名古屋高等教育研究

第 9 号（2009）

The Internationalization of Japanese Higher
Education: Policy Debates and Realities
YONEZAWA Akiyoshi＜Abstract＞
Globally, the internationalization of higher education has assumed akey position on domestic policy agendas, not only for educational andscientific reasons, but also increasingly due to socio-economic considerations. National contexts, however, are still influential in theactual process of internationalization. In the case of Japan, adding toa strong identity based on an advanced higher education system, andcontinuous development of neighboring countries in terms of theirscience and technology sectors as well as their industrial and service
economies is having a significant impact on policy direction and theactual internationalization process.
Using the case of Japan, this article emphasizes the need for autonomous initiatives on the part of universities and academics
themselves for the internationalization of higher education. The
Japanese government and the nation’s higher education institutions
are still in the process discovering their identities amidst rapidlychanging regional circumstances. Consequently, the direction ofnational and institutional strategies has often been observed to be
unsettled and inconsistent.
In order to sustain a continuous internationalization process, dynamic initiatives by academics and universities to enhance knowledge
creation and exchange are indispensable.

Associate Professor, Center for the Advancement of Higher Education,
Tohoku University

199

1.

Introduction

Globalization and the knowledge economy are principal issues facing
almost every country around the world.

In many East Asian countries(e.g., Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan), governments tend to introduce
strong initiatives in the process of forming strategic responses of higher
education to the challenges of globalization.

One typical example would

be policies for fostering ‘world class’ universities, whereby governments
tend to concentrate public investment to a limited number of flagshipresearch oriented universities for augmenting their status worldwide(Altbach and Balan, 2007).

Project-based funds for enhancing globallycompetitive research at flagship universities (e.g., the ‘211’ and ‘985’
projects in China, the ‘Brain Korea 21’ project in Korea and the ‘21stCentury Center of Excellence’ in Japan) have been introduced and arefurther evolving since the 1990s (Yonezawa, 2007).

The Korean BK21

project entered its second phase in 2006, and in 2007 the Japanese government replaced the former COE21 project with the ‘Global Center of
Excellence’ program. The governments of these countries clearly applypressure on their higher education systems to serve as tools for the development of the knowledge economy by enhancing national capacities in
research and development.
At the same time, higher education systems in these countries (with the
exception of China) have been relying heavily on financial contributions by
students and their parents in the form of tuition fees (Umakoshi, 2004).

In

Japan, 73.5% of four year university students, including those enrolled in
graduate programs are studying at private institutions as of 2008 (theshare of students in private institutions is higher in junior colleges andother types of post secondary education institutions).

The largely-private

higher and post-secondary education systems of Japan and Korea havealready achieved universal access and are now facing over-supply conditions under the younger population’s demographic decline.

Here thecompetitiveness, or attractiveness, in international student markets is
becoming crucial, both for attracting talented post graduate students tosustain research capacities, and for compensating the shrinking market of200

The Internationalization of Japanese Higher Education: Policy Debates and Realities
domestic students mainly at the undergraduate level.
Naturally, higher education institutions in these countries tend to facestrong pressure both from governments and student markets.

Thequestion here is what would reflect realistic strategies and a solid future
vision of higher education in these countries for the autonomous development of higher education and associated academic activities.
Japan, a non-English speaking country with a relatively large population(128 million in 2007) is basically disadvantaged in attracting international
academics and students, as Margionson and van der Wende (2007) pointed
out the underrepresentation of world class institutions in relation to its
economic power.

The lack of systemic regional level frameworks like theEU or ASEAN, and the rapid development of neighboring countries are
frequently regarded as ‘threats’ to Japan in maintaining a distinguishedposition.

While the emphasis of competitiveness appears reasonable as anational strategy, an overemphasis on competitiveness risks isolation fromthe regional and international communities.
Using the case of Japan, this article examines policy proposals andrealities in the process of internationalizing higher education.

First, thisarticle establishes a framework for understanding the relationship between state/government, academics/universities and students/market,
referring to the ‘glonacal agency heuristic’ model (Marginson and Rhodes,
2002).

Then, the author analyses the strategies for approaching globa-

lization presented by these three actors.

As a conclusion, this article calls

for a realistic approach towards mutual collaboration in the Asia Pacificregion in the face of simultaneous calls for increased ‘national competitiveness’.

2．Theoretical Framework
To understand the complexity of the situation now facing Japan, the‘glonacal agency heuristic’ model proposed by Marginson and Rhodes(2002) is quite useful.

Their basic argument is for the necessity of a newmodel to understand the relationship between state, market and professional-collegial control, which are the main actors of Clark’s ‘triangle

201

model’ (Clark, 1983) and may be reasonably expected to act as agents at
the local, national and global levels.

However, in the case of a country like

Japan, it should not be taken for granted that these three main actors canachieve consensus on any single vision or work together as a united
agency.
Figure 1 provides a modified version of Clark’s ‘triangle model’,representing the hypothesis that there is a gap of responsiveness in ongoing globalization trends.

Academics/Universities ++State/Government +++Figure 1

Market/Students +Clark’s Triangle and Responsiveness to Globalization Trends

Firstly, a state or government tends to be highly responsive to globalization trends. A contemporary state government is always faced withcirculating information regarding policy trends.

Policy borrowing among

nation states is accelerated under the ideologies of ‘globalization’, ‘regional arena’ and the ‘knowledge economy’.
Secondly, academics and universities are generally less responsive thanstates and governments, but more responsive than the market and students which represent the general public.

International academic ex-changes are increasing, and domination of English as common academic
language is already taken for granted - at least in the natural sciences andengineering fields.

Development of Internet-based communication pro-vides enormous opportunities for borderless academic communication, and202

The Internationalization of Japanese Higher Education: Policy Debates and Realities
research collaboration without physical encounter is very common.

The

activities of academics and universities are also more decentralized innature than those of states/governments.

Therefore, it is unlikely that

globalization trends will reach all of those who are locally established orsatisfied with current domestic networks.

At the same time, in the caseof academics or universities that are dissatisfied, they can expand theiractivities or even proceed as independent persons without having significant influences on the local/domestic context.
Lastly, students and the market are least responsive to globalization
trends.

Internationally-oriented, core groups always exist, but tend to betransnational, or can transfer to higher education system at the forefrontof globalization (such as those in the US or Singapore).

Again, this can beaccomplished without giving almost any impact to other actors if significant brain drain does not occur.

The great majority, however, seems to

be satisfied with local settings or much less able to adapt themselves tointernational settings.
This hypothesis could be applied basically to any country with a different context in internationalization or globalization.

For example, in

the United States, the federal government clearly applies pressure tohigher education institutions and their associations to be more internationally competitive, sometimes by reforming their quality assurance
systems, financial budgeting processes, and so on.

On the other hand, thegreat majority of higher education institutions such as education oriented
universities and colleges, community colleges and other post secondary
education providers are mainly serving the domestic or local market.
Although it is true that global university rankings are dominated byAmerican universities, a kind of cosmopolitan attraction of human talent isbasically concentrated at the post-graduate level even in those world classuniversities.

For example, the share of international students at Harvard

College in 2007 was 9.1% overall, compared with 26.4% at the
post-graduate level alone (Harvard University, 2007). Having said this,
there is nevertheless a great difference in the degree of responsivenessamong institutions in different types of national contexts with regards toapproaches to globalization.

203

Teichler (1999) proposed a typology for the internationalization of higher
education, mainly referring to European countries, as outlined below.
Here, we should examine possible applications in Asia Pacific contexts.
‘Would be internationalization’: a higher education system which hopes tobe internationalized but lacks enough resources and needs external help.
In the case of Asia Pacific countries, less developing countries such as
Afghanistan or Laos could be examples.
‘Internationalization for survival’: a higher education system which is
required to be internationalized for the survival of the nation or society.
In the Asia Pacific, Singapore is a perfect example.

Countries such as

Malaysia, South Korea and Australia may also share principal characteristics of this model.
‘Internationalization in two arenas’: a higher education system which has
two parallel orientations towards internationalization, namely, (i) an expansion of their own system toward other countries, and (ii) a transformation of learning environments for domestic students.

Japan, and more

recently China, could be good examples of this category.

Those twocountries have relatively strong national identities and influence higher
education systems in other countries; on the other hand, they are trying to‘internationalize’ their own campuses by inviting international faculty
and students.
‘Internationalization at home (or arm-chair in Jürgen Enders1) explanation)’: a higher education system which internationalizes itself largely byinviting international academics and students.

Apparently, the UnitedStates is a typical example.
Japan is a typical example of a country facing ‘internationalization in
two arenas’ mainly for the following reasons. Firstly, we could assume
that the gap of responsiveness towards global trends among different
actors in Clark’s triangle is larger in (a) and (c), above.

In a country oftype (a), academics/universities and markets/students do not have thecapacity to internationalize, although they may not be satisfied withcurrent conditions.

204

In this case, even state/government may not beThe Internationalization of Japanese Higher Education: Policy Debates and Realities
responsive because of a serious lack of resources for communication withother countries or lack of will to open up its higher education system (as is
the case with North Korea).

In a country of type (c), all actors basicallyhave enough resources if they exhibit a serious will to internationalize
themselves.

However, relatively strong domestic social and economic

power could work to discourage academics, universities and students toseriously seek efforts to be internationalized.

In this case, even if thegovernment tries to exert pressures or offer incentives for internationalization, academics, universities and students may not respond as desired.
In the case of Japan, the government has provided strong incentives forthe internationalization of higher education, especially since the 1980s(Horie, 2002).

It is often pointed out that Japanese students and aca-

demics are not internationalized, especially from the perspectives ofEnglish speaking countries (Eades et al., 2005; Mcveigh, 2002)
Secondly, Japan could be a rare example of the consistence of geographic coverage of a national language and national border.

Japan is the

only country which takes Japanese as its official language, and thepresence of linguistic minorities continues to be very small, at least until
quite recently.

At the same time, Japan is one of only a few non-English

or non-Chinese speaking countries which have realized high level doctoral
education and research in its own language in this region.

3．Global trends and policy responses
The history of policy responses to global trends in higher education goesback to the latter half of 19th century, namely, the beginning of modern
higher education in this country.

In 1877, the Japanese government es-

tablished the University of Tokyo as the first modern university authorized by the modern government.

This university was aimed to be a‘world class’ university from the beginning, and the government concentrated its higher education budget into this single university before thesecond national university (Kyoto University) started 20 years later.
Many foreign faculty were invited with salaries which were extraordinary
higher than the national average, who were then replaced by Japanese205

faculties who had been sent to study in developed countries with government scholarship.
In 1935, Japan already had 45 universities and 218 higher education
institutions (Monbusho, 1990).

However, only nine ‘imperial universities’

had been established by the end of World War II, including ‘Taiwan’ in
Taiwan and ‘Keijo’ in the Korean Peninsula which were given a distinguished position in the higher education system of this country.

Al-

though the official distinguished status of ‘imperial universities’ wasabolished, these universities have continuously been given advantageous
treatment in financial allocation to the present day (Amano, 2008), and allplace favorably in global university rankings.
Full-scale government endeavors to internationalize Japanese higher
education started when a plan to invite 100,000 international students wasestablished in 1983.

At that time, Japan hosted only 10,480 international

students while having already achieved economic prosperity through thesuccess of the export manufacturing industry, and was trying to transform
its industry based on the high technology and information industries.

In

the 1980s, many US universities were invited to set up branch campuses inthis country.

Except for the exceptional success of Temple University

Japan located in downtown Tokyo and a few small sized programs, almost
all those campuses, located mainly in small cities or rural areas, wereclosed partly because they had not been authorized as ‘universities’
under the Japanese legal framework and partly because their marketingstrategies did not fit the demand of Japanese higher learners (Torii, 2008;
Yonezawa, 2008).

Trials for the internationalization of Japanese higher

education in the 1980s resulted mainly from strong government initiatives,
especially those introduced by then-Prime Minister Nakasone, who aimed
to establish a leading position for Japan in Asia and the world (Hood 2001;
Schoppa, 1991).

International students have been absorbed at various

types of higher education institutions from ‘top’ to ‘mass’, with thenumber of international students exceeding 100,000 in 2003, mainly due tothe rapid increase in the global flow of international students from Eastand South East Asian countries.

206

The Internationalization of Japanese Higher Education: Policy Debates and Realities
Table 1. Number and Share of International Students in Japan (2006)

China
South Korea
Taiwan
Malaysia
VietnamUnited States

74292
15974
4211
2156
2119
1790

63.0%
13.5%
3.6%
1.8%
1.8%
1.5%

ThailandIndonesia
Bangladesh
Sri Lanka
Others

1734
1553
1456
1143
11499

1.5%
1.3%
1.2%
1.0%
9.8%

Total

117927100.0%

Source: MEXT (2007) Outline of the Student Exchange System in Japan 2007.

The rapid progress of globalization at the turn of the century createdsignificant pressure for Japanese policies towards the further internationalization of Japanese higher education.

In the 1990s, the Japanese

economy experienced a continuous state of economic recession also known
as ‘the ten lost years’ under the severe trials of transforming locallyoriented management and governance customs into globally competitive
ones.

However, compared to the New Economic Industries in East andSouth East Asia, the damage of the 1997 Asian Economic Crisis wasconsiderably small.

In order to support the development of human re-source capacities in ASEAN, the Japanese government started to support
the AUN-SEED network, a project to develop doctorate programs in thefield of engineering at flagship universities in ASEAN countries throughexchanges with Japanese universities (Umemiya and Tsutsumi, 2008).
On the other hand, flagship universities in Singapore, China and South
Korea certainly showed themselves to be strong competitors for Japan inglobal research rankings.

At the same time, Australia started to clarify

the strategic usage of their higher education system as an exporting industry, and, at the same time, strengthened performance assessment and207

financial linkages in research activities.
Under these environmental changes, Japanese higher education policy
became one of the core economic and social issues, to be dealt with in a
wider policy context at the Prime Minister level, rather than as part ofeducation policy dealt with by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology (MEXT).

For example, the Koizumi cabinet(April 2001 to September 2006) supported the idea of the 21st Century
COE plan based on an idea to foster around 30 world class universities in2001 (Yonezawa, 2003).

The following administrations of Prime Minis-

ters Abe (September 2006 to September 2007) and Fukuda (September
2007 to September 2008) also stressed initiatives in educational reform,and strongly argued the importance of the internationalization of higher
education.
In January 2008, Fukuda declared a plan to invite 300,000 international
students to Japan by 2020.

In July 2008, six ministries including MEXT,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry(METI) released its basic framework together.

The figure 300,000 is

considered to have been requested to maintain the current share ofJapanese higher education in the international student market, while theachievement of this target appears to be very difficult.

The Fukuda

cabinet also revealed its idea to support around 30 universities as core
universities for the internationalization of Japanese higher education (alsoknown as the ‘Global 30’ plan).
At the same time, the quality assurance system of Japanese higher
education has also been strengthened.

In Japan, the quality assurance of

higher education basically relied for many years on the Standard for the
Establishment of Universities, which is the legal standard utilized for theauthorization of newly established universities by governmental committees.

An American-type accreditation system was introduced in 1947

under the supervision of the occupying command; however, it had beencharacterized by voluntary participation.

From 2004, all universities andcolleges were requested to accept a regularly-based quality assurance
review called a ‘certified evaluation’ by external evaluation organizations(Higher Education Bureau, MEXT, 2006).

208

Representative external

The Internationalization of Japanese Higher Education: Policy Debates and Realities
evaluation organizations such as the National Institution for Academic
Degrees and University Evaluation (NIAD-UE) and the Japan University
Accreditation Association (JUAA) are full members of the International
Network for Quality Assurance Agencies.

The Japanese government

also established a professional post graduate school system in order tomeet the advanced skills and knowledge needed in professions by distinguishing them from traditional academic oriented post graduate programs.
Finally, it should be mentioned that there is an underlying transformation of labor and immigration policies underway in this country.

The

first baby boomers born just after the Second World War are now retiring,
and a declining youth population cannot sustain the continuous development of human resources.

The Cabinet’s core policy document, Eco-nomic and Fiscal Reform 2008: Basic Policies, subtitled ‘a country welcoming the world, growth by and for all, harmony with environment’,clarified Japan’s idea of expanding the acceptance of skilled foreign
workers.

Naturally, policies for the internationalization of higher educa-tion should be linked with this policy and need to attract globally competitive human resources from around the world.

However, Japan has along history of utilizing foreign workers as a buffer against economic
fluctuations, and it is hard to know whether this is a genuine turning point
for the internationalization of the labor force in this country.

4．Responses by Universities / Academics and Students/ Markets
The responses towards globalization trends by universities, academics
and students are much slower and highly varied.

At the same time, atleast financially, both universities and students are relying heavily on
governmental initiatives.
As for academics and universities, there are two main directions to takein responding to global trends.

The first approach is to strengthen re-search capacities to internationally competitive levels.

Although therepresentation of Japanese higher education system as a whole in global
ranking is not high, top Japanese national universities are ranked consi-

209

derably high when taking into account the disadvantage of linguistic
isolation.

This is mainly due to the active research performance innatural sciences and the long and stable history of engineering.

Although

it is common to write articles in English in these fields, the absolutemajority of classes and daily conversation are conducted in the Japanese
language even at top-ranked research institutes.

In 2007, the Japanese

government started to support only five selected key research institutes(World Premier International Research Center Initiative, or WPI).

This isthe first trial whereby the government requests the official language of
research institutes to be English, and suggests that world class researchdoes not always require a cosmopolitan environment.

On the other hand,

it is becoming increasingly common that international reviewers are involved in the selection of large research projects funded by governmental
grants.

Quite different from the situation of European researchers,

however, it is rare that Japanese researchers apply for international research grants directly, partly because of the lack of a regional or international research grant system with at least some linkage with Japanesefunds representing the largest economy in the region.
The second approach to meet global challenges is to improve the qualityof education to meet international standards.

However, for a non-English

speaking country like Japan, it is very difficult to define what ‘international standards’ are.

Some trials certainly exit.

Professional education

programs requiring transnational mobility certainly underscore the needfor international viability of qualifications.

Engineering is a typical ex-

ample, and associations of engineers and engineering education established the Japan Accreditation Board of Engineering Education (JABEE)
to implement voluntary based accreditation of engineering programs.

In

2005, JABEE became an official member of the Washington Accord, theinternational alliance of accreditation bodies of engineering education.
Other institutions seek official recognition by foreign (mainly American)
accreditation organizations.

The Japanese government established anational quality assurance framework called ‘certified evaluation’, andrequired all universities, colleges and professional schools to accept regular based reviews by third party evaluation organizations certified by the210The Internationalization of Japanese Higher Education: Policy Debates and Realities
Japanese government (Higher Education Bureau, MEXT, 2006).
universities actually obtain foreign accreditation.

Some

For example, Keio

University and Nagoya University of Commerce and Business, both private institutions, have received accreditation of their Business schools by
the Association of Advance Collegiate School of Business (AACSB).

Si-

milarly, International Christian University, a private liberal arts college,
received accreditation by the American Academy for Liberal Education(AALE).

These examples of foreign accreditation, however, do notnecessarily mean the education programs are taught in English.
Top universities such as the University of Tokyo and Nagoya University
tend to utilize benchmarking exercises to assess their education and otheraspects in comparison with globally competitive foreign universities.
However, main reports are primarily published in the Japanese language,
which suggests the main consumers of these benchmarking results arelimited to Japanese universities.
The greatest obstacle for the internationalization of Japanese universities is financial shortage.

According to the result of a questionnaire

survey by Tohoku University in 2008 (Yonezawa, 2008) Japanese universities are not expecting direct financial benefit from international activities(Table 2).

Or, more precisely, the internationalization of Japanese uni-

versities relies almost completely on government initiatives.

Figure 2

indicate that national universities tend to generate income from researchfunds by internationalization, and private universities expects more on
governmental subsidies allocated according to the number of international
students, rather than tuition fees from those international students.
Although around 80 percent of international students studying in Japanare technically ‘self-financed’ students, private universities are expectingsome financial incentives from governmental support for internationalization, and it is frequent that international students engage in tuition
bargaining.

There are various types of public support systems for in-

ternational students; some provide funds to students, and others arerouted directly to higher education institutions.

Considering the fact thatmost international students in Japan come from middle income or developing countries, it could be concluded that Japanese policies for at-

211tracting international students have to be supported significantly by publicfinance.
Table 2. Internationalization and finance (%)

Total

National

Local

Private(N=609)(N=76)

Public(N=466)(N=67)
Implement internationalization if it isfinancially beneficial
Implement internationalization if it is not afinancial burden
Implement internationalization under the
expectations of non-monetary returns such as

2.6

1.3

0.0

3.2

18.6

10.5

19.4

19.7

45.3

53.9

28.4

46.4

32.0

34.2

50.7

29.0

1.5

0.0

1.5

1.7

the enhancement of global image.
Internationalization itself has significance, so
there is no expectations of financial returns
Other

Based on the survey by Tohoku University 2008 (Yonezawa, 2008)

Based on a 2008 survey by Tohoku University (Yonezawa, 2008)
Figure 2 Expectation of income generation through internationalization

212

The Internationalization of Japanese Higher Education: Policy Debates and Realities

5．Government-Market Linkage: A trap for the Universities?
The observations above suggest that universities and academics are
relying heavily on government or state initiatives in their internationalization processes.

At the same time, the low responsiveness of themarket and students work as a barrier for the internationalization ofJapanese universities, especially in their being under increasing financialpressure as seen in most other higher education institutions in the world.
Therefore, strong initiatives from government are always necessary forthe further development or even the sustenance of current conditions.
However, it does not mean that a long term commitment by the government to the internationalization process is always assured.
First of all, financial contributions to higher education in general arequite small in the Japanese case.

The OECD’s Education at a Glance2008 (OECD, 2008) revealed that the finance of higher education in Japan isrelies highly on private contributions, and that government investment ineducation in GDP per capita, including primary and secondary education,is among the lowest among OECD countries.
Secondly, the Japanese government has been trying to cut the publicbudget in a climate of neo-liberalism, and under the strong pressure of its
rapidly increasing governmental debt shown in Figure 3.

Higher edu-

cation is not an exception, with pubic budgeting for basic operational costs
for national universities suffering minus one percent of the budgetaryceiling since 2004.

As for the top universities, some increased income forcompetitive project funds, including ‘internationalization’ or ‘world classresearch’, could be expected.

However, most national universities andlocal-public universities are suffering from continuous decreases in annual
income.

Private universities struggle in even more severe conditions.

From the 1990s, the government has released the quantitative control ofstudents learning at universities and junior colleges.

In 2008, 47.1% offour year private universities are now facing difficulty to enroll a sufficientnumber of students (PMACPSJ, 2008).

Some universities attempt toenroll international students to compensate for this trend, with tuition213

bargaining arrangements being implemented in many cases.

Source: OECD Stats
Figure 3. Total central government debt % of GDP

Therefore, it would be a mistake to connect recent government initiatives for the internationalization of higher education with actually increases in public expenditure for Japanese higher education.

Especially,

the recent political instability of post-Koizumi administrations tends toaccompany frequent policy changes and unrealized, shortsighted propaganda.

The current ‘internationalization’ policy of Japan is highly re-lated to the rapidly changing diplomatic context in the Asian region.
Clearly, the significant increase in China’s socio-economical influence
throughout the region has a strong impact on Japanese diplomacy andinternational policy making, including initiatives related to higher education.
In the summer of 2008, two Japanese project teams set out to examine
higher education policy from almost completely opposite directions within
the ruling Liberal Democratic Party.

One project team aims for improveworld ranking positions of Japanese universities, while not necessarily
reaching the strong budgetary support extended to the top universities.
For example, in April 2008, Heizo Takenaka, a professor of Keio (top214The Internationalization of Japanese Higher Education: Policy Debates and Realities
private) University and former Minister of Internal Affairs and Communication under the Koizumi Cabinet, argued for the possible privatizationof the University of Tokyo to be more competitive in top university
rankings, in line with the general idea of the ‘privatization of public services’2).

The other project team examined existing examples of waste inpublic expenditure3).

Here, many programs supported by competitive

funds, such as Global COE, a program for improving internationalization ofhigher education, have come under criticism as ‘wasteful’ or, at least,‘ineffective’ expenditure of public budget.
Considering the existence of a strong and long-established bureaucracythat has effectively assured consistency of Japanese governmental policy,
it is unlikely that government initiatives for internationalization of Japanese higher education will suddenly cease.

However, both the Liberal

Democratic Party and the leading opposition party, the Democratic Partyof Japan, are arguing to strengthen the initiatives of politicians against theconservative tendencies of bureaucracy.

In cases where

universities

and academics are not confident in those measures taken to realize theirinternationalization, universities may fall into a trap whereby the government merely follows the least responsive views of the market or thegeneral public, and suddenly terminates active commitment to the internationalization of higher education.

6．Conclusion
This examination of the process of internationalizing Japanese higher
education concludes that, at least in the case of Japan, a ‘glonacal agency’
has yet to emerge, and the coordination in Clark’s triangle is ongoing in
the process of internationalization. Compared to the government, universities and academics are less responsive to globalization trends, with action on the part of students and the market least likely of all.
Although it is clear that top (mainly national and some private) universities in Japan are deeply involved in global competition to achieve or
maintain positions as world class research universities, the majority ofJapanese institutions are not directly involved in the international market

215

game.

Actually, ‘internationalization’ at top universities tends to be

narrowly focused on cutting edge research activities, and is therefore notdirectly related to the international student market.

In contrast, themajority of Japanese private universities define internationalization as theprovision of international experiences for domestic students mainly atundergraduate level.

Most universities do not expect financial benefit toarise from this, and it is unlikely that they can expect financial contribution from the students under very severe over-supply conditions in theJapanese higher education market.

Universities rarely expect financial

benefit directly from internationalization or their involvement with theinternational student market either.

This suggests that universities andacademics cannot expect the support of market or private funds forfurther internationalization and have to rely on government initiatives.
It would be overly optimistic for universities to continue to rely on
current, strong government initiatives to provide the impetus for the internationalization of Japanese higher education.

It is imperative that

universities and academics themselves display some initiative of their own.
In order to sustain a continuous internationalization process, dynamic
initiatives by academics and universities for knowledge creation andexchange are indispensable.
Notes1) Based on his presentation at Changing Academic Profession Workshop by
Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University, 7 to 8
February, 2008.
2) An article of Diamond Online. 14 April 2008.
http://diamond.jp/series/nippon/10002/
3) The memo of the discussion of this project team is available on the website
of Taro Kono.
http://www.taro.org/policy/post̲3.php

216

The Internationalization of Japanese Higher Education: Policy Debates and Realities

References
Altbach Philip G. and Jorge Balan eds. 2007. World class worldwide: transforming research universities in Asia and Latin America, Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Amano, Ikuo. 2008. Kokuritsu Daigaku Hojin-ka no Yukue [Direction of Incorporation of National Universities in Japan], Tokyo: Toshindo Press.
Clark. Burton R. 1983. The higher education system : academic organization incross-national perspective, University of California Press.
Eades, Jerry. S., Roger Goodman and Yumiko Hada, eds. 2005, The ‘Big Bang’in Japanese Higher Education. Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press.
Harvard University. 2007. Harvard University Fact Book 2007-2008, Harvard
University.
Higher Education Bureau, MEXT. 2006. OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary
Education Country Background Report of Japan. Tokyo: MEXT.
Horie, Miki. 2002. The internationalization of higher education in Japan in the
1990s: A reconsideration. Higher Education, vol. 43 (1). 65-84.
Hood, Christopher P. 2001. Japanese education reform : Nakasone's legacy.
Routledge.
Marginson, Simon. and Gary. Rhoades. 2002. Beyond national states, markets,and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic, Higher

Education, 43(10), 281-309.
Marginson, Simon. and van der Wende, Marik. 2007. Globalisation and Higher
Education, Education Working Paper Number 8, Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development, OECD, Paris, 6 July
McVeigh, Brian. J. 2002. Japanese Higher Education as Myth. Armonk, N.Y.:
M.E. Sharpe.
Monbusho (Ministry of Science, Education and Culture). 1990. Japanese Government Policies in Education, Science and Culture 1990, Monbusho.
OECD 2008. Education at a Glance 2008. Paris: OECD.
PMACPSJ. 2008. Shiritsu Daigaku Tanki Daigaku Tou Nyuugaku Shigan Doko2008 [Trends of Application to Private Universities and Colleges 2008].
Tokyo. PMACPSJ.
Schoppa, Leonard J. 1991. Education reform in Japan : a case of immobilist
politics. Routledge.

217

Teichler, Urlich, 1999. Internationalisation as a challenge for higher educationin Europe: Tertiary education and management 5:5-23.
Torii, Yasuteru. 2008. Gaikoku Daigaku no Nihon Ko [Foreign University
Branches in Japan], In Shuichi Tsukahara ed. Koto Kyoiku Shijo no Kokusai-ka [Internationalization of the Higher Education Market]. Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press. 187-213.
Umakoshi, Toru. 2004. Private higher education in Asia: Transition and Development. In Altbach. Philip. G. and Toru Umakoshi eds. Asian Universities:
Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Challenges. The Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Umemiya, Naoki and Kazuo Tsutsumi. 2008. Possibilities and Limitations ofMultilateral Network Cooperation in Higher Education in a Knowledge-based Society: Case of the ASEAN University Network/Southeast
Asia Engineering Education Development Network: AUN/SEED-Net.

Technology and Development No.21. Tokyo. JICA. 45-53.
Yonezawa, Akiyoshi. 2003. Making “World-class Universities”: Japan’s
periment. Higher Education Management and Policy, 15(2), 9-23.

Ex-

Yonezawa, Akiyoshi. 2007. Japanese flagship universities at a crossroads.

Higher Education. 54(4): 483-499.
Yonezawa, Akiyoshi. 2008. Facing Crisis: Soft Power and Japanese Education
in a Global Context. In Watanabe Yasushi and David McConnell eds. SoftPower Superpowers: Cultural and National Assets of Japan and the UnitedStates, 54-74. ME Sharpe Inc.
Yonezawa Akiyoshi ed. 2008. Reviews on the Internationalization of Universities Implemented by Universities Themselves and Third-Party Evaluation
Organizations, Sendai: Tohoku University.

218日本の高等教育の国際化−政策論争と現実−
米

＜要

澤

彰

純

旨＞

高等教育の国際化は内政のアジェンダにおいて主要な位置を世界中で占めてきた。しかしながら、国家の文脈は国際化の実際のプロセスで未だ影響力を有している。日本の場合について言えば、高度な高等教育システムに基づく強いアイデンティティに加えて、科学技術セ
クター及び産業・サービス経済に関する隣国の継続的発展が、政策の方向性と実際の国際化プロセスに対して重要な影響を与えている。
本稿は、日本を事例として、大学及び学術関係者による高等教育の国際化に向けた自律的なイニシアティブの必要性を主張するものである。日本の政府とおよび高等教育機関は、急速に変化する地域の環境の中で自らのアイデンティティを発見する過程にある。その結果、国家や高等教育機関の戦略の方向性は、定まらず、一貫していないものとしばしば認識されてきた。
継続した国際化のプロセスを支えるために、知識の創造と交換のための学術関係者と大学によるダイナミックなイニシアティブは不可
欠なのである。

東北大学高等教育開発推進センター・准教授

219