Many researchers advocated the dual structure theoretics of the Japanese economy as a “theory” or “ism”, after WWII. It was mainly advocated by Hiromi Arisawa. The post-war argument was that, following reconstruction through the priority production system devised by Arisawa, Japanese industry has a dual structure, with modern enterprises that are developing remarkably and, conversely, enterprises that are lagging behind in modernization and stagnating. This non-modern part consists of small and medium-sized institutes. This view was reflected in policy, and the 1964 White Paper on Small and Medium Enterprises had the key words “dual structure and the problem of inequality”. The problem with this argument is that Japanese capitalism sets up a hierarchy of monopoly capital, giant light industry and small and medium-sized enterprises (SME). The SME is seen as subordinate to giant capital. In this case, SMEs have tended to emphasize the anti-monopoly perspective. Even so, the SME are just like giant capital in the sense that they exploit and deprive laborers, but the dual structure theory has neglected this aspect. A further misunderstanding was that the SME were generally discussed in terms of servility and unproductivity. The dual structure theory was replaced by the positive SME theory in the 1960s. This was a tendency to discuss the SME not as a victim layer of monopolies, but from the logic of capitalism in general. The conclusion was also drawn that conventional the SME, as presented there, were the exception to the rule. However, even in the 1980s, there was still a tendency to rely on the dual structure theory in the study of Buraku issues.

In its “Essence of the Dowa Issue”, the Dowa Council Report states that historically, “the fact that the residents of the Dowa area (Buraku) were marginalized from the production process of the major industries of the period and engaged in “miscellaneous” work, regarded as low-level work, was a factor that hindered their rise in social status and the path to emancipation.” Yoshikazu Akisada more specifically states that the leather industry itself was the object of discrimination: “As can be said of the leather industry in general, the fact that it was considered lowly as a Buraku industry prevented the inflow of general capital and labor to a certain extent.” This logic paradoxically suggests that the industry’s superiority was maintained by being subject to discrimination, but it is self-contradictory to the argument on the one hand that people were disadvantaged by discrimination. It also contradicts the view of Tomohiko Harada et al. that simply put, in the competitive market of Japanese capitalism, big capital is taking away and crushing the skin and flesh as a “Buraku industry.” More simply put, these are arguments that seek to emphasize the differences of the Burakumin in comparison with the general public. The acceptance of this difference by the Burakumin has long led to a self-aggravating downward spiral contradiction of accepting Buraku discrimination.