution and should be explored further before many mountainous and coastal Japanese villages simply disappear" (500-502).

Is the GOAL to collect evidences that refute their view? Is that what you want your readers to take away from your paper?

Now observations (1) and (5) are clearly related.

For readers to get the most out of the rich materials presented in this paper, the GAOL of the paper had si ply be made clearer/sharper.

Aside from these "critical" observations, the paper has merit and strength of its own - it's showing a lot of potential.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised paper responds to my specific requests for definitions of the terms 'diligence' and 'industriousness'. The English text is also improved and is now readable.  It does not appear that other improvements have been undertaken.  For example, the name Joel Mokyr continues to be misspelled.