[ RURAL AND URBAN POPULATIONS [LXXVIII].] The following table shows the percentage of the population living in communes under 5,000 and 10,000 inhabitants in 1913 and 1918:
| Year | Percentage of Population living in Communities | Percentage of Families engaged in Agricultural to Total Families in Japan Proper | |
| Under 5,000 | Under 10,000 | ||
| 1913 | 50.44 | 72.39 | 57.6 |
| 1918 | 46.23 | 67.71 | 52.3 |
| -4.21 | -4.68 | -5.3 | |
These figures clearly indicate the decrease of the rural population. To take 10,000 inhabitants as the demarcation line between urban and rural population is probably less correct than to take a demarcation line of 7,500 inhabitants. A mean of the two percentages of populations living in communities under 5,000 and under 10,000 inhabitants shows 61.41 per cent, in 1913 and 56.97 per cent, in 1918, a decrease of 4.44 per cent. The variation between this result and the preceding one has a simple explanation. About 30 per cent, of the families engaged in agriculture carry on their farming as an accessory business. Teachers, priests and mechanics may all have patches of land. On the other hand, a small number of people have no land. Therefore, the percentage of the rural population is only slightly higher than that of the families engaged in agriculture. In 1918 there were 5,476,784 farming families (to 10,460,440 total families or 52.3 per cent.), and if we multiply by 5⅓—the average number of persons per family in Japan is 5.317 (1918)—to find the population dependent on agriculture, the number is 29,209,514. The total population of Japan in 1918 was 55,667,711. The Department of Agriculture has stated that on the basis of the census of 1918 the number of persons in households engaged in agriculture was 52 per cent. of the population. According to one set of statistics the percentage of farming families to non-farming families fell from 64 per cent, in 1904 to 60.3 per cent. in 1910 and 56 in 1914. We shall probably not be far wrong in supposing the rural population to be at present about 55 per cent, of the population. The percentage of persons actually working on the farms is another matter. As has been seen, some 30 per cent, of the 5½ million farming families are engaged in agriculture as a secondary business only. It may be, therefore, that the 5½ million families do not actually yield more than 10 million effective farm hands.
[ IS RICE THE RIGHT CROP FOR JAPAN [LXXIX].] Mr. Katsuro Hara, of the College of Literature, Kyoto University, asks, "Is Japan specially adapted for the production of rice?" and answers: "Southern Japan is of course not unfit. But rice does not conform to the climate of northern Japan. This explains the reason why there have been repeated famines. By the choice of this uncertain kind of crop as the principal foodstuff the Japanese have been obliged to acquiesce in a comparatively enhanced cost of living. The tardiness of civilisation may be perhaps partly attributed to this fact. Why did our forefathers prefer rice to other cereals? Was a choice made in Japan? If the choice was made in this country the unwisdom of the choice and of the choosers is now very patent."
Along with this expression of opinion may be set the following figures, showing the total production of rice and of other grain crops during the past six years, in thousands of koku:
| Year | Barley | Naked Barley | Wheat | Barley and Wheat | Rice |
| 1914 | 9,548 | 7,207 | 4,488 | 21,244 | 57,006 |
| 1915 | 10,253 | 8,296 | 5,231 | 23,781 | 55,924 |
| 1916 | 9,559 | 7,921 | 5,869 | 23,350 | 58,442 |
| 1917 | 9,169 | 8,197 | 6,786 | 24,155 | 54,658 |
| 1918 | 8,368 | 7,777 | 6,431 | 22,576 | 54,699 |
| 1919 | 9,664 | 7,995 | 5,611 | 23,271 | 60,818 |
From 1910 to 1919 the areas under barleys and wheat were, in chō, 1,771,655-1,729,148, and under rice 2,949,440-3,104,611.
[ INNER COLONISATION v. FOREIGN EXPANSION [LXXX].] An Introduction to the History of Japan (1921), written by an Imperial University professor and published by the Yamato Society, the members of which include some of the most distinguished men in Japan, says: "It is doubtful whether the backwardness of the north can be solely attributed to its climatic inferiority. Even in the depth of winter the cold in the northern provinces cannot be said to be more unbearable than that of the Scandinavian countries or of north-eastern Germany. The principal cause of the retardation of progress in northern Japan lies rather in the fact that it is comparatively recently exploited.... The northern provinces might have become far more populous, civilised and prosperous than we see them now. Unfortunately for the north, just at the most critical time in its development the attention of the nation was compelled to turn from inner colonisation to foreign relations. The subsequent acquisition of dominions oversea made the nation still more indifferent."
According to a report of the Hokkaido Government in 1921, the number of immigrants during the latest three year period was 90,000, and one and a half million acres are available for cultivation and improvement.
[ AGRICULTURE v. COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY [LXXXI].] There is supposed to be more money invested in land than in commerce or industry. Comprehensive figures of a trustworthy kind establishing the relative importance of agriculture, commerce and industry are not readily obtained. "This is a question," writes a Japanese professor of agriculture to me, "which we should like to study very much." Industrial and commercial figures at the end of and immediately after the War are not of much use because of the inflation of that period. The annual value of agricultural production before the War was about 1,800 million yen; it must be by now about 2,500 or 3,000. In 1912, according to the Department of Finance, the debt of the agricultural population was 740 million yen. In 1916 the Japan Mortgage Bank and the prefectural agricultural and industrial banks had together advanced to agricultural organisations 110 millions and to other borrowers 273 millions. In 1915 co-operative credit associations had advanced 45 millions to farmers and 11 millions to other borrowers. The paid-up capital of companies, was, in 1913, 1,983 million, of which 27 million was agricultural, and in 1916, 2,434 million, of which 31 million was agricultural. The reserves were, in 1913, 542 million, of which 1 million was agricultural, and in 1916, 841 million, of which 3 were agricultural. (For some reason or other, "fishing" is included under "agricultural." On careful dissection I find that of the 45 million of investments credited to agriculture in 1918, only 28 million are purely agricultural.) The land tax is estimated to yield 73 million yen in 1920-1. It is 2½ per cent. on residential land, 4.5 per cent. on paddy and cultivated land—3.2 per cent, in Hokkaido—and 5.5 per cent. on other land—4 per cent. in Hokkaido.