日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[9] JGSS Research Series No.6

Whose Size Counts?
Multilevel Analysis of Japanese Anti-Immigrant Attitudes Based on JGSS-2006
Kikuko NAGAYOSHI
Graduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University/
Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science
排外意識に対する外国籍人口割合の効果−JGSS-2006 をもちいたマルチレベル分析から−
永吉 希久子大阪大学人間科学研究科社会環境学専攻博士後期課程／
日本学術振興会特別研究員 DC1
The aim of this study is to examine how the size of foreign resident populations affects
Japanese anti-immigrant attitudes. In previous research, it has been found that the size of foreign
resident populations strengthens the anti-immigrant attitude, while the portion of Koreans among
the foreign residents weakens it.

According to the group threat theory, the possibility ofcompeting for scarce resources between foreign residents and host residents as well as the ethnicityof the foreign residents could be the cause.

From this viewpoint, we examine the effect of thefollowing factors: size and rate of increase of foreign resident population as a whole, size of
foreign residents divided according to their nationality, the portion of self-employed, manual
workers, and Old-Comers among foreign residents, and the economic conditions of the regions.
By analyzing JGSS-2006 data, the following results are found: a large size of South American andChinese populations, a large portion of manual workers among foreign residents, and a rapid
increase of foreign residents strengthens the anti-immigrant attitude. The portion of manual
workers especially plays an important role.
Key Words: JGSS, xenophobia, group threat theory
本稿の目的は、排外意識に外国籍者の人口割合が与える効果が、なぜ彼らの国籍によって異なるのかを明らかにすることにある。集団脅威仮説によれば、対象となる外国籍者のエスニシティとともに、彼らが希少な資源をめぐる競争を引き起こす可能性も排外意識に影響を与えていると考えられる。このような視点から、本稿では、外国籍者の人口割合、その増加率、国籍別人口割合とともに、外国籍労働者における自営業者、マニュアル職者の割合が排外意識に与える影響を検討した。JGSS-2006 を用いた分析の結果、南米または中国籍者の割合と外国籍人口の増加率だけでなく、外国籍労働者の中でのマニュアル職者の割合が排外意識に大きな影響を与えていることが明らかになった。本稿の結果から、外国籍者の割合が排外意識に影響を与えるのは、彼らがホスト社会と仕事などの希少な資源を争う存在となる場合においてであると示唆される。
キーワード：JGSS，排外意識，集団脅威仮説

157

日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[9] JGSS Research Series No.6

1. Introduction
At the end of 2007, the number of foreign residents in Japan was over 2,150,000, having grownby 50 percent over the previous ten years. In 2008, the government started to accept care workers fromIndonesia on the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA). They also proclaimed their plan that, by
2025, they would have accepted one million foreign students. There are many standpoints around theissue of whether the state should accept more foreign workers or not but, despite this, Japan has started
to expand its range of acceptance. However, many researchers also point out that Japanese society is
still exclusive with regard to foreign people (e.g., Peng-Er 2005). There is a persistent belief in theirethnic homogeneity, so Japanese people treat foreign residents as outsiders as long as they arephysically or culturally distinguished from “Japanese” (Imazu 1993; Murphey-Shigematsu 2006;
Tsuda 2006). Under these conditions, the determinants of anti-immigrant attitudes came to receive theattentions of researchers in Japan.
These researchers mainly focus on individual factors and find almost the same results as previous
researches in Europe or the U.S.; age, social status such as education or economic conditions, andcontact with foreigners have significant effects (Tanabe 2001; Ohtsuki 2006; Nukaga 2006; Nagayoshi2008). In contrast, regional level factors are rarely examined in Japan. The only exception is the sizeof the foreign population, and it has a positive effect on the anti-immigrant attitude (Ohtsuki 2006;
Nukaga 2006). This effect is mediated by the threat perception (Nagayoshi 2008). Moreover, they alsofind that the size of the foreign population has different effects according to their nationalities. Nukaga(2006) reveals that the proportion of resident Koreans among all foreign residents negatively affects
the anti-immigrant attitude. On the contrary, people are more likely to show strong prejudice towardforeigners in areas where there is a larger proportion of Brazilians (Nakazawa 2007). Consequently,
why is there such diversity of effects according to the nationalities of foreign residents?
The size of the foreign population or ethnic minorities shows unclear effects on anti-immigrant or
anti-minority attitudes in the U.S. and in European countries as well. The size of the African American
population affects anti-African American prejudice whereas that of Hispanics or Asian Americans has
little or no effect on anti-Hispanic or anti-Asian American prejudice (Taylor 1998; Dixon 2006). In
European countries, the size of foreign population has little effect, if any, on anti-immigrant attitudes(Quillian 1995; Semynov et al. 2004; Hjerm 2007) with few exceptions (Semynov et al. 2006). Thus,
some researchers assume that it is not the size of the foreign population, but the size of the African
American population in the U.S. that has an important meaning. Consequently, we may be able to saythat Koreans and Brazilians also occupy a special position in Japanese society. However, in what
aspect are they special?
In previous researches, the mechanism in which size of each ethnicity affects differently is not soclear. The long history of fighting against prejudice is assumed as a background factor of reducing
effects of Korean populations on anti-immigrant attitudes in Japan (Nukaga 2006), though the samelegacy is assumed as the source of White opposition toward African Americans (Bobo & Hutchings1996). This unclearness seems to relate to the indicators they use. In previous researches, foreign
residents are divided only according to their ethnicities. However, ethnicity correlates several otherfactors such as social positions within a host society; some ethnic groups are likely to live ineconomically wealthy areas, while others are not; some are likely to compete against host residents forjobs while others usually work within an ethnic niche. From the viewpoint of the group threat theory,these differences of social positions seem to affect anti-immigrant attitudes; therefore, the differencesof effects of size according to their nationalities may stem from differences of their social position.
These differences of social positions, however, are seldom taken into account in the previous

158

日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[9] JGSS Research Series No.6

researches. From this point of view, this paper tests effects of size of foreign populations divided bytheir social positions as well as other factors that are assumed to affect the differences of effects of sizein previous researches.

2. Theories and Hypotheses
Why does the size of the foreign resident population affect anti-immigrant attitudes differently
according to their nationalities? This can be explained through the group threat theory. Blumer (1958)
points out that there are four basic types of feeling present in prejudice in the dominant group; 1) a
feeling of superiority, 2) a feeling that the subordinate group is intrinsically different and alien, 3) afeeling of proprietary claim to certain areas of privilege and advantage, and 4) fear and suspicion thatthe subordinate group harbors designs on the prerogatives of the dominant group. The fourth type offeeling works as a trigger while the other feelings are the base of the prejudice. This implies that there
are two attributions of ethnic minorities affecting prejudice toward them: ethnicity and social position.
Host residents have an ethnic hierarchy, and if host residents do not feel that they are superior toan ethnic group, they have little prejudice to members of that group. In other words, if some ethnic
groups are not seen to be in lower positions than the host residents, the number of them is not sourceof hostility. The researches in the U.S. find that the proportion of African Americans has a positiveeffect on prejudice while that of Hispanics or Asians has no effect (Taylor 1998; Dixon 2006). Taylor(1998) interprets these results:
Objectively, Asian Americans or Latinos are more likely than are African Americans to havethe resources to make them serious competitors with whites in the economic and political realms;
but whites’ more benign disposition toward Asian Americans or Latinos may prevent the arousal of
threat reactions. (Taylor 1998: 533)
Here, what makes a difference on the host residents’ anti-immigrant attitudes is the ethnicity of
those in question and the pre-existing view toward each ethnic group. If we think about the Japanesecase, Japanese people also have an ethnic hierarchy. Tanabe (2008; forthcoming) analyzes Japaneseimage of foreign countries, and finds the following results; Western countries are held in highpositions, China and South Korea in the middle, other Asian, African, and South American countries in
the lowest position (Tanabe forthcoming). However, when it comes to favorability, Japanese people
like Western European countries the most, China and Middle Eastern countries the least, and the SouthAmerican or East Asian countries are in the middle (Tanabe 2008). Western countries, such as thedemocratic European countries, North American countries and Australia, are high in the hierarchy aswell as in the favorability ranking. In contrast, Japanese people’s views toward the other countries are
not so clear: Japanese people like South American countries relatively but put them at the bottom of
the hierarchy. At the same time, Japanese people put Korea or China in the middle positions of thehierarchy but show negative attitudes toward them. These images of each country might affectJapanese images of those from that country. Therefore, the size of foreign residents from Westerncountries might negatively affect anti-immigrant attitudes while the size of those from other countries
might have somewhat positive effects.
H1: The effect of size of foreign resident populations differs according to their ethnicities; size of
foreign residents from western countries negatively affects anti-immigrant attitudes while size ofother national groups positively affects them.

159日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[9] JGSS Research Series No.6

However, as Blumer (1958) says, there seems to be no group prejudice when the ethnic hierarchy
is solidified in to a structure which is accepted or respected by all (Blumer 1958: 4). A sense of group
position is just the base of prejudice, and prejudice is aroused by conditions unsuitable for that sense.
Host residents have strong anti-immigrant attitudes when they perceive immigrants as a threat which
shakes the privileged position of the host residents. For example, they perceive that their jobs or
benefits from social security are robbed by immigrants. From this view, sizes of foreign residents whocompete over such scarce resources with host residents affect anti-immigrant attitudes. In other words,
the host residents may not feel threatened when there is no competition between immigrants and thehost residents. This can be the case when immigrants work in a professional capacity, such as foreign
language teachers for example, or in ethnic niche work, such as owing an ethnic food store. Taylor(1998) raises one possible reason why the size of Hispanic population does not affect anti-Hispanic
prejudice: they own their own stores and are perceived as economically integrated into the host society.
On the contrary, some types of jobs are more likely to be perceived as more competitive—manual
work being one such example.
From these viewpoints, the following hypotheses can be established:
H2: The rate of self-employment among foreign workers has a negative effect on anti-immigrant
attitudes.
H3: The rate of manual workers among foreign workers has a positive effect on anti-immigrant
attitudes.
Moreover, host residents feel more threatened when the number of immigrants increases rapidly.
In the Japanese case, the size of the Korean population has decreased during these years while the sizeof the Chinese and Brazilian populations has shown a rapid increase (Figure 1). This may be the causeof the differences in the effects on anti-immigrant attitudes. However, in previous research, the rapid
increase of immigrants seems not to have had any effect (Semynov et al. 2006; Scheepers et al. 2002).

(thousands)

H4: The more rapidly the size of foreign resident population increases, the more negative theattitudes toward immigrants that Japanese citizens in that area have.
800
700
600

China

500

Korea

400

BrazilPhilippines

300

Peru

200

the U.S.

100

Others

0
1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

Figure 1

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Trends of the Number of Each Nationality

Note) Number is obtained from Ministry of Justice (2007)

If we focus on Japanese context, a different explanation comes up; separation between“Old-Comers” and “New-Comers” has a meaning. The term of “Old-Comers” indicates those from160

日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[9] JGSS Research Series No.6

former colonies who stayed in Japan after the end of the Second World War or are their descendents.
They are not voluntary migrants as “New-Comers”, such as Brazilians or Peruvians, but were forced
to come to Japan during World War II, and stayed there after the war. They also have a long history offighting against institutional and social discrimination and as a result, they have won some rights (Pak
2000: 263). Their long history of struggles may realize to reduce prejudice of host residents.
Nakazawa (2007) finds that in areas where there are a large number of Koreans, the largest ethnic
group among Old-Comers, education shows negative effects on prejudice toward foreigners while itshows positive effects in other areas. He mentions that this is because human rights education hascaught on more in these areas (Nakazawa 2007: 86). Thus, it can be assumed that the effect of thenumber of Koreans stems from these historical backgrounds as mentioned by Nukaga (2006)(1) What is
important here is not the ethnicity of Koreans but the fact that, as a group, they have a long history ofliving in Japan, in other words a position as Old-Comers.
H5: The larger the size of Old-Comers, the less the anti-immigrant attitude of Japanese residents inthat area.

3. Data and Variables
3.1 Overview of the Data
This paper uses the data of the Japanese General Social Survey 2006 (JGSS-2006). It was
conducted from October to December by the project members mainly from the Institute of Regional
Studies, Osaka University of Commerce and their major project partner, the Institute of Social Science,
University of Tokyo. Japanese nationals aged between 20 and 89 were surveyed. Stratified multistage
random sampling was used as a sampling method. The respondents were asked to answer the two
types of questionnaire: one was a face-to-face survey and the other was a placement method survey.
The placement method survey had two types of questionnaire (Type A and Type B), and each was donewith half of the respondents. This paper uses the items in a face-to-face questionnaire and a type-A
placement method questionnaire. The type-A placement method questionnaire had valid responses
from 2124 respondents (59.8%). In this paper, 1800 respondents who answered all the questions in theanalyses of this paper are used.
3.2 Variables
The dependent variable here is anti-immigrant attitude. It is usually conceptualized as prejudicestoward immigrants (e.g. Kunovich 2002), which are composed of attitudes toward the increase of
immigrants and perception toward the effect of such increase. In most cases, an indicator ofanti-immigrant attitude is made by several items, but here the following question is posed: Are you foror against the increase in the number of foreigners in your community? This question does not refer toimmigrants but immigration, and these two are not the same things. However, this indicator can be
expected to have strong correlation with anti-immigrant attitudes. In other words, negation of anincrease of immigrants is assumed to represents a weak form of that attitude. In fact, it is usually used
as an item that composes of an indicator of anti-immigrant attitudes (e.g. McLaren & Johnson 2007).
Therefore, this item can be used as indicator of anti-immigrant attitudes. This question has two
possible answers: “agree” or “disagree.” If a respondent answers “disagree,” this is treated as having
higher anti-immigrant attitudes.
To test the hypotheses written above, several indicators are used as context variables (Table 1).
For all of the contextual indicators, the prefecture is the unit of “region.” From the viewpoint of the161

日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[9] JGSS Research Series No.6

group threat theory, anti-immigrant attitudes are stimulated by the struggle between host residents andimmigrants over scarce resources. Then, the amount of scarce resources, such as job opportunities andgood education and so on, should matter. In Japan, city governments take responsibility for these basic
needs for residents. However, in the small cities, the responsibility for social security is mostly ownedby the prefecture government. Moreover, the prefecture is a basic unit in a census. Therefore, theprefecture can be an appropriate unit for people to use as a reference point when they perceive thestruggle for scarce resources.
First, size of foreign resident population as a whole and size of each nationality, such as Koreans,
Chinese, Westerners (those from the U.S., Canada, European countries, Australia, or New Zealand),South Americans (those from Brazil or Peru) and the other foreign residents, are used. Each size
indicates percentage of foreign resident population or of each nationality in whole population in aprefecture. Data of number of foreign resident population and data of number of each nationality aretaken from Ministry of Justice (2008), and data of whole population in each prefecture is taken from
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (2007a)(2) We need to make notice that we do not use
the size of each ethnicity but the size of each nationality because we do not have access to data of sizeof each ethnicity. That is, those from Africa who have European nationalities are included inWesterners, and Korean residents who already have Japanese nationality are not included in the
Korean category.
To test hypotheses 2 and 3, portion of self-employed and portion of manual workers among
foreign workers are used. These portions are taken from the Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications (2008a). Then, to test hypothesis 4, the increase rate of the size of foreign resident
population is also used. This indicator represents a change of the percentage of foreign resident
population in whole population from 1995 to 2006. Number of foreign resident population and numberof whole population in each prefecture in 1995 are taken from the Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunication (2000). Moreover, to test hypothesis 5, the proportion of special permanent residents
among all foreign residents in each region is used as an indicator of portion of Old-Comers, since thisresidential status is granted to those from former colonies stayed in Japan after the Second World War
and lost their Japanese nationalities as a result of Treaty of Peace with Japan or are their descendents.
Number of special permanent residents is taken from Ministry of Justice (2008).
Economic condition of each region assumes to affect both of size of foreign residents andanti-immigrant attitudes. Foreign residents, especially “New-Comers”, are likely to live in wealthy
regions. Moreover, anti-immigrant attitudes become strong in regions where the economic conditions
are relatively poor (Quillian 1995; Scheepers et al. 2002; Semynov et al. 2006; Hjerm 2007).
Therefore, to test effect of size of foreign residents on anti-immigrant attitudes, we need to control
effect of economic conditions of regions. In this research, two indicators are used. One isunemployment rate of each region. Data of unemployment rate is a model-based estimation of the
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (2007b). The other is tax power that is indicated byfinancial capability index. Financial capability index refers to the figures calculated by dividing
standard financial revenues of a local government by the standard financial needs. Higher the index is,the better the economic condition of the region is. In accordance with customary practice, three-year
average of the indexes, in this case average of the indexes for 2004, 2005, and 2006, is used. Data offinancial capability indexes are according to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication(2007c; 2008b) and Zaisei Tohkei Kenkyujo (2006).

162

日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[9] JGSS Research Series No.6

Table 1

Definition of Contextual Variables

Indicator

Definition

Size of Foreign Population as a Whole 100 * (Foreign Population in Each Prefecture) / (Whole Population in Each Prefecture)
Size of Each Nationalities

100 * (Population of Each Nationality in Each Prefecture) / (Whole Population in Each Prefecture)

Portion of Old-Comers

100 * (Population of Special Permanent Residents in Each Prefecture) / (Whole Foreign Population in Each Prefecture)

Portion of Self-Employed

100 * (Population of Self-Employed Foreign Workers in Each Prefecture) / (Whole Foreign Worker Population)

Portion of Manual Workers

100 * (Population of Manual Foreign Workers in Each Prefecture) / (Whole Foreign Worker Population)

Increase Rate

(Size of Foreign Population in 2006) - (Size of Foreign Population in 1995)

Unemployment Rate

Model-based Estimation for the Ministry of International Affairs and Communications(2007b)Tax Power

Financial Capability Index of Each Prefecture (Three-Year Average)

In addition to these regional variables, individual variables are also considered, since thesevariables do not always equally disperse across regions. If these individual variables have an effect on
anti-immigrant attitudes, and if we do not control such effects, we may overlook or exaggerate theeffects of contextual variables. Age is assumed to have an effect on people’s attitudes toward cultural
diversity (Mulder & Krahn 2005) and their exclusionary views toward the rights of immigrants(Semynov et al. 2004). In the present study, the age of the respondents ranges from 16 to 89 years old.
Education is a strong predictor of anti-immigrant attitudes. The more educated a person, the lesslikely he/she is to hold a negative attitude toward immigrants (Hjerm 2001; Coenders & Scheepers
2004). The mechanism through which education affects anti-immigrant attitudes can be assumed inseveral ways: determining one’s social and economic vulnerability (Hello et al. 2006), conveying
democratic and multicultural values to children (Hjerm 2005), or increasing contact with foreigners(Nukaga 2006). However, how education affects anti-immigrant attitudes is not the main issue here, so
we will not consider this question. Education is divided into two categories: above upper secondary, ornot.
Occupational status and household income are also considered. According to the group threat
theory, people in socially and economically vulnerable positions are more likely to hold negative
attitudes toward immigrants because they perceive immigrants as a threat to their resources such as
employment, education, and social security (Kunovich 2002; Coenders & Scheepers 2004). Further,
Quillian (1996) demonstrates that income has a negative effect on attitudes toward race-targeting
policies. In this research, occupation is divided into eight categories: employer, self-employed in
non-manual occupation, self-employed in manual occupation, employee in non-manual occupation,
employee in manual occupation, farmer, the unemployed, and those who are not in the labor market. In
most cases, occupation is divided into four categories: non-manual workers, manual workers, theunemployed, and not in the labor market. Here we adopt a more detailed division according to theJapanese situation. In Japan, foreign workers, especially trainees, are likely to be employed in small
factories where they are one of the main sources of labor power (Iyotani 1992; Kamibayashi 2001).
Therefore, it is better to divide respondents according to their occupational status: employer, employee,
the unemployed, or those not in a labor market; according to size of company in the case of
employers: employers and self-employed (less than ten employees); and according to occupations:manual works, non-manual works, or farming. Moreover, the respondents are divided into two groups
according to their economic status, with one group comprising those who are in the lowest quartile andthe other group comprising the remaining participants. To preserve the sample size, this paper includes
those who do not provide answers related to their family income (542 respondents, 30.1%) by163

日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[9] JGSS Research Series No.6

including the category D.K./N.A. in the model.
Contacts with immigrants are assumed to be related to both size of immigrants andanti-immigrant attitudes. The more foreign residents there are in a region, the more chance of contact
with them. Furthermore, contact reduces anti-immigrant attitudes while the size of foreign resident
population enforces them (Dixon 2006; Nukaga 2006; Ohtsuki 2006). Moreover, McLaren (2003)
points out that the effect of contact is strong when the size of the foreign resident population is large.
Therefore, to make the effect of size clear, we need to control the effect of contact. Here the following
question is used as an indicator: do you often see foreigners in the area where you live? This question
represents a superficial contact which is likely to be regarded as a contact that has no or rather positiveeffect on prejudice (Allport 1954). However, it is proven that superficial contact also has a negative
effect on anti-immigrant attitudes in Japan (Ohtsuki 2006). This question has a four-scaled answer;“Frequently” (=4), “Sometimes” (=3), “Rarely” (=2), and “Never” (=1).
In some works, gender has been assumed to affect negative attitudes toward ethnic minorities;
females are considered to be more tolerant than males (Quillian 1995; Hello et al. 2006). Since thiscan affect anti-immigrant attitudes, we include gender in the analysis (male=1, female=0). Moreover,political attitude is added because it has been proved to have significant effects on anti-immigrant
attitudes (e.g., Semynov et al. 2006). It is true that the causal direction between political attitudes andanti-immigrant attitudes is not very clear. However, here we put our focus on the effect of thecompetitive condition of individuals. Thus, we need to control anti-immigrant attitudes stemming froma general conservative view. Here, political attitude is scaled from 1 = liberal to 5 = conservative.

4. Results
4.1 Descriptive Overview
First, we look at the regional average of anti-immigrant attitudes and the rate of each contextual
variable (Table 2). The prefectural average of anti-immigrant attitudes ranges from 0.273 (Akita) to
0.800 (Shiga). When we look at the other prefectures, the average anti-immigrant attitude is relatively
high in prefectures in the Chubu area such as Fukui (0.783), Gifu (0.756) and Nagano (0.720) while itis relatively low in prefectures in the Tohoku area such as Miyagi (0.343) and Iwate (0.409), and in the
Kyushu area such Kumamoto (0.423) and Oita (0.444). When we observe the correlations between
anti-immigrant attitude and size of foreign populations, we find quite a strong correlation between
anti-immigrant attitude and both size of foreign populations as a whole (0.546), as well as size ofSouth American resident population (0.667). We also find relatively strong correlations between
anti-immigrant attitude and size of Chinese resident population (0.358) while there are no significant
correlations between anti-immigrant attitude and size of Korean resident population, or between
anti-immigrant attitudes and size of Western resident population. This may imply that hypothesis 1,
effect of the size of foreign resident population differs according to the nationality of the residents inquestion. However, effects of each nationality are partly different from what the hypothesis 1 assumes,
since the size of Koreans or Western populations does not affect anti-immigrant attitudes while
Japanese people have more negative attitudes toward immigration if they live in an area where there
are more South Americans or Chinese. Conversely, hypotheses 2 and 5 are doubted because there is no
significant correlation between anti-immigrant attitude and portion of self-employed within foreign
worker populations or between anti-immigrant attitude and portion of Old-Comers within foreign
resident populations. On the contrary, the portion of manual workers among foreign workers positively
correlates with the anti-immigrant attitude (0.640) as in the hypothesis 3. The portion of manual
workers among foreign workers is high in the Chubu area such as Gifu (79.4) and Shizuoka (77.3),

164

165

N

81
23
22
35
11
22
18
50
32
25
100
76
157
106
39
24
11
23
15
25
41
71
107
28
15
41
106
71
8
18
6
10
33
40
27
12
13
26
15
74
13
20
26
18
20
27
19
1800

Prefecture

Hokkaido
Aomori
Iwate
Miyagi
Akita
Yamagata
Fukushima
IbarakiTochigi
Gunma
Saitama
Chiba
Tokyo
Kanagawa
NiigataToyamaIshikawa
Fukui
Yamanashi
NaganoGifu
Shizuoka
Aichi
Mie
Shiga
Kyoto
Osaka
Hyogo
Nara
Wakayama
Tottori
Shimane
Okayama
Hiroshima
Yamaguchi
Tokushima
KagawaEhime
KohchiFukuoka
Saga
Nagasaki
Kumamoto
Oita
MiyazakiKagoshima
Okinawa

Average
Correlation with Anti-immigrant Attitude
Note) ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, n.s. = not significant

Okinawa

Kyushu &Shikoku

Chugoku &

Kinki

Chubu

Kanto

& Tohoku

Hokkaido

Area

Attitude
0.432
0.609
0.409
0.343
0.273
0.636
0.611
0.640
0.594
0.760
0.640
0.513
0.510
0.481
0.538
0.708
0.636
0.783
0.667
0.720
0.756
0.676
0.664
0.714
0.800
0.537
0.425
0.535
0.625
0.444
0.500
0.500
0.667
0.550
0.667
0.583
0.615
0.462
0.333
0.459
0.538
0.450
0.423
0.444
0.450
0.556
0.421
0.560
1.000
0.352
0.336
0.483
0.680
0.397
0.618
0.600
1.765
1.624
2.265
1.538
1.661
2.881
1.778
0.582
1.343
0.904
1.736
1.927
1.977
2.595
2.581
2.853
2.648
2.192
2.051
2.411
1.828
0.816
0.643
0.803
0.826
1.092
1.356
1.023
0.665
0.815
0.640
0.455
0.933
0.503
0.503
0.486
0.773
0.377
0.327
0.636
1.240
0.546**

Whole

y

0.136
0.128
0.214
0.290
0.211
0.274
0.257
0.441
0.352
0.312
0.502
0.551
0.990
0.480
0.214
0.476
0.348
0.609
0.394
0.444
0.751
0.300
0.486
0.418
0.289
0.394
0.493
0.404
0.219
0.144
0.371
0.321
0.401
0.422
0.228
0.425
0.415
0.365
0.156
0.335
0.231
0.254
0.250
0.265
0.166
0.147
0.142
0.349
0.358**

0.059
0.054
0.033
0.062
0.032
0.028
0.041
0.072
0.061
0.059
0.072
0.098
0.392
0.152
0.048
0.061
0.056
0.053
0.066
0.058
0.057
0.064
0.094
0.047
0.061
0.141
0.093
0.108
0.061
0.043
0.044
0.039
0.047
0.072
0.051
0.046
0.042
0.036
0.043
0.065
0.038
0.063
0.048
0.060
0.047
0.034
0.198
0.070

Western

0.052n.s. -0.096 n.s.

0.100
0.086
0.084
0.193
0.072
0.179
0.101
0.195
0.161
0.152
0.269
0.300
0.854
0.388
0.096
0.131
0.198
0.458
0.295
0.218
0.293
0.176
0.587
0.349
0.459
1.325
1.590
1.029
0.363
0.315
0.233
0.131
0.370
0.405
0.588
0.050
0.109
0.115
0.097
0.397
0.113
0.090
0.064
0.226
0.061
0.032
0.045
0.301

Chinese Korean

g

0.004
0.003
0.043
0.025
0.002
0.029
0.034
0.438
0.616
1.106
0.259
0.166
0.055
0.256
0.054
0.424
0.150
0.387
0.728
0.811
1.025
1.518
1.153
1.321
1.144
0.029
0.066
0.081
0.078
0.015
0.009
0.147
0.115
0.186
0.022
0.011
0.072
0.021
0.004
0.011
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.012
0.004
0.005
0.040
0.270
0.667**South American
0.053
0.066
0.109
0.110
0.080
0.108
0.168
0.619
0.434
0.636
0.435
0.546
0.590
0.502
0.170
0.251
0.152
0.228
0.444
0.446
0.469
0.523
0.533
0.512
0.240
0.163
0.169
0.206
0.095
0.126
0.147
0.188
0.158
0.272
0.134
0.133
0.176
0.103
0.156
0.125
0.119
0.092
0.119
0.210
0.099
0.109
0.212
0.250
0.469**-0.126 n.s.

20.77720.451
12.44714.97212.103
6.107
11.523
5.970
5.790
4.333
9.572
9.439
14.19114.03510.5947.962
18.45422.1354.430
7.360
10.1674.826
17.594
11.87718.86358.69455.17151.90138.95539.97926.16913.55130.11326.51453.4655.174
10.65814.08418.07335.04917.48813.1538.615
19.39512.1675.052
3.148
18.139-0.274 n.s.

7.831
6.202
5.955
7.670
5.035
5.761
4.752
4.060
4.600
3.783
5.804
6.714
9.202
7.226
7.344
3.563
5.914
7.790
6.501
4.597
3.428
2.906
6.407
4.261
5.492
16.42916.39315.257
10.88413.663
7.511
4.445
8.594
7.199
14.069
2.234
3.038
4.530
6.158
11.851
5.792
6.852
4.889
8.952
6.044
5.020
9.310
7.062

36.24840.67660.01243.81160.25862.98258.92359.25068.72474.84850.34340.32520.95939.68553.06472.18556.43169.44070.25970.95779.42877.27164.16575.24871.93630.94635.64836.59642.02635.89060.31461.65753.05555.85742.29664.71764.18470.59832.61028.40349.69639.43139.46833.47835.05346.12918.37352.2100.640**

0.165
0.178
0.301
0.339
0.241
0.401
0.316
0.926
0.747
1.185
0.767
0.829
1.251
0.730
0.282
0.861
0.485
0.818
1.026
1.054
1.684
1.558
1.553
1.753
1.086
0.265
0.386
0.339
0.250
0.211
0.446
0.502
0.498
0.633
0.199
0.494
0.516
0.425
0.246
0.329
0.278
0.251
0.283
0.468
0.194
0.172
0.099
0.596
0.634**

g
Foreign Population
Others % Old-Comers % Self-Employed % Manual Workers Increase Rate

Summary of Regional Level Variables and Their Correlation with Anti-immigrant Attitude

Anti-immigrant

Table 2
Rate
5.4
5.8
4.2
4.9
5.0
3.1
4.4
3.8
3.6
3.3
3.9
3.7
4.2
3.7
3.7
3.0
3.0
2.5
3.0
3.2
2.6
2.8
2.8
2.8
3.0
4.5
5.7
4.6
4.1
4.0
3.7
2.8
3.5
3.4
2.9
3.5
3.5
3.7
4.7
5.6
3.4
4.4
4.4
3.8
3.6
4.5
7.7
3.902
-0.643**

Unemployment

0.186 n.s.

0.365
0.276
0.274
0.487
0.258
0.300
0.398
0.559
0.532
0.511
0.658
0.660
1.129
0.827
0.381
0.382
0.399
0.346
0.352
0.408
0.453
0.663
0.903
0.499
0.467
0.500
0.717
0.495
0.363
0.280
0.241
0.215
0.438
0.493
0.373
0.308
0.396
0.344
0.217
0.549
0.299
0.254
0.339
0.301
0.268
0.275
0.272
0.435

Tax Power

日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[9] JGSS Research Series No.6

日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[9] JGSS Research Series No.6

and these prefectures have also experienced a rapid increase in foreign residents. Such rate positively
correlates with the anti-immigrant attitude (0.634) as in the hypothesis 4.
While tax power shows no significant correlation with anti-immigrant attitudes, unemployment
rate of a region significantly correlates with anti-immigrant attitudes. However, the relationship is
opposite to that previous researches find: the higher the unemployment rate a region has, the lower theanti-immigrant attitudes its Japanese residents show. However, there is a possibility of spurious
correlation. When we look closely at relations between economic conditions and size of foreign
population, we find that regions where the unemployment rate is low, for example Gifu, Shizuoka,
Aichi, and Mie have large South American or manual foreign worker population and experience rapid
increase of foreign residents. Therefore, the relation between unemployment rate and anti-immigrant
attitude might be affected by these factors. Thus, we need to test which hypotheses are appropriate
through multivariate analysis and comparison of models.
4.2 Determinants of Anti-Immigrant Attitudes
To see the effect of regional level variables, we use a hierarchical binary logit model as ananalytical method. This model enables us to estimate regional level effects while variations ofindividual level variables are controlled. Moreover, it provides correct standard errors and thus correct
confidence intervals and significant tests (Guo & Zhao 2000: 444). To model these effects the software
program Mplus version 4.21 (Muthén & Muthén 1998-2007) is used.
We test the following nine models. Model 0 is the null model, which only includes a regional
level error term. Model 0 can be represented by the following equation.
M 0: log[pij/(1-pij)]=β0j.
β0j=β00+uj.
Pij means a probability of having high anti-immigrant attitude for individual i in a prefecture j,
and Uj is a prefecture level error term, which is assumed to be normally distributed with the expectedvalue 0 and the variance σ2u. Individual variables, age, gender, educational level, occupational status,
household income, political attitude, and contact with foreign residents, are added in model 1. Notethat β4 and β5 represent vectors of coefficients for multiple variables that measure these concepts.
M1: log[pij/(1-pij)]=β0j+β11(Age)ij+β12(Gender)ij+β13(Educational Level)ij+β14(Occupational Status)ij+β15(Household Income)ij+β16(Political Attitude)ij+β17(Contact)ij.
β0j=β00+uj.
Size of foreign population and unemployment rate are added to model 1 in model 2, while a sizeof foreign population and tax power are added in model 3.
M2: β0j=β00+β01(Foreign population)j+β02(Unemployment Rate)j+uj.
M3: β0j=β00+β01(Foreign population)j+β02(Tax Power)j+uj.
Sizes of foreign population divided according to their nationality and unemployment rate areadded to model 1 in model 4 to test hypothesis 1, since the model 2 fits better than model 3 as shown
below.

166

日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[9] JGSS Research Series No.6

M4: β0j=β00+β01(Chinese population)j+β02(Korean Population)j+β03(Western Population)j+β04(South American population)j+β05(the Other Population)j+β06(Unemployment Rate)j+uj.
To test hypothesis 2, portion of self-employed within foreign workers is added to model 2 inmodel 5, while portion of manual workers within foreign workers is added to test hypothesis 3 inmodel 6. Increase rate of foreign residents and unemployment rate are added to model 1 in model 7.
M5: β0j=β00+β01(Foreign population)j+β02(Unemployment Rate)j+β03(% Self-employed)j+uj.
M6: β0j=β00+β01(Foreign population)j+β02(Unemployment Rate)j+β03(% Manual Workers)j+uj.
M7: β0j=β00+β01(Increase Rate)j+β02(Unemployment Rate)j+uj.
To test hypothesis 5, proportion of Old-Comers within foreign residents is added to model 2 inmodel 8.
M8: β0j=β00+β01(Foreign population)j+β02(Unemployment Rate)j+β03(% Old-Comers)j+uj.
Table 3 shows coefficients and model fits of each model. As model 0 indicates, there are
significant regional level variances. This means that the average of anti-immigrant attitudes differs
between prefectures. Regional level variance becomes insignificant by adding regional level variables(model 2–8); these variables explain the difference of average anti-immigrant attitudes between
prefectures.
Model 1 tests effects of individual variables; age has a positive effect on anti-immigrant attitudes(0.025). The older a person is, the stronger the anti-immigrant attitude they have. Men are more likely
to show strong anti-immigrant attitudes than women (0.262). This result corresponds to that inprevious researches (e.g., Quillian 1995; Hello et al. 2006). Neither education nor household income
has significant effects on anti-immigrant attitudes while occupational status has. Employers show
weaker anti-immigrant attitudes than manual employees do. From the survey in the Tokyo
metropolitan area, many enterprises perceive a shortage of labor, especially that of manual workers(Iyotani 1992). For owners of enterprises, an increase in immigrants is necessary to maintain theirenterprises. Conversely, for manual workers, this means an increase in competition. This difference ofstandpoint seems to cause a difference of attitude toward immigration.(3) Moreover, political attitude
does not affect anti-immigrant attitudes. This indicates that immigration policy has not yet become apolitical issue in Japan. Contact has a negative effect on anti-immigrant attitudes; if the other variables
are set to be the same, those who never see foreign residents around their homes are more likely toshow strong anti-immigrant attitudes by 40 per cent compared with those who frequently see them.
This result follows what Ohtsuki (2006) points out: even superficial contact reduces anti-immigrant
attitudes in Japan. These effects of individual variables change only by a small degree when regionalvariables are controlled (Model 2 to Model 8).
Model 2 and model 3 examine effects of size of foreign population as a whole and effects ofeconomic conditions of each region. Size of foreign population has a positive effect on anti-immigrant
attitudes in both models. Previous researches in Europe imply that size of foreign resident population
affects anti-immigrant attitudes little, or only in recession (Quillian 1995; Hjerm 2007). However, alarge size of foreign resident population does strengthen a negative attitude toward immigrants inJapan as previous researches about the Japanese case find (e.g., Nukaga 2006; Ohtsuki 2006;
Nagayoshi 2008). By contrast, unemployment rate has a negative effect (−0.301). This is opposite to167

日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[9] JGSS Research Series No.6

what is assumed: the worse the economic condition of the region one lives in, the more positive theattitude toward immigrants becomes. Moreover, tax power also has a negative effect on
anti-immigrant attitude (−1.457) in model 3. This means that people become more tolerant toward
immigrants when they live in a wealthier prefecture. There is a contradiction. The fit of the model 2
are better than those of the model 3. Therefore, it can be said that unemployment rate explain regional
difference of anti-immigrant attitudes more than tax power.
Model 4 examines effects of sizes of foreign resident populations divided according to theirnationalities (Hypothesis 1), and there are differences of effects of size according to their nationalities:
size of South American population (0.577) or Chinese (1.228) have significant positive effects while
size of Koreans, Westerners, and the other foreign populations do not. Japanese people are likely tolook down on South American countries and to have a negative image of China. These differences ofperceived hierarchical positions regarding each nationality might affect Japanese attitudes toward
immigrants. Westerners are in higher positions in Japanese ethnic hierarchy; as a result, even if theirsize is large, Japanese people do not have strong anti-immigrant attitudes. Japanese people have lessnegative image of Korea than of China (Tanabe 2008), it may affect a result that a size of Koreans has
no significant effect on anti-immigrant attitudes while a size of Chinese people has positive effect.
Moreover, by controlling these sizes, the effect of unemployment rate becomes insignificant. The
unemployment rate is small in a prefecture where the sizes of South American or Chinese populations
are large.(4) Unemployment rate has a negative effect on anti-immigrant attitudes in model 2, but it
seems to stem from this correlations between unemployment rate and size of South American or and of
Chinese populations. However, if we look at sample-size adjusted BIC, model 2 fits better. Therefore,
there is a possibility that unemployment rate explains anti-immigrant attitude more than size of eachnationalities.
In model 5 and 6, we test effects of social position of foreign residents on anti-immigrant
attitudes (Hypothesis 2 and 3). However, the portion of self-employed does not have a significant
effect (model 5). This means that the difference whether foreign residents are employed or not does
not affect anti-immigrant attitudes. Conversely, the portion of manual workers within foreign workers
does have a positive effect on anti-immigrant attitudes (0.013). As hypothesis 3 assumes, the higher
the portion of manual workers among foreign workers in the prefecture one lives in, the more negative
toward immigrants a person becomes. For example, ten-percent increase of portion of manual workers
increases a probability of having high anti-immigrant attitudes by 12 percent. Foreign residents who
work in manual work are perceived as a threat which debases the living conditions of the hostresidents, and as a result, the host residents become negative toward immigration. On the contrary, if
foreign residents work in professional or ethnic niche jobs in sales or service works, they are lessperceived as a threat by host residents. Moreover, this model (model 6) fits the best of all the models
in AIC and the sample-size adjusted BIC, and its degree of -2LL is almost as small as that of the model
4. Those from Brazil, Peru, or China are more likely to work as manual workers than Koreans orWesterners. In 2005, around 85 percent of Brazilians and Peruvians and 50 percent of Chinese work as
manual workers such as production processors and construction workers. By contrast, more than 75
percent of those from the U.K. and around 70 percent from the U.S. work as professionals. Comparedto the other nationalities, Koreans work in a wider range of occupations (Ministry of Internal Affairs
and Communications 2008a). These differences of occupation seem to affect difference of effects ofsize of each nationality. In addition, the effect of unemployment becomes insignificant in this model.
The unemployment rate negatively affects anti-immigrant attitudes because the portion of manual
workers among foreign residents is high in prefectures where the unemployment rate is low.(5)

168

169

Whole
ChineseKoreanWestern
South Americans
OthersSelf-Employed
Manual Worker
Increase Rate
Old-Comers

Male
FemaleLess than Upper Secondary
Above Upper Secondary
EmployerNon-manual Self-EmployedNon-Manual Employee
Manual Self-Employed
Manual Employee
Farmer
Unemployed
Not in a labor market
Lowest quartail
The Rest
D.K. N.A.

Unemployment Rate
Tax Power
Variance(Level2)
Model Fit
-2LL
AIC
Sample-Size Adjusted BIC
Note) N=1800, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05

Foreign Population

Political Attitude
Contact

Household Income

Occupational status

Education

GenderIntercept
Age2458.692
2462.691
2467.328

0.108 **

M0
-0.244 **Table 32348.438
2380.437
2417.535

0.131 **

M1
1.280 **
0.025 **
0.262 *―
0.064―
-0.902 **
0.013
0.042
0.097
―
0.113
-0.1890.167-0.097
―
0.166
0.072
-0.126 *2310.828
2346.827
2388.562

0.006-0.301 **M2
0.060
0.024 **
0.260 *―
0.105―
-0.869 **
0.039
0.085
0.115
―
0.121
-0.1440.192-0.060
―
0.163
0.070
-0.169 **0.204 **

2320.780
2356.780
2398.515-1.457 **0.045

M31.279 **
0.024 **
0.267 *―
0.085―
-0.915 **
0.034
0.067
0.116
―
0.158
-0.1540.193-0.094
―
0.182
0.081
-0.153 *0.666 **

2301.022
2345.022
2396.031

0.000-0.132

1.228 *
-0.053-0.1770.577 **
-0.058M4
0.064
0.024 **
0.268 *―
0.071―
-0.870 **
0.072
0.104
0.138
―
0.120
-0.1000.222-0.043
―
0.164
0.078
-0.175 **Multilevel Analysis of Anti-Immigrant Attitude2308.446
2346.446
2390.499

0.005-0.230 **-0.028M5
0.059
0.024 **
0.261 *―
0.094―
-0.874 **
0.054
0.091
0.129
―
0.114
-0.1200.198-0.052
―
0.158
0.074
-0.176 **0.247 **

2302.316
2340.316
2384.369

0.000-0.1440.013 **

M6
0.056
0.024 **
0.270 *―
0.066―
-0.877 **
0.050
0.102
0.128
―
0.111
-0.1250.219-0.051
―
0.158
0.075
-0.172 **0.236 **

2309.252
2345.252
2387.986

0.004-0.212 **0.483 **

M7
0.056
0.024 **
0.262 *―
0.087―
-0.865 **
0.055
0.088
0.130
―
0.118
-0.1180.203-0.055
―
0.156
0.073
-0.170 **2310.200
2348.198
2392.252

0.008-0.003-0.276 **M8
0.058
0.024 **
0.260 *―
0.101―
-0.872 **
0.045
0.087
0.122
―
0.119
-0.1350.194-0.058
―
0.160
0.071
-0.172 **0.221 **

日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[9] JGSS Research Series No.6

日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[9] JGSS Research Series No.6

In model 7, the rate of increase has a positive effect (0.483) as hypothesis 4 assumes—rapid
increase of immigrants stimulates anti-immigrant attitudes. However, the fit of the model is not as
good as that of the model 4 or of the model 6. Therefore, differences of nationalities or social positionsof foreign residents explain differences of anti-immigrant attitudes of host residents more than rate ofincrease of foreign residents does.
Model 8 tests effects of the proportion of Old-Comers (Hypothesis 5). However, the portion of
Old-Comers within foreign resident populations does not affect the anti-immigrant attitude (model 8).
Thus, what matters is not the size of the portion of Old-Comers. In other words, whether a prefecture
has a history of accepting foreign residents does not affect today’s anti-immigrant attitudes.

5. Discussions
The aim of this paper is to examine why the size of foreign resident populations differently
affects anti-immigrant attitudes according to their nationalities. In this research, we focus on effects ofthe social position of foreign residents on anti-immigrant attitudes, which assume to cause thesedifferences. From the analysis, the following results are found. Nationalities, occupations, andincreased rate of foreign residents affect anti-immigrant attitudes, while the portion of Old-Comers
does not. In areas which have large South American or Chinese residents, or which have a large
portion of foreign residents working as manual workers, or in case the number of foreign residents
increases rapidly, the host residents become more negative toward immigration. These results relate toeach other. South Americans are likely to work as manual workers, and the number of SouthAmericans and Chinese are also increasing rapidly these days. These conditions affect the hostresidents’ views toward immigration. When we compare the fit of the model, the portion of manual
workers among foreign workers seems to play the most important role. If foreign residents in aprefecture mostly work in professional or ethnic niche jobs, such as English teachers or workers ininternational offices, they are not perceived as a threat. In this case, people do not need to fear that
their daily life is corroded by foreigners. Foreign workers are seen as a threat only when they sharejobs with Japanese residents.
To the question whose size counts, the answer from the results of this research is: the size of
foreign resident populations that are in a competitive position with the host residents. This finding of
this research offers an important suggestion toward research about anti-immigrant attitudes: we needto consider not only the ethnicity of foreign residents but also their social and economic position.
Group threat theory assumes both aspects affect anti-immigrant attitudes. Ethnicities of immigrants
relate to host residents’ perceptions about group positions while social and economic positions ofimmigrants relate to the perception of threat. However, little attention is paid to these latter aspects
whereas the effect of size of specific ethnic groups, especially ‘visible minorities’, is frequently tested.
Focusing on the social position of foreign residents can be one way to answer why size matters insome cases and not in others. The difference of effects of size according to nationalities found in theprevious research in Japan can be explained from this point of view. The previous researchers find that
portion of Koreans within foreign residents negatively affect anti-immigrant attitudes while size ofSouth Americans positively affect them. This seems to be result from the difference of occupations
these two groups are likely to have. South Americans are likely to work as manual workers while
Koreans are not; therefore, the former are perceived as threat by host residents while the latter are not.
Moreover, this can be one answer why size of foreign population as a whole affects anti-immigrant
attitudes in Japan while it does not in European countries. If there is a dual labor market between hostresidents and immigrants, the host residents feel less threat from the existence of immigrants than in170

日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[9] JGSS Research Series No.6

the case they share the same labor market. Some researchers point out that Japanese society does nothave a dual labor market yet (Shikibe 1992). This might be a possible explanation of why size mattersin Japan.
The size of the Korean resident population as well as the portion of Old-Comers does not affectanti-immigrant attitudes. Contrary to what Nukaga (2006) assumes, the history of civil rights
movements by Korean residents seems not to affect the host residents’ view toward immigrants.
However, a different view appears when we look at the occupations Koreans are likely to have. They
are more likely to work in clerical and related work than the other nationalities are. In 2005, 14.3
percent of Korean workers do clerical and related works while 7.0 percent of Chinese workers and 1.8
percent of Brazilian workers do these works (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications 2008a).
It is true that they often work in companies owned by Koreans; however, the number of those whowork in companies owned by Japanese people is increasing these days (Kim 1995). Therefore, it canbe said that Koreans also compete over jobs with Japanese people. However, the size of the Korean
population does not strengthen anti-immigrant attitudes. Thus, the long history of struggle against
discrimination is bearing fruit in that they are not perceived as a threat but as colleagues when theyshare the same jobs. Of course, we should note that this may be the result of their assimilation into theJapanese culture, for example, their use of Japanese names.
There are also limitations to this research. One limitation is a definition of the unit of region.
Here we use a prefecture as a unit, but the size of foreign resident populations differs frommunicipality to municipality. For example, in the Aichi prefecture, more than 50 percent of foreign
residents live in five out of sixty-three municipalities. Moreover, it is found that the effect of sizechanges according to whichever unit we use (Hjerm 2007). Therefore, to test our findings using
municipal level units remains a task for future research.
[Acknowledgement]
The Japanese General Social Surveys (JGSS) are designed and carried out by the JGSS ResearchCenter at Osaka University of Commerce (Joint Usage / Research Center for Japanese General Social
Surveys accredited by Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology), in
collaboration with the Institute of Social Science at the University of Tokyo. The datasets are
distributed by SSJ Data Archive, Institute of Social Science, the University of Tokyo.
[Notes](1) Human rights education is active in these areas not only because of the existence of Koreans, but also
because of the existence of Burakumin, a Japanese caste-like social minority (Nakazawa 2007). Therefore, ahistory of civil rights movements by Burakumin as well may affect anti-immigrant attitudes.
(2) We use portions of self-employed and manual workers for 2005, since these data are the latest. The othercontextual indicators are based on the data of 2006.
(3) It is difficult to find whether an increase of immigrants actually increases competition. Many enterprises arewilling to employ foreign workers because few Japanese workers want to work for them (Iyotani 1992;
Shikibe 1992). In this case, we cannot say the competition is increasing. However, what is significant here is
how Japanese people perceive conditions. The results of this research imply manual workers feel the threat oflosing their jobs because of the increase of immigrants while employers perceive the advantage of theincrease of immigrants.
(4) Correlation between unemployment rate and size of South Americans is −0.516, and correlation between
unemployment rate and size of Chinese is −0.361. Both are significant (n = 47).

171

日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[9] JGSS Research Series No.6

(5) Correlation between unemployment rate and portion of manual workers within foreign residents is −0.710,
which is significant (n = 47)[References]
Allport, G. W., 1954, The Nature of Prejudice. Mass: Addison-Wesley.
Blumer, Herbert, 1958, ‘Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position.’ The Pacific Sociological
Review 1(1): 3-7.
Bobo, Lawrence and Vincent L. Hutchings, 1996, “Perceptions of Racial Group Competiton:
Extending Blumer’s Theory of Group Position to a Multiracial Social Context.” American
Sociological Review 61: 951-72.
Coenders, Marcel and Peer Scheepers, 2004, ‘The effect of education on nationalism and ethnic
exclusionism: An international comparison.’ Political Psychology 24(2): 313-43.
Dixon, Jeffrey C., 2006, ‘The Ties That Bind and Those That Don’t: Toward Reconciling GroupThreat and Contact Theories of Prejudice.’ Social Force 84(4): 2179-204.
Guo, Guang and Hongxin Zhao, 2000, “Multilevel Modeling for Binary Data.” Annual Review ofSociology 26: 441-62.
Hello, Evelyn, Peer Scheepers and Peter Sleegers, 2006, ‘Why the more educated are less inclined tokeep ethnic distance: An empirical test of four explanations.’ Ethnic and Racial Studies 29(5):959-85.
Hjerm, Mikael, 2001, ‘Education, xenophobia and nationalism: A comparative analysis.’ Journal of
Ethnic and Migration Studies 27(1): 37-60.
―――, 2005, ‘What future may bring: Xenophobia among Swedish adolescents.’ Acta Sociologica
48: 292-307.
―――, 2007, ‘Do Numbers Really Count? Group Threat Theory Revisited.’ Journal of Ethnic andMigration Studies 33(8): 1253-75.
Imazu, Koziro, 1993, “Ijin, hijin, gaijin, ningen: nihonjin no uti to soto.” (Different person,
Non-person, Outsider, Human: Insider and Outsider for Japanese.) Pp. 160-83 in Nakano
Koichiro and Imazu Kohjiro (eds.) Esunisithi no shakaigaku: nihon shakai no minzokuteki kosei.
Kyoto: Sekai Siso Sha.
Iyotani, Toshio, 1992, “Sakerarenai Kadai: Sengo Nihon Keizai ni okeru Gaikokujin Roudousha.”(Inescapable task: Foreign Workers in Post-War Japanese Economic Conditions.) Pp. 101-35 in
Takamichi Kajita and Toshio Iyotani (eds.) Gaikokujin Rodosha Ron: Genjo kara Riron e. Tokyo:
Kohbundo.
Kamibayashi, Chieko, 2001, “Gaikokujin Kenshu/ Ginou Jishuseido to Chusho Gikyo.” (Foreign
Traineeship & Technical Internship and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises.) Pp. 109-21 in
NIRA Citizenship Workshop (ed.) Tabunka Shakai no Sentaku: “Shithizunshippu” no Shiten kara.
Tokyo: Nihonkeizai Hyoronsha.
Kim, Myung-Soo, 1995, “Zainichi Kankokujin no Kyoiku to Shokugyo.” (Education and Occupationof South Korean Residents in Japan.) Nenpo Ningen Kagaku 16: 39-56.
Kunovich, Robert M., 2002, “Social Structural Sources of Anti-immigrant Prejudice in Europe: The
Impact of Social Class and Stratification Position.” International Journal of Sociology 32(1):39-57.
McLaren, Lauren M., 2003, “Anti-Immigrant Prejudice in Europe: Contact, Threat Perception, andPreference for Exclusion of Migrant.” Social Forces 81(3): 909-36.
McLaren, Lauren M. and Mark Johnson, 2007, “Resources, Group Conflict and Symbols: Explaining172

日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[9] JGSS Research Series No.6

Anti-Immigrant Hostility in Britain.” Political Studies 55: 709-732.
Ministry of Justice, 2007, Heisei 19 Nenmatsu Genzai ni okeru Gaikokujin Tohrokusha Tohkei ni tuite(Bulletin about Statistics of Registered Foreign Residents at the end of 2007)[http://www.moj.go.jp/PRESS/080601-1.pdf]―――, 2008, Heisei 18 nen Tohroku Gaikokujin Tohkei Chosa (Statistics of Registered Foreign
Residents in 2006)[http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001029028]
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, 2000, Saishu Ban Hohkokusho Nihon no Jinko:
Heisei 12 Nen Kokusei Chosa no Shuyo Kekka (Population of Japan: The Final Report of The
2000 Population Census.)[http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/ListE.do?bid=000000030587&cycode=0]―――, 2007a, Jinkoh Suikei. (Population Estimates.)[http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001010879]―――, 2007b, Rohdohryoku Chosa. (Labor Force Survey.)―――, 2007c, Shakai Seikatsu Tohkei Sihyo. Todohfuken no Shihyo 2007 (Social Welfare Indicators:
Indexes of Prefectures 2007.)―――, 2008a, Heisei 17 Nendo Kokusei Chosa Gaikokujin ni Kansuru Tokubetu Shukei Hyo (Special
Tables about Foreign Residents in The 2005 Population Census.)[http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?bid=000001012924&cycode=0]―――, 2008b, Shakai Seikatsu Tohkei Sihyo: Todohfuken no Shihyo 2008. (Social Welfare Indicators:
Indexes of Prefectures 2008.)[http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?bid=000001009475&cycode=0]
Mulder, Marlene and Harvey Krahn, 2005, “Individual- and community-level determinants of support
for immigration and cultural diversity in Canada.” Canadian Review of Sociology andAnthropology 42 (4): 421-44.
Murphy-Shigematsu, Stephen, 2006, “Diverse Forms of Minority National Identities in Japan’s
Multicultural Society.” Pp. 75-99 in Lee, Soo im (ed.) Japan’s Diversity Dilemmas: Ethnicity,
Citizenship, and Education. New York: iUniverse.
Muthén, Linda K. & Bengt O. Muthén, 1998-2007, Mplus Usier’s Guide (Fourth Edition). Los
Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Nagayoshi, Kikuko, 2008, “Haigai Ishiki ni taisuru Sesshoku to Kyoi Ninchi no Koka: JGSS-2003 no
Bunseki kara.” (The Influence of the Perceived Threat and Contact in Japanese Anti-immigrant
Attitude: Analysis of JGSS-2003.) JGSS Research Series No.4: 259-70.
Nakazawa, Wataru, 2007, “Zainichi Gaikokujin no Taka to Gaikokujin ni taisuru Henken no Kankei;
JGSS wo Mochiita Maruchireberu Benseki.” (The Relationship between the Number of
Foreigners Residing in Japan and the Japanese Prejudices toward Foreigners.) Soshioroji 52 (2):75-91.
Nukaga, Misako, 2006, “Xenophobia and the Effect of Education: Determinants of Japanese Attitudes
toward Acceptance of Foreigners.” JGSS Research Series No.2: 191-202.
Ohtsuki, Shigemi, 2006, “Gaikokujin Sesshoku to Gaikokujin Ishiki: JGSS-2003 data ni yoru
Sesshoku Kasetsu no Saikento.” (Contact with foreigners and attitude toward them: rethinking ofcontact theory from JGSS-2003 data.) JGSS Research Series No.2: 149-58.
Pak, Katherine Tegtmeyer, 2000, “Foreigners are local citizens, too: local governments respond tointernational migration in Japan.” Pp. 244-73 in Mike Douglass and Glenda S. Roberts (eds.)
Japan and Global Migration, New York: Routledge.

173

日本版総合的社会調査共同研究拠点 研究論文集[9] JGSS Research Series No.6

Peng-Er, Lam, 2005, “At the Margins of a Liberal-Democratic State: Ethinic Minorities in Japan.” Pp.
223-43 in Will Kymlicka and Baogang He (eds.) Multiculturalism in Asia. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Quillian, Lincoln, 1995, “Prejudice as a Response to Perceived Group Threat: Population Composition
and Anti-Immigrant and Racial Prejudice in Europe.” American Sociological Review 60(4):586-611.
―――, 1996, ‘Group threat and regional change in attitudes toward African-Americans’ American
Journal of Sociology 102(3): 816-60.
Scheepers, Peer, Merove Gijsberts and Marcel Coenders, 2002, “Ethnic Exclusionalism in European
Countries: Public Opposition to Civil Rights for Legal Migrants as a Response to Perceived
Ethnic Threat.” European Sociological Review 18(1): 17-34.
Semynov, Moshe, Rebecca Raijman, Anat Yom Tov and Peter Schmidt, 2004, ‘Population Size,
Perceived Threat, and Exclusion: a Multiple-Indicators Analysis of Attitudes toward Foreigners inGermany.” Social Science Research 33: 681-701.
Semynov, Moshe, Rebecca Raijman and Anastasia Gorodzeisky, 2006, “The Rise of Anti-foreigner
Sentiment in European Societies, 1988-2000.” American Sociological Review 71: 429-49.
Shikibe, Makoto, 1992, “’Gaikokujin Roudosha Mondai’ to Roudo Shijo Riron” (‘Foreign Worker
Problem’ and Labor Market Theory). Pp. 137-68 in Takamichi Kajita and Toshio Iyotani (eds.)
Gaikokujin Rodosha Ron: Genjo kara Riron e. Tokyo: Kohbundo.
Tanabe, Shunsuke, 2001, “Gaikokujin eno Haitasei to Sesshoku Keiken.” (The Effect of Personal
Contacts on the Attitude towards Foreigners.) Shakaigaku Ronkoh 22: 1-14.
―――, 2008, “’Nihonjin no Gaikokujin Kohkando to sono Kohzou no Jisshouteki Bunseki:
Ajia-shugi, Tohzai Reisen, Gurohbarization.” (Empirical Assessment of “Japanese” Cognition
Toward Various Nations: Asianism, cold war, and globalization.) Shakaigaku Hyoron 59(2):369-87.
―――, forthcoming, “Explanatory Analysis on Nation’s Prestige Score.” Social Science Japan
Journal.
Taylor, Marylee C, 1998, ‘How White Attitudes Vary with the Racial Composition of Local
Populations: Number Count’ American Sociological Review 63(4): 512-35.
Tsuda,Takeyuki, 2006, “Crossing Ethnic Boundaries: Japanese Brazilian Return Migrants and theEthnic Challenge of Japan’s Newest Immigrant Minority.” Pp. 117-38 in Nelson H H. Granburn,John Ertl and R. Kenji Tierney (eds.) Multiculturalism in the New Japan: Crossing theBoundaries Within. New York: Berghahn Books.
Zaisei Tohkei Kenkyujo, 2006, Todohfuken Indekkusu. (Prefecture Index.)[http://www5.plala.or.jp/zaisei3/files/s3/ken2.htm]

174