Yeah I was thinking of bailouts for commercial banks.
They did repeatedly inject capital by buying preferred stock in the early '90s, a lot like what we did, and there was similar effect of the banks being less willing to make loans.
http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/bailout.html
Right. Because the Japanese were very much against nationalizing banks like we are now. Nationalization happened over several years starting from 1996 or 1997, I can't remember and ended in 2003. The 1989 date you have sticks because that's was the date of their peak bubble. They uglied along IMO because of shareholder reluctance to lose their bank equity.
We have to stop thinking like shareholders for nationalization to make sense. We're doing exactly what the Japanese did and it took them a decade to get out of it. Capital infusions don't work because the underlying toxic assets are ignored or dishonestly represented. The systematic nationalization of the Japan banks wiped out shareholders, but also allowed good faith audits to identify and reprice non-performing assets. Nationalization is much cheaper, and in the case of Japan, Sweden, and every other nationalization I can think of as a result of economic collapse -- the seized assets were resold because frankly governments would prefer private entities do the banking.
There's an argument for how nationalization saved the banking industry.