Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

This paper looks at to what extent Nagoya City's policies for foreign residents is facilitating their integration. Seeing integration as multi-dimensional, findings suggest that while structurally integrated, identificational integration seems to be incomplete for Filipino foreign residents.

Paper long abstract:

The literature suggests that integration should be a two-way process in that both receiving societies and migrants are recognized as able to shape migration realities. Japan has been criticized for its restrictive immigration policies yet, foreign residents have access to most social services that a Japanese citizen can access. In a survey I conducted as part of a case study in Nagoya City, Filipino migrants reported living good lives in Japan. Able to access jobs, cheap housing and health services, majority of them feel that their lives have improved after coming to the country. Contrary to expectations however, many of them said that they would eventually go back to the Philippines until their goals, economic and personal, have been achieved. The question this paper asks then is: To what extent are Filipino migrants integrated in Japan?

Seeing social integration as composed of different dimensions, I argue that while structurally integrated, identificational integration seems to be incomplete for Filipino migrants. The local government of Nagoya City has been implementing various programs to facilitate employment of migrants and to provide for various social services. However, for many Filipino residents in the City, access to these services happens through their Filipino networks. As a result many of them feel "at home" in Japan and able to survive only because of their Filipino connections. Coupling this with the top-down and incremental approach of the City towards foreign resident integration, findings suggest that as a result there is no real incentive, nor effort, to integrate into the Japanese society.

Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

This talk will examine recent constitutional amendment proposals from the LDP and other conservative elites and examine where they stand in the long lineage of proposals to revise the Constitution of Japan. Special attention will be given to the differences between the 2005 and 2012 LDP proposals.

Paper long abstract:

In recent years, there have been considerable debates over what Japanese politics had moved to the right, particularly after Prime Minister Abe Shinzo's return to power in 2012. Already before his return to power, the LDP had put the controversial issue of a constitutional amendment back on its agenda, by drafting a new amendment proposal in early 2012. Since then, the government has altered the interpretation of Article Nine, allowing the Self-Defense Forces to be deployed as part of collective self-defense frameworks under certain circumstances. Furthermore, for the first time in postwar history, parties supporting an amendment of the Japanese supreme law hold the two-thirds majorities in both houses of parliament necessary to initiate the process of revising the 70-year old constitution.

Against this backdrop, this presentation will discuss how the debate about potential amendments has changed over the past decades, with a particular focus on changes that have happened during the current decade (2010-2016). I will utilize a comprehensive content analysis of more than 40 amendment proposals published by conservative elites from 1950 through 2014 to 1) highlight continues and discontinuities, 2) discuss recent trends and 3) explain how the most recent notable amendment proposals (not only from the LDP, but also the Sankei Shimbun and others) fit (or do not fit) into this long lineage.

Specifically, I will examine how authors have proposed to change key elements of the Constitution's first three chapters: The Emperor's position, imperial succession, Article 9 and national security as well as fundamental human rights. My analysis shows that compared to previous amendment proposals published before 2010, we see a renewed focus on traditionalism in those proposals published during the last few years. In this context, I will focus especially on the differences between the LDP's 2005 and 2012 proposals and analyze what these changes tell us about domestic politics and the power balance within the LDP.

Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

In recent years, political opponents and the media have approached cabinet scandals as occasions for pursuits of prime ministerial "appointive responsibility." Pinpointing the strategic rationale driving the phenomenon, I show that appointive responsibility operates in two logically opposed forms.

Paper long abstract:

Cabinet scandals and minister resignations happen frequently in Japan. In recent years political opponents and the mass media have approached such cases as occasions for pursuits of the prime minister's "appointive responsibility." Based on a comprehensive source material from the 2006-2012 period, this paper argues that the idea of appointive responsibility has distinct ideological implications. I pinpoint the rhetorical techniques and strategic rationale underlying the phenomenon and show that appointive responsibility operates in two logically opposed forms. Outlining and problematizing both forms, the paper analytically unravels key aspects of a new paradigm of leadership, power, responsibility, and representation in recent Japanese political discourse. Challenging established understandings of what constitutes ideal leadership in Japan, the paper argues that the contours of "proper" executive leadership emerge from repeated signs of its operative absence and functional impossibility.