社会学系コンソーシアム

SPRING 2011

NEWSLETTER ISSUE NO.4

１．ご挨拶
巨大災害に望んで厳しい自己変革の実践を！
理事長 庄司興吉

CONTENTS

数百年に一度という巨大地震による被害が、拡大しつつ深刻化しています。東北関東大震災によって亡くなられた方々に深い哀悼の意を表すると

1

ご挨拶

ともに、負傷、病状悪化、発病、避難などのために苦労を強いられている

2

2010 年度事業報告

方々に、心からお見舞いを申し上げます。

32011 年度事業報告

4

シンポジウムについて舞いの意を表したうえで、被害地域会員の会費負担を免ずるなど当面でき52010 年度収支中間報告

ることを実施しました。これからも何ができるかを考え、実施していくつ

62011 年度予算案

もりです。会員の各学会においても、社会福祉や社会政策にかかわる当面

7

参加学協会の動向の研究調査や提言と実践など、それぞれ最大限にできることするべく努力

8

イベントカレンダー中です。

9

共同研究などの呼びかけ

社会学系コンソーシアムとしては、理事長名で声明を出し、哀悼とお見そのうえで中長期的には、社会福祉学・社会学系諸学としては、それぞ

10 国際動向

れの学問領域でこの大震災をどのように受け止め、学問としての自己批判

11 事務局・問い合わせをどのように行い、これからの社会研究をどのように展開し、社会形成にどのように貢献していくべきかについて、検討し、実践していかなくてはならないでしょう。その場合のキーワードは責任です。
数百年に一度の地震を、予測できなかったのは科学の非力さゆえとして、想定して都市・集落づくりや社会生活様式の改善への提言をくり返し行ってきたかどうか、諸科学・諸分野は厳しく反省しなければならないでしょう。数百年に一度は、平均寿命数十年の人間から見れば長い間隔でも、数十億年になる地球の歴史からすれば頻繁に起こるということです。
また、今回の大災害をさらに拡大し深刻化しているのは原発の事故です。
広島・長崎の歴史をもつ日本が、発電の四分の一を原子力に頼り、想定の倍の高さの津波がきたために事故になった、などといっている状態をどう考えるべきなのでしょうか。日本社会の主権は市民にあるわけですから、
私たち市民が科学と技術のあり方と、それらの応用についての社会的選択を適切にしてきたのかどうか、厳しく問われなければならないでしょう。
社会福祉学・社会学系諸学も、他の諸科学とともに、こうした反省と自己変革の努力の最前線に立たなければならないと思います。
1

社会学系コンソーシアム

SPRING 2011

NEWSLETTER ISSUE NO.4

２．2010 年度事業報告

３．2011 年度事業予定

2010年度は、昨年度に引き続きコンソーシア

2011年度は、組織基盤を整えた社会学系コン

ム・ホームページ運営、「NewsLetter」ならびソーシアムが、さらに活動内容を充実させていに「コンソーシアム通信」の発行を行ないまし

く年となります。日本の社会福祉学・社会学のた。また、評議員会と二度の理事会さらに国際国際化に向けて、参加学協会間での情報共有な交流委員会を二度開催しました。

どの点で貢献してまいります。また評議員会のホームページのさらなる充実に向け、トップ

開催やシンポジウムの開催、「コンソーシアム

ページの新着情報欄では、新しい項目に赤字で通信」や「Newsletter」の発行など、定例事業

NEWというマークをつけ、見やすくしました。

もより内容を充実させていく予定です。

またイベントカレンダー・コーナーでは、表示形式を一新することで、閲覧者が見やすいよう✦「コンソーシアム通信」発行に配慮しました。

参加学協会が予定する諸活動に関する情報を｢コンソーシアム通信｣についても、これまで皆様のお手元にお届けします。「コンソーシア

同様、3度にわたって発刊しました（第7号：2010

ム通信」は2011年5月、8月と2012年1月に第8

年5月、第8号：2010年8月、第9号：2011年1月）。

号、第9号、第10号が発行される予定です。

それぞれの内容は、イベント情報、参加学協会
関連情報、また事務局からのお知らせでした。

✦評議員会開催

発足2年目となった評議員会と理事会では、ココンソーシアム評議員（各学協会より2名ずンソーシアム活動の拡大に向けた活発な議論がつ）が集い、評議員会を開催いたします。役員

展開されました。今年度発足した国際交流委員会の任期が2年であるため2011年9月末に役員任での審議をもとに、2014年世界社会学会大会に向期が満了する予定でしたが、2011年1月の評議

けて参加学協会間での協力のあり方や、「戦後日本員会での承認を経て、現評議員および理事・監における社会学系学問の集大成（仮）」事業につい事の任期が2012年3月まで延長されました。

て、審議を行いました。

2011年度の評議員会では、2012年度からの理事選出を行います。

2010年1月30日、日本学術会議講堂にてシンポジウム「再論日本の社会福祉学・社会学の国際化に向けて」を開催しました。「シンポジウ✦コンソーシアム・シンポジウム開催

ムについて」にて、このシンポジウムでの議論

2011年度も、シンポジウムを開催いたします。

を紹介しています。

シンポジウムでは、参加学協会の共通の関心事
や問題、また社会福祉学・社会学領域での重要以上事項などを議論いたします。また、2011年度からは理事会の下に新しく「シンポジウム委員会」を設置し、より充実したシンポジウムの開催を目指します。
✦NewsLetter第5号発行

2010年度のニュースレターを発行し、参加学2

社会学系コンソーシアム

SPRING 2011

NEWSLETTER ISSUE NO.4

協会及び社会への情報提供をさらに充実させてんだ後の全体討論でも、5 つの報告を踏まえて、いきます。

国際化に向けた具体的な活動を考える議論がおこなわれ、文化や国境を超える学問のあり方が模索されました。

４．シンポジウムについて
2011 年 1 月 30 日（日）に社会学系コンソーシ
アム公開シンポジウム「再論日本の社会福祉学・社会学の国際化に向けて」が日本学術会議講堂にて開催されました。当日は加盟団体より多くの参加者にご来場いただきました。
昨年度のシンポジウムに引き続き、今回も「国際化」をテーマとして取り上げました。昨年度は社会福祉学・社会学における国際化の意味とその可能性を議論したことを踏まえ、今年度は 5 名の専門家の報告によって、具体的な事象を通して国際化を論じていただきました。どの報告も示唆に富んだ興味深いものであり、それらを踏まえて全体討論でも活発な議論が展開されました。
最初に、国際的に活動する多国籍企業がローカ
ル人材の育成支援によって現地子会社を成長させるプログラムの紹介を通じて、国際的活動のためのネットワーク形成に必要な要因の報告がなされました（細萱伸子氏：関東社会学会）。続いて保健医療学会におけるグローバリゼーションとローカ
リゼーションの現状（藤澤由和：日本保健医療社
会学会）、さらに IASSW が実施する非排他的な言語政策が紹介されました（秋元樹：日本社会福祉学会）。次に、社会学のディシプリン再考という重要なテーマが取り上げられ、2004 年アメリカ社会学会大会の会長講演を発端としたパブリック社会学のあり方をめぐる国際論争に関する報告がおこなわれました（京谷栄二：日本労働社会学会）。最後に、国際化と研究者の育成をテーマとした報告がおこなわれ、海外留学の現状と海外学位取得者による日本への貢献がどのようなものなのかが示されました（齊藤麻人：地域社会学会）
。休憩を挟

3

社会学系コンソーシアム

SPRING 2011

NEWSLETTER ISSUE NO.4

５．2010 年度収支中間報告（2011 年 3 月 10 日時点）
（自2010年4月1日 至2011年3月31日）
I. 収入の部
科
1

目

予算額

中間報告

予実績差異

会費

530,000

535,000

5,000(1)年会費 1 万円相当

210,000

225,000

15,000

備考

2 年分納付 1
新規加盟(2)年会費 2 万円相当

60,00080,00020,000(3)年会費 3 万円相当

60,00030,000-30,000

半年納付 1

会員数減少による年会費減額団体の影響(4)年会費 10 万円相当

200,000

200,000

02

雑収入・寄付010,131

10,131 利子＋広告収入

3

前年度繰越金

015,27815,278530,000

560,40930,409

中間報告

予実績差異

収入合計

II.

支出の部
科

１

目

予算額

事務局経費

261,800

248,821

12,979(1)スタッフ謝金

240,000

240,000

0(2)HP レンタル・サーバー代

1,800

1,800

0

(3)メールアドレス維持費

16,0000

16,000(4)事務管理用品

4,000

7,021

-3,021

２

借入金償還

100,000

100,000

0３

定例会議・理事会開催費

148,200

122,231

25,969(1)評議員会・理事会開催費

15,00017,000-2,000(2)定例シンポジウム開催費

133,200

101,633

31,567

0

3598

-3598

その他

20,0000

20,000

支出合計中間報告

530,000

471,052

58,948(3)委員会開催費

４

4

備考

国際交流委員会

社会学系コンソーシアム

SPRING 2011

NEWSLETTER ISSUE NO.4

６．2011 年度予算案（2011 年 3 月 10 日現在）
（自 2010 年 4 月 1 日 至 2011 年 3 月 31 日）
I. 収入の部
科
1

目

予算額

会費

550,000(1)年会費 1 万円相当

220,000(2)年会費 2 万円相当

100,000(3)年会費 3 万円相当

30,000(4)年会費 10 万円相当

200,000

2

雑収入・寄付0

3

前年度繰越金

15,278

収入合計

II.

支出の部
科

1

目

予算額

備考

事務局経費

282,000(1)スタッフ謝金

270,000(2)HP レンタル・サーバー代(3)メールアドレス維持費

2565,278

120,000＊2 人

2,000
0

レンタル・サーバー・サービスで兼用(4)事務管理用品

10,000

借入金償還

50,000 2007・08 年度借入金（2011 年度で償還終了予定）

3

定例会議・理事会開催費

180,000(1)評議員会・理事会開催費

30,000(2)定例シンポジウム開催費

140,000(3)委員会開催費

10,000

評議員会 2 回、理事会 1 回

国際交流委員会
シンポジウム委員会

4

その他
支出合計

20,000532,000

5

社会学系コンソーシアム

SPRING 2011

NEWSLETTER ISSUE NO.4

７．参加学協会の動向(2011年3月10日現在、50音順)
参加学協会
環境社会学会
関西社会学会
関東社会学会
社会事業史学会
数理社会学会
地域社会学会
東北社会学研究会
東北社会学会
西日本社会学会
日中社会学会８．2011 年度イベントカレンダー（2011 年 3 月 10 日現在）
５月
7-8 日 社会事業史学会 第 39 回大会（ノートルダム清心女子大学）
http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jshsw/index.html
14-15 日 地域社会学会 第 36 回大会（山口大学吉田キャンパス）http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jarcs/
21-22 日 日本保健医療社会学会 第 37 回大会（大阪大学豊中キャン
パス）
http://square.umin.ac.jp/medsocio/index.htm
21-22 日 西日本社会学会 第 69 回大会（島根大学）
http://www.lit.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~sociowest/img/news134.pdf
28-29 日 関西社会学会 第 62 回大会（甲南女子大学）
http://www.ksac.jp/
29 日 日本社会福祉学会 第 59 回春季大会（東洋大学白山キャンパス）http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jssw/
29 日 第 6 回修論フォーラム（早稲田大学早稲田キャンパス）http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/kss/meeting/information.html

日仏社会学会
日米高齢者保健福祉学会
日本解放社会学会
日本家族社会学会
日本看護福祉学会
日本社会学理論学会

６月
4-5 日 第 59 回北海道社会学会大会（天使大学）
http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/hsa/index.html
11-12 日 福祉社会学会第 9 回大会（東北大学川内キャンパス）http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jwsa/
18-19 日 第 59 回関東社会学会大会（明治大学駿河台キャンパス）http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/kss/congress/information.html

日本社会学会
日本社会学史学会
日本社会情報学会（JASI）

７月
30-31 日 日本看護福祉学会 第 24 回学術大会（長野県看護大学）
http://kangofukushi.sakura.ne.jp/

日本社会情報学会（JSIS）
日本社会福祉学会
日本社会分析学会
日本スポーツ社会学会
日本村落研究学会
日本都市社会学会
日本難病看護学会
日本保健医療社会学会
日本ﾏｽ･ｺﾐｭﾆｹｰｼｮﾝ学会
日本労働社会学会

９月
10-11 日 日本家族社会学会 第 21 回大会（甲南大学）
http://www.wdc-jp.com/jsfs/index.html
１０月
8-9 日 日本社会福祉学会 第 59 回秋季大会（淑徳大学千葉キャンパス）
http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jssw/
29-30 日 日本村落研究学会 第 59 回（2011 年度）大会（熊本県小国町（財）学びやの里「木魂館」）
http://www.kyoto-gakujutsu.co.jp/gakkai/sonken

福祉社会学会
北海道社会学会

入会検討中の学協会
日本老年社会科学会

6社会学系コンソーシアム

SPRING 2011

NEWSLETTER ISSUE NO.4

９．共同研究などの呼びかけ

１０．国際動向
Ⅰ．日本語寄稿

SGSD (Study Group on Societal Development)
On-demand Seminar for English Presentation へ

食をめぐるレポート 米国の状況についての参加呼掛け片野洋平
日本村落研究学会は、農村研究者、特に若手研

日本社会学会、数理社会学会

究者が国際学会で活躍するプラットフォームづく

鳥取大学農学部りをしていきたいとの考えのもと、研究者の英語

食・農・環境の法社会学研究教育分野

によるプレゼンテーション能力向上を目的として
SGSD セミナーを 2005 年に設立しました。
これまで 2008 年 7 月に韓国で行われた国際農村社会学会（IRSA）の第 12 回世界農村社会学会
議や 2010 年 9 月の第 4 回アジア農村社会学会(ARSA)フィリッピン大会に向けて、10 数名の若手がこのセミナーを利用して英語によるプレゼン
テーションのブラシュアップを行っています。
セミナーの形式は On-demand です。プレゼンテーションの希望があり次第、セミナーを開催しています。日時や時間、報告形式も発表者の希望に応じて設定します。ただし、プレゼンテーショ

滞在先 ：University of Washington

ンならびに議論は原則的に英語で行います。また、University of Hawaii

場所も基本的には龍谷大学深草キャンパス(京都

研究領域：食の安全性、農林業、および環境問題

市伏見区深草)です。セミナーには発表者および参に関わる法社会学

加希望者のほか、龍谷大学河村研究室で受け入れている JICA 長期留学生(現在、博士後期課程学生

Veganism（ヴィーガニズム）という考え方や生

4 名、修士課程学生 7 名：Ethiopia, Zambia, In-

活スタイルをご存じでしょうか。Veganism は、もdonesia, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Fiji, East Timor,

ともとは、動物からできる製品を一切使わないよ

Afghanistan)も参加します。

うにする生活スタイルのようですが、典型的には、2014 年には日本での ISA 大会が、2012 年には乳製品や卵を含めた動物由来の食べ物を摂取しな

IRSA の第 13 回世界会議がポルトガルで、2014

い菜食主義を想像すればよいと思います。私が滞年には第 5 回アジア農村社会学会大会が開催され在した米国 Seattle では、こうしたスタイルを実践ます。これらの大会への参加を考えておられる若する Vegan（ヴィーガン）が多数存在します。彼手会員に、この SGSD セミナーを積極的に利用しらのためのレストランなども多数見つけることがて頂きたいと思います。特に「まだまだ英語でのできます。Vegan の住みやすい Vegan friendly な

発表には自信がない」という方こそ、是非ともこ

都市は、Seattle だけでなく、San Francisco, Losのセミナーをご利用ください。

Angeles, Portland といった西部の都市や、Chicago,

詳しくは、コンソーシアム HP をご覧ください。

New York といった大都市に存在します。彼らの生

http://www.socconso.com/callstudygr/index.html
7

社会学系コンソーシアム

SPRING 2011

NEWSLETTER ISSUE NO.4

活スタイルへの志向は、宗教的な理由よりも、む貫くテーマとなっている授業のシラバスを複数調

しろ、動物の権利、環境問題、健康、様々な倫理

べたところ、一学期の中で、飢餓、南北問題、消的な問題への配慮といった、米国における人々の費社会、環境、社会正義、動物の権利、労働、健

不自然な食とのかかわり方への疑問や批判から生康、ジェンダーと身体、グローバリゼーションとじているように思えます。Vegan は一例に過ぎま

いったキーワードがよく扱われているように思えせん。今、米国では、日本同様、食に対する関心ます。研究面において、食は題目として扱われるが高まっているように思えます。

傾向が多いため、学問的潮流や傾向を判断するこ

日本国内では、近年では、不二家、ミートホーとは難しいのですが、多くの社会学者が、食をめ

プ、赤福、船場吉兆などにおける一部の企業の「食ぐる社会現象を、社会学的視点から考察している

品偽装」が問題となりましたが、米国では、生産かというと、必ずしもそういうわけではないと思から消費者の食生活や健康まですべてを含めて考います。むしろ、食に関連するテーマにおいて、

える"food system"のあり方そのものに対する問題

米国社会が自国民や世界の人々に与える影響を考提起が盛んになされているように思えます。たとえれば、米国社会学者の食領域への関わり方はま

えば、効率性を重視することで生じる非人道的なだまだ少ないように感じます。

フードシステムのあり方、遺伝子組み換え作物に以上簡単なレポートとなりますが、近年の米国

みる多様性の破壊、巨大食品企業への権力の集中、民の食への関心を考えると、米国における食関連

食をめぐる社会的不平等、食と劣悪な労働環境、の研究は、社会学も含め増えていく可能性が高い

食と歪んだ健康・医療のあり方などです。こうしと思います。

た問題提起は、例えば、Super Size Me(2004), The
Future of Food(2005), Fast Food Nation(2006),
King Corn(2007), Food Inc.(2008), Food MatⅡ．英文寄稿
Academic Internationalisation in Japanters(2009)といったドキュメンタリー作品の中で興味を持ってご覧頂くことができるでしょう。いずれも、現在の米国のフードシステムや食に関す

LARATTA, Rosario. MPA, MSO, PhD
Graduate School of Governance Studie
Meiji University, Tokyo

るライフスタイルを痛烈に批判しています。
食をめぐる社会現象は、米国において、社会科学（社会学、政治学、経済学）や法律学の領域でも、いくつかの題目から考察されてきました。例
えば、飢餓や飢饉、食とグローバリゼーション、
食と科学技術、食と南北格差、食と社会階層、食と環境、食をめぐる社会運動、食と社会正義、食の安全性とリスク・コミュニケーション、食の安
全性や栄養をめぐる法の形成過程や政治過程などです。社会学に限った場合、食は、米国において、
組織社会学、政治社会学、文化社会学、人口学、
女性学といった領域で教育が行われており、とりわけ、文化社会学においてよく扱われるテーマでAbout the author:
Before his current appointment at Meiji University, heheld a post as Japan Society for the Promotion of
Science Fellow at the University of Tokyo and aあるようです。米国の社会学において食が学期を

8

社会学系コンソーシアム

SPRING 2011

NEWSLETTER ISSUE NO.4

lectureship position at the International Christian
University. He earned an MA and PhD in sociology
from Warwick University (United Kingdom), an MA in
public administration from Bocconi University (Italy)
and a BA in economics and social sciences fromCalabria University (Italy). He is the author of two
books and more than thirty peer-reviewed papers on
leading international journals such as the Cambridge
Journal of Social Policy and Society, the International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, theInternational Journal of Social Welfare, and the International Journal of Civil Society Law. He is amember of a number of academic associations on
nonprofit organizations, social welfare and public
administration in Italy, UK and Japan.

different cultures is shared among students andresearchers everywhere, as I believe it could be,then the internationalisation of universities
would be better understood as an historicalachievement in world history which no country
could resist.
To understand what internationalisation is in
the context of higher education, I believe weshould distinguish between the terms, an ‗ageof internationalisation‘ and an ‗international vision‘. The first of these may be understood
more as a normative perspective for viewing thepotentialities and necessities that students, researchers and faculty members have or facethese days than as an objective characterizationof the age itself as often depicted on university
websites. On the other hand, the international
vision may be considered from an academic
perspective as the driving force that dictates the
direction which both national and foreign students, researchers, and faculty members could
rationally take to operate in a cosmopolitan environment, if they are not deterred by infrastructural or administrative barriers, or evenpersonal attitudes of the students themselves.

Universities in a number of Asian countries arebeing urged, essentially for fiscal reasons, toadopt a more Western academic ethos, a trend
which may be seen in the international promotion of their programmes but which is likely toachieve little more than a boost to their aspirations as global players without a fundamental
change in outlook. In Japan, particularly, where
there has always been a marked preference forindigenous rather than imported models ofhigher education compared to other Asian nations (Nakayama, 1989)*, resistance to new
ideas is making this process a slow one.
Another reason for this inertia relates to the traditional Japanese facility for borrowing ideas
from abroad and adapting them to meet domestic needs, which is turned on its head in this
scenario because the process of internationalisation in higher education requires the ability tomodify home-grown structures and practices tomeet international requirements. So, what does
the future hold for academic internationalisationin Japan?

During my last five years in Tokyo, I haveobserved the Japanese academic communityfrom three different perspectives: first, as aninternational student; then, as a foreign postdoctoral researcher; and currently, as a faculty
member. Based on those years of observation,
if someone were to ask me whether the academic community I currently inhabit is internationalised, my answer would be a resounding no,even though we live in an age of academic internationalisation. The reason for this is that, inmy opinion, the Japanese academic community
often erect barriers against it, preventing theprocess from occurring. In the next part of thisarticle I will give a few examples of these barriers and make some suggestions for improvement.

Whether as a student, researcher or faculty
member, my motivation for travelling to different
countries has always been the desire to seek abetter education, more attractive research environments and first-class intellectual affiliations
in time-honoured indigenous cultures as opposed to ―standardized‖ cultures. If this cosmopolitan vision, this striving for new knowledge
while promoting mutual understanding amongpeople who have been raised and educated in

University Administration Policy
Japanese universities have not yet implemented a solid administration policy to support
equally the needs of national and foreign students and academics. One of the areas where
this lack of support is most noticeable is that ofJapanese language assistance for foreign students and academics. Administration staff at
Japanese universities usually do not speak
English and written communications are inva-*

Nakayama, Shigeru (1989). “Independence and choice: Western impacts on Japanese higher education”. In Philip G. Altbach& Viswanathan Selvaratnam (Eds.), From dependence to autonomy: The development of Asian universities, Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.

9社会学系コンソーシアム

SPRING 2011

NEWSLETTER ISSUE NO.4

riably in Japanese. As a result, foreigners haveto seek help from Japanese friends or colleagues who may or may not be immediately
available, and this often leads to delayed responses or misunderstandings at best. For instance, e-mails in Japanese sent to foreign
students and academics by their secretariats
sometimes relate to possible funding sources.
By the time the recipients realize they can apply,
the deadline has often passed. To be considered as internationalised, universities shouldhave one or two permanent administrative staff
who are trained and can communicate fluently
in English in each department.

This is often no more than a lack of confidence
in their ability to speak English accompanied byan awareness that most foreigners do not understand Japanese. Consequently, Japanese
students tend to create their own circles which
are difficult for foreigners to enter. This unwillingness to communicate also presents a problem for foreign academics in Japan in that many
professors spend entire seminars listening to
the sound of their own voices because Japanese students do not want to ask questions.
This, in my opinion, represents two types ofbarrier - one real and the other artificial. The
real one stems from the fact that many Japanese students have not studied English abroadand so have only a limited ability to express
themselves. However, the artificial one is their
misconception that only fluent English is acceptable. This may be attributable to their unwillingness to lose face by making a mistakeand sounding foolish when they formulatequestions or comments. There is anotherpossible reason for this parochial attitude. Japanese universities are notoriously demanding intheir undergraduate selection procedures but,once in, it is relatively easy to graduate. As aresult, many students consider that, after passing the entry examination, they are on afour-year holiday, during which they are not required to put in too much of an effort.

Working Conditions & Foreign Stereotypes
Another barrier consists in the way foreigners
are contracted to conduct teaching or research
activities by Japanese universities. For example,
it is almost impossible for foreign scholars to gettenure track employment in Japan. This certainly discourages good professors from coming
to teach in this country from abroad. At thesame time, the standard 3 to 4 year contract
makes it impossible for foreign professors tomake any long term plans for themselves andtheir families. An internationalised university
should be able to reward foreign academics
with first-class working conditions. On the same
theme, I found it rather strange that newly employed foreign academics are not notified of
their salary level till they start teaching in Japan,
which can result in some unpleasant surprises!
Many Japanese academics tend to have astereotypical attitude towards foreigners. For
example, they are considered incapable ofworking at the same pace as the Japanese or toneed considerably more leisure time. As a result,
the Japanese tend to avoid sharing administrative or academic tasks with foreign colleagues
even when they may need the help. This canhave two adverse effects: a) it can promote a
feeling of isolation or lack of involvement among
foreign scholars; b) it can encourage unethicalwork practices from certain foreign scholars
who pretend not to speak Japanese or feign
ignorance about the Japanese culture in orderto escape from administrative and/or academic
tasks.

To surmount these barriers will require a
considerable effort from all concerned, including
academic policy makers, faculty deans, administration heads and students alike. This will involve a reappraisal of the relationship between
the universities and the Japanese business
community at large - it is common practice forleading commercial organisations to recruit staff
not from applicants with first-class degrees but
from those graduating from particular colleges.
Secondly, Japanese universities will also haveto establish programmes to enable first year
undergraduate students to study English abroadto proficiency level. Thirdly, universities need to
put in place as quickly as possible a stratum offacilitators to provide general support, and specifically language assistance, not only to foreign
academic and administrative staff but also tostudents from overseas.

Student Attitudes
I recognised the other barrier at student level.
Usually, Japanese students are reluctant tocommunicate with their overseas counterparts.

Let me say here that I am not simply decrying
an institution that has provided me with employment, or disparaging colleagues who haveshown me encouragement and friendship. Fur10

社会学系コンソーシアム

SPRING 2011

NEWSLETTER ISSUE NO.4

thermore, I feel a strong sense of gratitude towards a country that has become my second
home by choice and the motherland of mychildren. My intentions are benevolent and myobjectives constructive, but in order to addressa problem one must first recognise that it exists.
Certain changes need to be implemented,
however, the fundamental change needs to be
one of attitude. The way to success for Japanese universities in the future lies in a wholehearted commitment to internationalism and adesire to overcome the inherited influences of afeudal, monocultural society.

lyst to the mushrooming sociological researcheson the Chinese medical care system reform.
This essay will be divided into three parts. In
the first part, we will introduce a brief history of
China‘s health care reform. This part, however,should not be regarded as merely introductory
but rather a sort of ―critical sociology‖ of Chinese medical care system. The second part willsummarize two competing explanations of thefailed health care system in China and policy
diagnosis—the pro-state and pro-market camps.
The last part will propose a pro-society perspective by reviewing the responses of Chinese
government and providing a brief evaluation of
the ongoing new wave of reform.

Towards a Pro-society Scheme of China’s
Health Care System Reform

A Brief History of China’s Health Care
Reform

LU, Peng PhD
Assistant research fellow of Institute of Sociology at Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences

During the Mao Era (1949-1978)
China built a state-socialist redistribution
system based on the division of urban and ruralin the 1950s. Correspondingly, on thehealth-care institutional front, a bifurcatedhealthcare system, with urban and rural subsystems, was established in the 1950s. In therural areas, the health care service was basedon the ―cooperative medical system‖ (CMS).
The CMS was primarily financed by the welfare
fund of the communes (collective farming, i.e.
the members of communes themselves) without
taxation. It organized the so-called ―barefoot
doctors‖ and health stations to deliver primarycare and provided prescription drugs to the rural
population. For the urban population, healthcenters and hospitals closely associated withthe work units (danwei). Employees of danwei
and their family members could receive a relatively decent level of healthcare, such as freediagnosis and treatment, general medicines andsurgery, based on the Government Insurance
Scheme (GIS) and/or Labor Insurance Scheme(LIS). The GIS was financed by government
budgets, mainly covering the personals withparticular ranks or status such as cadres, servicemen, disabled veterans, teachers, and collogue students. The LIS, which was financed byeach work units‘ own welfare fund, covered not
only its current and retired employees, but also
their dependants.

About the author:
Dr Peng LU is an assistant research fellow at Institute of Sociology, Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences (CASS). He earned his Ph.D. degree insociology at Tsinghua University. His major interestof research is social stratification and class analysis
in transitional society and post-communist regimes.

Health care system reform has been one of
the hottest research issues in sociology of social welfares in China since 2005, when one of
the top governmental advisory bodies in China,
Development Research Center of State Council,
issued a hard-hitting report, which concluded
that ―China‘s current health care system reform
is basically unsuccessful‖. After that, top government
advisers,
scholarsandthestate-controlled media started to openly criticize
the government for failing to avert a growing
crisis in public health care. These critics and theneed to solve those problems became a cata-Though this system had a multitude of problems, it has to be recognized that it achieved
commendable accomplishments. One indicator11社会学系コンソーシアム

SPRING 2011

NEWSLETTER ISSUE NO.4

sonal savings accounts‖. The process of building this new health care insurance model,
however, proceeded slowly. By the end of 1997,
the experimental social health insurance program covered only 9.7% of urban employees. In
many enterprises, in particular state-owned
ones, radical reform plans were not even formally initiated.

of the improvement is the decline in the annual
death rate from about 17 per 1000 in 1952 to
6.34 per 1000 in 1980. In the mean time many
diseases were eliminated or brought undercontrol. Programs for hygiene and health protection were introduced. In a conference held at
Alma Ata in 1978, the WHO took China‘s medical system as a successful model for grass-root
public health institution.

Second Wave of Market-Oriented Healthcare
ReformThe second wave of health care system
reform from 1997 to 2005 was widely regarded
as the full and radical implementation of thereformed urban healthcare system to the nationwide level. On January 1997, the Chinese
government issued a landmark guideline on
health care system reform. The basic (long-run)objective of the guideline was to insure thatevery Chinese would have access to a so-called―basic health protection‖. For the rural population, the strategy was to improve ―new CMS‖ bymobilizing more peasants to participate andgradually expanding its coverage. For urban
and township employees, government tried toestablish a Basic Medical Insurance System(BMIS), which was supposed to be financed by
6% of the wage bill of employing units and 2%of the personal wages in addition to government
contribution. According to the plan, all cities had
to set up their own contribution-based basic
health care insurance schemes by the end of
1999, and all employing units and employees
had to join the schemes. The key word in the―Basic Medical Insurance System‖, however, is―basic‖: health insurance is to cover the ―basic‖
costs, while the costs for ―non-basic‖ expenses,
such as expensive diagnostic treatment andmedicines, have to be paid from out-of-pocket
personal funds.

First Wave of Market-Oriented Healthcare
Reform (1978-1997)
China started its market-oriented economic
reform in 1978. These macro-economicchanges have, in turn, produced major effects
on the organizational, financial, and ideologicalbasis of previous health services.
In rural areas, as communes collapsed,without its funding base, so did the cooperative
medical system. Publicly provided healthcare
became the responsibility of the local governments which, in poor regions, did not have thefinancial resources from taxation to supply
adequate healthcare. The facilities and services
deteriorated. Barefoot doctors found it more
profitable to work full-time in farming or to set up
private practices outside the public-health system. In 1997, only about 10 percent of the rural
population was covered by some form of community-financed health care, down from a peakof 85 percent in 1975. The low-income farmers
cannot afford to pay for healthcare of the same
quality as was previously supplied under thecollectively financed CMS.
In the urban areas, however, central government continued to give priority to providing
for the urban population. In the meantime, government did sponsor some orientation reforms
on the urban health care system, because theprevious costly healthcare system could notsurvive the challenges of the liberalizing economic order. In the 1980s, Chinese government
began to freeze its subsidies to hospitals, which
forced hospitals to rely on profits from charges
on the use of high-end medical equipment andthe sale of medicine. The soared expenditureon pensions, in turn, strengthened the tremendous financial burden of state-run work
units. In order to reduce the increasing spending on the free health care system, in1993, GIS
and LIS were replaced by a pilot city-based social health insurance scheme that combines
so-called ―social pooling financing‖ with ―per-The actual outcomes of this wave of reform,
as introduced in the beginning of this essay,
were frustrating. The public expressed theirdiscontents with unaffordable access and medical impoverishment through numerous sharp
protests throughout the country, receiving frequent media attention. Many average citizens,even if being covered by the BMIS, received
less health care than under the previous ―socialist system‖ because of much higher prices ofhealth care. According to China‘s official 2003
national health survey, about 64% of people inbig cities who should have been treated by adoctor as inpatients choose not to do so be12

社会学系コンソーシアム

SPRING 2011

NEWSLETTER ISSUE NO.4

cause of the cost; in rural areas, that figure wasmore than 73 percent.

system. These efforts were portrayed as a
―Great Reversal‖.

Though Chinese government never officiallyrecognizes that the second wave of health system reform failed, political leaders had actuallyseek for a solution to build a new system. The
central government firstly asked 4 ministries topropose their own initiatives, but they could
compromise with each other. In 2007, the government further invited 9 independent institutes
to propose their own ―reform blueprints‖, including Peking University, Fudan University,
Development Research Center of the StateCouncil, World Bank, WHO, Mckinsey, Beijing
Normal University, Renmin University, andTsinghua University. These consulted experts,
along with other independent scholars, raisedvarious explanations of the failed health systemand different alternatives. In this short essay, we
could not dig too deep to the technical levels.
Rather, we would like to introduce their basic
ideas briefly.

The policy they proposed is to demand thestate to take on greater responsibility as the
economic reform brings greater insecurity. For
them, the state's retreat from the economy
should not mean its retreat from the society.
Chinese health care system was transformed tothe model that had been abandoned in thewake of foundation of socialist regime, that is, aWestern model that put preference over individual, hospital, capital, and urban. Some evensuggested that the ―reasonable elements‖ during the Mao era should be reintroduced andimproved.
The pro-market camp, however, disagreed toblame the failure of the reforms to commercialization, arguing that this understanding failed tocapture the complexities of China‘s health policy
process. Instead, the main weakness of China‘shealthcare system is under-marketization. For
example, some claimed that more private
supply should be encouraged, since the government program deals mainly with public
supply. Some others argued that relying solely
on public supply by local governments andstate-owned units could not lead to increase insupply but an irrational and wasteful health caredelivery system.

Competing Explanations of the Failed Health
Reform
It is widely believed that those 9 independent
institutes actually can be divided into two basic
camps: the pro-state and the pro-market. For
the ―pro-state‖ camp, it was the idea of
neo-liberalism that caused the failed reform.
The health care reforms commencing from the
1980s were described as an attempts to reduce
the role of the state while expanding the functions of the market. Although China‘s transition
from a centrally planned to a market-oriented
economy created unprecedented economic
growth, the same strategy produced dire outcomes in health care delivery. As a result ofdecentralization reform, hospitals were encouraged by local governments to transformthemselvesfromsocialwelfaretofee-for-service organizations, although they still
officially fell into the category of ―non-profit work
units‖. The marketization and commercializationof hospitals immediately resulted in provider-induced over-consumption of health careservices, such as doctors unnecessarily providing more services and charging higher prices.
This ―medical arms race‖, in their opinion, cannot be solved unless the state plays formidable
roles in supervising hospitals. Things became
even worse during the mid-1990s, when thoseessentially ―neo-liberal‖ policies of economic
reforms were implanted into the medical care

In sum, the pro-state camp recommends that(1) the public medical institute should play thedominating role in the reform; (2) public budget
should subsidize the supplier; (3) basic healthservice should not be profit oriented. By contrary, the pro-market camp asks for that (1)public budget should subsidize the demanders;(2) buy medical service via health insurance; (3)medical service should be competitive on themarket.
Responses of the State and Brief Assessment
In April 2009, the Chinese government announced its guidelines for ―new healthcare
reform‖. The core goal of this reform is to provide ―universal healthcare services‖ to thecountry‘s 1.3 billion people. In a wake withgrowing tax revenue generated by a thriving
economy, the central government increased its
health budget by 87 percent between 2006 and2007 alone. This time, the government promises to invest RMB850 billion ($124 billion) on
13

社会学系コンソーシアム

SPRING 2011

NEWSLETTER ISSUE NO.4

healthcare from 2009 to 2011. One year later, anumber of new regulations and guidelines are inplace and local governments announced theirown reform initiatives too.

been jeopardizing the reform by using various
expedient manners to neutralize reform policies.
Therefore, on the one hand, we perhaps shouldseek for a balance between the market and thestate; on the other hand, we should bring thethird ―invisible hand‖, that is, society into boththe explanation and function of health carereform. For example, some argues that the lackof government commitment is the primary reason for the healthcare reform failure. This lackof commitment, however, is a phenomenon thatneeds to be explained according to the sociological perspective. We believe that sociologists
have a nature intellectual advantage and imagination to reveal the reason that the government is unwilling or incapable of shouldering its
responsibilities in the health care sector bylooking at structural dimensions, distribution of
influential resources, policy-making processes,
and other sociopolitical factors. Moreover, since
we are confronting with problems of both market
failure and state failure, a new policy approachof bringing societal forces, in particular
self-organized civil groups and independent
medias, might serve useful purposes to put bothgovernment and hospitals under scrutiny of thepeople. Chinese sociologists are engaging intoa collective effort of ―constructing society‖, andthey should and they can make their own contributions to the health care reform.

It is widely believed that the pro-state campwins the debate. The Chinese President promised a ―bigger government role in public health,with a goal for everyone to enjoy basic healthcare service to continuously improve theirhealth and well being‖. The Chinese government has committed to increasing government
funding for health care by as much as 1 to1.5
percent of its GDP (about $25–$38 billion) overthe next several years, directed to providing
universal basic health care. As a result of the
pouring money, the universal healthcare service
is almost accomplished. The basic medical insurance system has covered 1.23 billion people
by the end of 2009.
A close look at the guideline and related regulations, however, reveals that some suggestions from the pro-market camp have been
adopted, too. As a framework for the reform, theguideline focuses on near-future missions byclaiming to speed both ―the institutional construction of basic medical service‖ and ―fiscal
investment to the public medical institutes‖. Thatmeans both the demanders and suppliers are
subsidized.
In fact, whether the government should provide service or buy service (via insurance) is stilla debatable topic, which makes the pilot reformof public hospital became the focal point. This
reform, however, has not made substantial
progresses so far. The guideline of this reform
did not release until February 2010 and only 8
cities publicized their concrete regulations by
November 2010. The reform of health caresystem cannot be completed without a successful transformation of public hospitals.

Development of Sociology in Mongolia: The
Brief View
MUNKHBAT, Orolmaa. PhD, Professor
Head of Department of Sociology and Social
Work, National University of Mongolia

Current researches focus on how to tailor
correct policies. We do not dispute that policy
and system designs for healthcare are very
important, but the major challenge is not thepolicy design but the low level of state capacity,or the difficulties in policy implementation.
Scholars have been arguing that the Chinesestate at both central and local level had much
more difficulty in achieving its policy goals forhealth reform than it might have expected. In
fact, various groups of vested interests have

About the author:
Prof. Munkhbat Orolmaa is a Head of the department14

社会学系コンソーシアム

SPRING 2011

NEWSLETTER ISSUE NO.4

of Sociology and Social work, Director of the Social
Research Institute, and School of Social Sciences
at National University of Mongolia.

lowed sociological existence in very restrictedlevel.
Than sociology considered by communist
nomenclature as not social science but just research method. In this level, first sociologicalresearch laboratory1 was established in the midof 1970s at the National University of Mongolia
and its main research focuses were on student
socialization and education. Lately, at Academia
of Science of Mongolia were opened sociological sector.2

Country profile of MongoliaFirst of all, I would to like to introduce mycountry to readers.
Mongolia is developing democratic country
with huge territory rich in natural resourses andlandlocked nation in central Asia, bordered by
Russia to the north and the People's Republic ofChina to the south. In the 13th century, Mongolia was the center of the Mongol Empire, thelargest empire in world history. After more thana century of power, the Mongol Empire ended
and Mongolia fell back into a state of internal
struggle and feuds, which paved the way for the
Manchu conquest of Inner Mongolia in 1636
and the submission of Outer Mongolia in 1691.
Both Inner and Outer Mongolia declared independence in 1911 after collapse of Manchu
Empire, but only Outer Mongolia succeeded. In
opposite to popular wrong understanding,Mongolia never been under Chinese rule. Both
two nations were under Manchu empire formore than 200 years and both regained independence in the beginning of 20 century. For
long time two nations had not diplomatic relations, but after the establishment of the People's
Republic of China, both countries recognizedeach other on October 6th, 1949. Now, Inner
Mongolia, the largest part of Mongol Empire ispart of Peoples`s Republic of China and Buryad
Mongolia become part of Russian Federation.

But after ending of Khrushev liberalization,with start of cold war and with leadership of
Leonid Brejnev, new communist party leader of
USSR, sociology was shutdown in Soviet Unionand in its pro-communist allies. Ideologicallymotivated ―Scientific communism‖ declared by
Communist party leadership as only social
science of Marxism-Leninism. Fortunately, thesociological sector at Academia of Science survived and continued to implement modest research projects on socialist living style, disappearance of differences between working andherder social classes and leisure time of laborers. In 1974, the first sociological book named―Applied research methods of Marxist sociology‖ has been published in Mongolian.
Starting in the late 1980s, with M. Gorbachev`s ―Perestroika‖ attempts to revive the discipline were undertaken in the Soviet Union andin other communist, procommunist countries,
including Mongolia. In 1990, at the Political Institute (former Party high School) were established Center of Sociology 3 and opened 2
year`s sociological program. But after first
graduation, the program had been closed.

Sociology in period of communism in Mongolia
Despite a sociological idea takes its origin far
from social, philosophical and religious thinkingof Mongolian people in ancient time, sociology
in its modern understanding started to develop
in late of 60s of 20th century. During that time,
Mongolia has been under strong influence andcontrol of communist Soviet Union (USSR) not
just politically but spiritually. In 1960s, the Nikita
Khrushev the former Soviet leader`s period ofliberalization of USSR, communist party bureaucracy slowly started to allow to somesciences including sociology declared false,bourgeois, to develop in the country. In parallelwith this process, Soviet higher educational institutions began to open few sociological programs. Mongolia as pro-soviet country also al-

Sociological development in post communist period of Mongolia
With collapse of Communism in Mongolia,
traditional social sciences faced great changes.
Ideologically motivated false sciences likescientific communism, Marxist Leninist historicalmaterialism were disappeared. In parallel with
this, new social sciences as sociology and po1

Among first sociologists were outstanding Mongolian sociologists as Dr Havkh.N, Dr Otgonnasan.B.
2
In this sector were working such Mongolian sociological classics as Dr Urtnasan.Ts, Dr Purev, Dr Dashdavaa and Dr Gundsambuu.
3
Dr Bandangombo, who is outstanding Mongolian sociologist
was the founder and head of the center

15

社会学系コンソーシアム

SPRING 2011

NEWSLETTER ISSUE NO.4

litical sciences were developing quickly.

basing on and actualizing empirical researches
that brought social sciences to theoretical andmethodological lack. Coping with this, the department`s faculty members try to fill this gap by
writing theoretical monographs, books while
promoting both theoretical, empirical research
capacity building among students and practitioners.

In 1991, department of Sociology, the first
dedicated professional department wereopened at National University of Mongolia withbachelor and Master programs.4 Also, processof privatization of socialist state property andtransition from planned economy to market one
allowed open few private higher educational
institutions with sociological profile.5

Also, department of sociology, NUM has implemented research project ―Mongolian public
Opinion‖ in collaboration and funding with Japanese newspaper ―Asahi shin bun‖ in
1992-1993. It was first sociological research
project in Mongolia done with western developed countries. The project focused on public
opinion about political system of the nation, itsleaders and future development of the country.
Also, Mongolian public perception on Japanesepeople has been asked for first time.

Also, the Mongolian Sociological Association6
was created in 1991 and after 2 years gainedInternational Sociological Association`s membership. But due to lack of funding, Mongoliansociologists still can not attend in ISA congresses.
Today, department of sociology of National
University of Mongolia is the only higher sociological institution with Bachelor, Master and PhD
programs in sociology. With the establishmentof a formal social work program at NUM, thedepartment was reorganized in 2001 as Department of Sociology and Social Work. Currently, the department has 13 full time faculty
members, three part time faculty (four of them
are with PhD degree), 21 PhD students, 13
master students in Sociology, 9 Master students
in Social Work and 98 Sociological, 115 Social
work undergraduate students. As of now the
Department has trained 301 bachelors in Sociology, 116 bachelors in Social Work, 40 masters
in Sociology, 3 masters in Social work and 3
doctors (PhD). These numbers are significant
for the country with 3 million population. The
Department is the comparatively oldest institution in the country that trains specialists in thefield of sociology and social work, and it collaborates with the government of Mongolia, academic organizations and NGOs very closely.

In second time, the department had conducted social research project ―Japanese language among Mongolians‖ in collaboration withJapanese Research Center in 1996. The research revealed opinion of Mongolians toward
Japanese language learning intention. According to research finding, Japanese language wasone of favorite foreign languages among Mongolians specially among youth ones. They consider Japanese language as better chance forreceiving a high competitive education in Japan.
Last research project ―Mongolian public opinion towards Japan and its people‖7 was conducted in 2007 and funded by Japanese Embassy in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. Main goals of
the research were to study public opinions ofMongolia on Japanese language and culture
and current situation and future trends of relations between Japan and Mongolia. According
to this research, Mongolians think Japan as
second important economic and diplomatic ally
after USA. In view of Mongolians, Japan is thecountry with advanced technology, developedsciences, strong economy and sumo wrestling.
Most Mongolians believe that collaboration andpartnership between two countries have a good
perspective in the future.

The department gives priority to institutionalization of sociology by translating of European
and other western sociologist`s academic books,
textbooks and writing own sociological books in
Mongolian. After collapse of Marxist-Leninist
ideology and its strong censorship, Mongoliansocial scientists widely avoided any theory by4

Dr Otgonnasan.B was the first head of the department ofsociology at NUM.
5Dr Dashdavaa and Dr Zorigt were pioneers in promoting sociology into private sector.
6First president of the MSA was Dr Tumurochir, who became
lately the speaker of Mongolian parliament.

7

The research data was used in author`s presentation in the 8th
East Asian Sociologist`s Conference “Towards East-Asian
Community in the age of Globalization” in Pusan, South Korea
October 29-31, 2010.

16社会学系コンソーシアム

SPRING 2011

NEWSLETTER ISSUE NO.4

As readers see from above named facts,
compared with Germany, France, or the UnitedStates, sociology in Mongolia is a very young
discipline. However, for comparatively shorttime, sociology could become one of most influenced, recognized social sciences in Mongolia. The research area of Mongolian sociologists
is enough wide and they mostly focus on traditional social problems as social differentiation,
stratification, poverty, alcohol addiction, internalmigration and educational issues. For last years,
Mongolian sociologists start to discover untraditional for Mongolia new research areas like environmental, gender, anti-corruption and humanrights issues. Also, policy research becomesone leading research forms for Mongolian sociology.
But for Mongolian public, sociology still remains as opinion polling. It was determined by
specifics of sociological development in 1990s.
Most sociologists were adhered to structuralfunctionalism (mostly because this concept wasclose to Marxist sociological ideas), their normative prescriptivism, and almost exclusive reliance on opinion polls, shaped the public faceof post-communist sociology for years to come.
For the media and most non-social scientists,"sociology" has become synonymous with opinion polling.
However, Mongolian sociology slowly but
confidentially becomes real social science
which analyzes different social problems anddevelops a social technologies for resolving
these issues for future development of Mongolian society.

17社会学系コンソーシアム

SPRING 2011

NEWSLETTER ISSUE NO.4

１１．事務局・問い合わせ「編集後記」
今般の東北地方での大地震とその被害状況に、大変心を痛めております。事務局一同、我々に何ができるのかと自問しつつ、参加学協会の皆様と周囲の方々のご無事を心から願っております。

事務局（上智大学内）
藤田泰昌
芝井清久

TEL

：03-3238-3567

E-mail：socconsortium@socconso.com

18