For any country, a trade monopoly with a single country is not beneficial. Such as the case in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when the Netherlands monopolized trade with Japan. Countries should always strive to have as many trade partners as possible. The laws of macroeconomics dictate that the ideal situation is for countries to focus their production efforts on that which they comparably do best. This cannot happen when a trade monopoly exists.
Yes, the Dutch monopoly on trade with Japan during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries hurt Japan's development. Countries with a more diverse group of trading partners were exposed to more new ideas which aided in their development. Japan received little trade exposure with other countries and would not have been aware of developments that were taking place in other countries.
Throughout most of its history Japan maintained a highly isolationist political and economic system. They did not trade with foreign nations at all until the age of imperialism. Western nations found it incredibly difficult to make inroads into both China and Japan to establish trade links at that time to the detriment of the industrial development of those countries. If the Dutch hadn't traded with Japan, they would have been even more isolated internationally than they already were.
The Dutch East India Company earned the right to trade with Japan by helping them to thwart uprisings. Japan imposed strict guidelines in allowing the purchase of luxury items by the Dutch. The Dutch were allowed to trade only in certain areas and they were to refrain from any type of Christianity while in Japanese waters. Each year the Dutch East India Company presented themselves to the Shogun's court for the privilege of being allowed to continue trading with Japan.