Globalization and
Reforms of Labor Market Institutions:Japan and Major OECD Countries
Mari Miura
F-94
Institute of Social Science
Domestic Politics Project No. 4
July 2001

Dept. of Political Science
University of California, Berkeley
Institute of Social Science
University of Tokyo
miura@iss.u-tokyo.ac.jp

An earlier version of this paper was delivered at the Japan Comparative Politics Association, June
23-24, 2001, University of Kobe. Parts of the argument were also presented at the Department of
Economics, University of Hokkaido. I would like to acknowledge the insightful comments that I
received from the following people: Nobuhiro Hiwatari, Junko Kato, Jonah Levy, Gregory Noble,
Toshimitsu Shinkawa, Tetsuhiko Takai, Steven Vogel, and John Zysman.

Introduction
In most advanced industrialized countries, labor market reforms have been pursued withvigor over the last decade. Intensified economic competitions, global capital mobility,
persistent unemployment, rapidly ageing populations, and the necessity to curb financial
deficits have been the major structural forces that have driven labor market reforms. Eachcountry faces similar socio-economic pressures, yet has followed different paths in copingwith these structural challenges. A number of studies attempt to identify reform paths anddelineate explanatory factors that caused diverging paths. My paper aims to make a modest
contribution to such academic inquiries by situating the Japanese experience in a comparative
perspective.
In order to accurately comprehend reform paths, national variations in labor market
institutions first need to be mapped. The current literature of welfare states does not fail torecognize the importance of labor market regulations as integral part of social protection
system, yet systematic comparisons on labor market institutions draw lesser academic
attention than pension and health-care systems. My paper intends to fill this gap, proposing
six indices of labor market institutions and employment performance.
My attempt of classifying labor market institutions illuminates two distinct features of theJapanese employment regulation; “welfare thorough work” and “asymmetrical deregulation.”
Japan’s labor market institutions are, on the one hand, similar to Anglo-Saxon countries withrespect to a lean social safety net, but on the other hand, also closer to the Continental
European countries regarding high employment protection legislations and tight regulationon temporary employment. However, unlike continental Europe, Japan continues to holdhigh employment rates. The combination of lean benefits to the unemployed and highemployment rates gives Japan a characteristic of “welfare through work.” The question is
how Japan maintains both high degrees of labor market regulations and high levels of
employment rates, which is often considered incompatible. I argue that market
segmentation between regular workers and atypical workers allows Japan to offer welfare
through work.
The market segmentation was indeed fortified by Japan’s recent reform. Employment
protection of regular workers has remained stable, while deregulation of the labor market has
proceeded rapidly in the realm of atypical workers. Moreover, the gap between those
protected and those not protected remains wide. Why did Japan follow this path of“asymmetrical deregulation”? Why did it fail to equalize social protection between core
workers and others through providing an extensive social safety net and/or strengthening
rights and benefits of atypical workers? My paper examines preferences of the government,
employers, and unions thereby showing that existing labor market institutions, coupled withthe organizational structure of unions, create a sharp cleavage between insiders and outsiders.
Such segmentation in the market and politics led to asymmetrical deregulation.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The first section introduces the six indices oflabor market institutions and employment performance and explores linkages between labormarkets and welfare states. The second section focuses on Japan, asking why “welfare
through work” became possible. The third section then explains why Japan followed thepath of asymmetrical deregulation by briefly examining preferences of the government,
employers, and unions.
11. Labor Market Institutions in a Comparative Perspective

Labor Market Regime?
Classification is a first step of comparative analyses as such a method helps generate and test
hypotheses as well as highlight case-specificities. In the literature of welfare states,
Esping-Andersen’s seminal work of categorizing welfare regimes (1990) has been repeatedly
employed regardless of its shortcomings partly because a few clusters of countries allow us tosimplify the reality to an extent that we can hold some variables as constant. The
construction of a new typology can be added by introducing a new axis, like my attempt in
the domain of labor market institutions. Nevertheless, the three welfare regimes based on
the private-public mix in the income-maintenance programs remain a convenient reference
point to any kinds of typologies as long as scholars share the view that different roles playedby the basic providers of welfare—market, state, and family—underscore qualitatively
different workings of welfare states.
Esping-Andersen claims that welfare states can be categorized into the three welfare regimes,
which are underpinned by degree of de-commodification and modes of stratification. The
liberal regime, which often can be found in Anglo-Saxon countries, tends to concentrate on
needs-based social assistance and employ market mechanisms in underwriting risks. The
Social Democratic welfare regime, in contrast, can be characterized by comprehensive risk
coverage, generous benefit levels, and egalitarianism. The Scandinavian countries
incorporate many of these traits. The continental European countries are often labeled as
the conservative, Christian Democratic, or corporatist regime, which embodies
status-segmented social insurance systems and familialism.
One way to develop post-Esping-Andersen comparative studies of welfare states is to unravel
the triad of market, state and family, and focus on one of the three nexuses: the labormarket-welfare nexus, the family-welfare nexus, and the labor market-family nexus. As far as
the labor market-welfare nexus is concerned, many scholars have pointed out that theimportance of labor market regulations is underestimated in the three models of welfare
states. For instance, strong labor protection in Australia and New Zealand lead Castel and
Mitchell to argue that Australasian welfare states substantially differ from the liberal regime(Castel and Mitchell 1993). Likewise, scholars who examine Southern and Continental
European countries emphasize important roles played by minimum wages, extension ofcollective bargaining, and labor laws (Ferrara, 2000, Bonoli 2000). Recently, some scholars
more assertively stress functional equivalents between welfare states and labor market policies(Bonoli 2000, Ebbinghaus 2000).
What connects labor market institutions and welfare states and what mechanism allows
functional equivalents? Employment performance is, I argue, a missing link between labormarkets and welfare states. Full employment and pay equalities could substitute to an extent
for income maintenance programs and redistributive function by welfare states. However,just as welfare states create new stratifications as eloquently argued by Esping-Andersen, so
do labor market institutions. Labor market institutions influence who will be more likely tobe (un)employed, rather than how many people will be (un)employed (Esping-Andersen2000). Varying patterns of unemployment risks and incomes maintenance, which I call
employment performance, therefore connect labor market institutions and formal welfare2states.
Beyond various effects that labor market institutions might have on distributing undesirable
risks and achieving social equity, the way in which reforms of labor market regulations are
pursued in relation to retrenchment in welfare programs has contemporary relevancy topolitical scientists. Poor employment performance sooner or later appears on the policy
agenda in industrialized democracies and instigates reforms of labor market institutions
regardless of actual causalities between labor market institutions and unemployment. Thus,
employment performance should be analyzed not only as the measurement of equality but
also in light of the politics of welfare reform.

Indices of Labor Market Institutions and Employment Performance
What are then criteria for classifying labor market institutions and how do those criteria
influence employment performance? In this paper, I tentatively propose six indices thatmeasure the degree and scope of social protection for workers against volatile market forces:(1) protection of permanent workers against dismissal, (2) regulation on atypical workers, (3)safety net toward the unemployed, (4) active labor market policies, (5) minimum wages, (6)coverage of collective bargaining (Table 1).
Strictness of protection against dismissal covers regular procedural inconvenience, notice andseverance pay for no-fault individual dismissals, and difficulty of dismissals. The protection
targets only regular workers under an indefinite length of contract or permanent employees.
For regulation on atypical workers, I use overall strictness of regulation of temporary
employment including fixed-term contracts and temporary work agencies. The third
indicator, generosity of a safety net toward the unemployed, can be measured by two items:
net replacement rates of previous wages offered by unemployment insurance and public
expenditure on passive measures in labor market programs per GNP1. These three indicespartially indicate flexibility of external labor markets and relative ease of firing.
Public expenditures on active labor market policies per GNP indicate the government’s
commitment to workers’ employability. Active labor market policies used to prevail in
Scandinavian countries, most notably in Sweden. Recently, some of the Continental
European countries have also reinforced training programs in order to activate theirlong-term unemployed workers.
The level of minimum wages and coverage of collective agreements affect degrees of market
segmentation. High levels of minimum wages compress wage disparities among low to
middle income workers, but constitute barriers to low-skill workers to enter the labor market.
Wage bargaining coverage includes not only the scope of collective bargaining between
unions and employers but also legal extensions of such agreements by the government.
This indicator shows the extent to which market segmentation is politically prevented or
rectified.

Public expenditure on passive/active measures in labor market programs should be divided by the
number of unemployed in order to control for effects of unemployment. Since comparable data were
not conveniently available for Japan, in this paper I used the share of public expenditure per GNP.

1

3

Table 1 Labor Market Institutions in the mid-late 1990s
Overallstrictness ofprotection
againstdismissal

Overall
Strictness ofRegulation of
Unemployment Benefit
Temporary
Employment
Net
Passive
Replacement Measures
Rates(% GNP)

Public Expenditure on
Active Measuresin Labor Market
Program

1980s

Minimum Wage
wages' ratio bargaining
to average coverage
wages

1990s

Scandinavia
Denmark
Finland
NorwaySwedenAverage

1.6
2.1
2.4
2.8
2.23

0.9
1.9
2.8
1.6
1.80

81
59
62
67
67.3

3.1
2.6
0.5
1.7
1.97

1.3
1.0
1.0
1.7
1.25

1.8
1.4
0.8
1.8
1.46

52
53

Continental Europe
Austria
Belgium
FranceGermany
Netherlands
Average

2.6
1.5
2.3
2.8
3.1
2.46

1.8
2.8
3.6
2.3
1.2
2.34

59
55
54
69
59.3

1.2
2.5
1.8
2.1
2.8
2.09

0.3
1.2
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.86

0.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.8
1.26

62
60
50
55
55
56

93.3

Southern Europe
Italy
Spain
Average

2.8
2.6
2.7

3.8
3.5
3.65

19
49
34.0

0.6
1.6
1.10

0.70
0.80
0.75

1.1
0.7
0.89

71
32
52

82
78
80.0

Anglo-Saxon
IrelandUK
CanadaUS
Australia
New Zealand
Average

1.6
0.8
0.9
0.2
1.0
1.7
1.03

0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.9
0.4
0.42

31
51
47
16

1.5
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.8
0.65

1.7
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.63

55
40

34
35.8

2.4
0.8
1.0
0.3
1.1
1.6
1.20

Japan

2.7

2.1

45

0.5

0.1

0.09

Source: OECD (1997, 1999a, 1999b, 2000)

4

54
52

39

45

69
95
74
89
81.8

98
90
92

47
36
18
80
31
42.4
21

Table2 Employment Performance in the 1990s
Youth
Male
Unemployment rates unemploy- employ(average 1990s)
ment
ment rate(55-59)Standardized
Scandinavia
Denmark
Finland
NorwaySwedenAverage

Femaleemployment rate(25-54)Long-term

D9/D1

7.4
11.9
4.9
7.3
7.9

1.1
3.0
0.2
2.4
1.7

9.0
24.6
10.4
19.0
15.8

89.0
61.6
86.8
89.0
81.6

77.5
75.3
80.4
79.6
78.2

Continental Europe
Austria
4.1
Belgium
8.7
France11.3
Germany
7.5
Netherlands
5.7
Average
7.6

1.2
5.4
4.6
4.5
1.4
3.4

14.8
21.2
26.6
9.3
9.3
16.2

51.3
68.9
76.4
66.7
65.8

71.3
63.3
67.9
68.2
66.0
67.3

Southern Europe
Italy
Spain
Average

10.6
19.9
15.2

2.6
8.2
5.4

33.6
34.9
34.2

54.9
75.8
65.4

48.4
44.4
46.4

Anglo-Saxon
IrelandUK
CanadaUS
Australia
New Zealand
Average

12.1
8.2
9.5
5.8
8.9
7.9
8.7

3.6
1.8
0.9
0.3
2.1
1.4
1.7

13.6
13.2
15.2
10.9
14.8
13.3
13.5

72.0
72.2
78.4
73.5
81.5
75.2

55.3
71.5
71.5
73.5
65.0
69.0
67.6

3.31
3.77
4.35
2.94
3.17
3.51

Japan

3.1

1.1

7.6

94.5

64.0

2.77

Source: OECD (1999a, 2000), ILO (1999).

5

Part-time
employment as %of total employment

Earnings
dispersion

D5/D1

1979

1995

2.17
2.53
1.98
2.20
2.22

1.38
1.46
1.32
1.36
1.38

22.7
6.7
27.3
23.6
20.1

21.6
8.4
26.5
24.3
20.2

3.43
2.25
2.59
2.76

1.67
1.38
1.61
1.37
1.56
1.52

7.6
6.0
8.1
11.4
16.6
9.9

13.9
13.6
15.6
16.3
37.4
19.4

2.64

1.60

5.3
7.8
6.55

6.4
7.5
6.95

1.78
2.18
2.13
1.66
1.77
1.90

5.1
16.4
13.8
16.4
15.9
13.9
13.6

11.4
24.1
18.6
18.6
24.8
21.2
19.8

1.60

15.4

20.1

With regard to employment performance, following criteria indicate distribution ofunemployment risks among different segments of population as well as pay equalities: (1)unemployment rates (both standardized and long-term), (2) youth unemployment rates, (3)male employment rates (age 55-59), (4) female employment rates (age 25-54), (5) earnings
dispersions among male workers, and (6) ratio of part-timers as a percentage of total
employment (Table 2) 2. These items are straightforward and require little explanation.
Unemployment rates denote averages in the 1990s in order to contain cyclical changes in theeconomies. I use male employment rates between 55 and 59, instead of the unemployment
rate, because retirement is an option for this group of workers, which is hardly the case foryoung workers. Moreover, variance among countries is quite wide on this item reflecting
different public policies toward retirement processes. Female unemployment rates were notused for a similar reason. An exit from the labor market is an option for women in many
places, thus female employment rates more noticeably indicate cross-national variance inwomen’s involvement in paid work.
In terms of pay inequalities, I use earnings dispersions only among male workers. Pay
differentials between the two sexes varies considerably across countries, which, when coupledwith different degrees of female employment rates, make the number of overall wage
dispersions inflate when a wide gender gap exists. The gender wage gaps are not used here
due to the lack of reliable data that include Japan. I cite ratio of part-time employment as
an imperfect and unsatisfactory proxy for degrees of market segmentation. It should be
noted that numbers on this index are not comparable. Definition of part-timers varies
across countries, and more importantly compensation packages and legal rights of part timers
are significantly different. High dependence on part-timers in a given country could signify
either a highly segmented market as seen in Japan or a kind of work-sharing, which istypically found in the Netherlands.

Mapping Countries
How can we map countries along with labor market institutions measured by the six indicesand employment performance indicated by the six criteria? First, the three typologies of
welfare regimes can be observed in the indices of labor market institutions, yet the dividing
line seems to be drawn between Anglo-Saxon countries and elsewhere. Anglo-Saxon
countries feature low degrees of regulation both toward regular workers against dismissal andtemporary workers. The social-safety net toward unemployed is not dense and active labormarket policies are not regular policy options except in Ireland. Minimum wages are slightly
lower than in non-Anglo-Saxon countries, but wage bargaining coverage is markedly narrow.
In contrast, differences between Scandinavian countries that tend to fall into the category ofsocial democratic welfare state and Continental Europe, usually classified as Christian
Democratic or conservative regime, are not pronounced. Active labor market policies areused to differentiate these two regimes, but as mentioned above the distinction became
blurred in the late 1990s.

My indices do not incorporate the dimension of rights granted to workers at their workplace.
Numerical operationalization of rights for the purpose of cross-national comparisons is not easy, yet suchresearch will complement and enrich my findings, which are based on the strictness of regulation,budgetary allocation, and benefit levels.

2

6

This observation is consistent with the claim by Scharpf and Schmidt. They point out thattwo dimensions make up the three models of welfare states: “the extent to which welfare
goals are pursued through the regulation of labor markets and employment relations or
through the ‘formal welfare state’ of publicly financed transfers and services, and the extent
to which ‘caring’ services are expected to be provided informally in the family or throughprofessional services.” They argue that the first axis divides the liberal regime from
Continental Europe and Nordic countries, whereas the second one differentiates theContinental countries from the Nordic and Anglo-Saxon countries (Scharpf and Schmidt
2000: 7).
Second, variation within a regime is also prominent. In each regime, it is relatively easy tospot outliers, which complement what area specialists have stressed. For example, among
Social Democratic welfare states, Denmark stands out in terms of a low degree of protection
against dismissals and generous benefit levels to the unemployed. This marks a stark
contrast to Sweden, which offers a high degree of protection against dismissals and strongemphasis on active labor market policies rather than passive measurements toward theunemployed (Björklund 2000). The Netherlands also deviates from other Christian
Democratic welfare states because of less restriction on temporary employment and recent
recovery in unemployment rates. In addition, Italy differs in terms of weak function ofunemployment insurance and high levels of minimum wages, as often noted by Italian
specialists (Ferrara 2000; Rhodes 1997). Among liberal regimes, Australia and New Zealandconstitute a distinct cluster, giving a relatively higher regulation of labor markets and a strongrole played by state arbitration courts in setting wages (Castels and Mitchell 1993).
The existence of these outliers in each regime has an important implication for scholars who
aspire to situate Japan in the typologies of welfare states. The Japanese case tends to be
excluded in comparative studies of social policy due to the fact that it does not neatly fit to
any regime (cf. Huber and Stephens 2001, Scharpf and Schmidt 2000). Or, Japan is often
considered as a hybrid case of the liberal regime and the conservative regime(Esping-Andersen 1999; Uzuhashi 1997). However, if these outliers comfortably belong tosome regime regardless of their deviations, there is little awkwardness for Japan to beconsidered as a variation of the conservative regime, except by its sheer geographical distancefrom the Continental European countries.
Third, variance in employment performance within each regime is wider than that seen inlabor market institutions and accordingly the three models of welfare states do not work wellto differentiate labor market institutions and employment performance. For instance, by theemployment performance indices, Southern Europe evidently constitutes a distinct pattern.
Moreover, differences in the levels of unemployment do not neatly correspond to thetypologies. This result is not surprising because labor market institutions affectdistributional patterns of unemployment risks rather than unemployment rates per se. In
fact, striking differences can be found in varying employment rates among different groups
of workers such as young people, women, and elderly male workers. Youth unemployment
is severe most notably in Southern Europe followed by France, Belgium, and Finland.
Female employment rates are low in Southern Europe and high in Scandinavian countries.
Anglo-Saxon countries, continental Europe and Japan are located somewhere in the middle.
In terms of pay equalities, Anglo-Saxon countries are most unequal, which contrast to theNordic countries. Continental Europe and Japan are again in the middle. Early retirement
prevails in Finland, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, and Italy, which differs quite noticeably
from countries where elderly workers stay in the labor markets such as Denmark, Sweden,
and Japan.
7

2. Situating Japan

Welfare Through Work
What do the above indices tell us about Japan? Key features of the Japanese labor market
institutions and employment performance can be characterized as “welfare thorough work.”
Japan shares with liberal countries in terms of a lean social safety net toward the unemployed,
yet differs quite significantly with respect to the high degrees of regulation on firing andtemporary workers. Japan’s high employment rates, both among elderly workers in an
absolute term and female workers in a relative term, makes a stark contrast to countries that
also hold highly regulated labor markets.
The conservative welfare regime is often associated with negative characteristics, such as“welfare state without work” (Esping-Andersen 1996). It guarantees high family wages tomale breadwinners, which in turn results in the containment of job creation. The situation
became “negative spirals” after the oil crisis due to industrial restructuring proceeded by the(over)use of early retirement and disability programs. The usage of welfare programs todeal with labor market problems weakened the financial foundation of pension programs.
The extent to which this downward spiral actually prevailed in each country might becontroversial, since a number of scholars have recently portrayed more positive aspects ofthe conservative regime (Levy 1999, Rhodes 1998). However, as long as we compare Japan
with other conservative regimes, it is remarkable that Japan has not experienced “welfare
without work” or the inactivity trap.
Why was Japan able to avoid “welfare without work”? One hypothesis is that Japan’s leansocial safety net prevented the specter of the inactivity trap. It is plausible to argue thatstrong incentives to work exist in Japan. We can easily name short duration ofunemployment insurance provision, low pick-up rates of social assistance, or the latedevelopment of public pension system. However, these incentives only affect alreadylaid-off workers. Corporate behavior that tends to restrain labor shedding still remains to be
explained. Moreover, how can we explain the fact that strong labor market regulation,
which is often considered to be a hindrance to smooth labor transfer thereby pushing up
unemployment rates, has been accompanied with low unemployment and high employment
rates in Japan?
We can alternatively hypothesize that a relatively large share of low-wage sectors, which
absorb redundant workforce, allows Japan to have both highly regulated labor market andhigh employment rates. Scholars often argue that high degrees of wage compression
increase incentives of labor shedding (cf. Manow and Sieils 2000). If the degree of wage
differentials has an impact on the level of employment in the highly regulated labor markets,
we should be able to find substantial differences between Japan and the Continental
European countries. Table 2 demonstrates, however, that high level of wage equalities canbe found only in Germany and Belgium. The level of wage differentials in Japan is higher
than the Scandinavian countries, yet comparable to Austria, France, and the Netherlands. As
far as earnings dispersions among male workers are concerned, the hypotheses of low-wage
sectors cannot be sustained.
If low levels of income maintenance programs during unemployment are not a sufficient8explanation, and if the degree of wage disparities among male workers does not adequately
differentiate Japan from the Continental European countries, what allows Japan to maintainhighly regulated labor market while keeping employment rates high?
If we compare Japan to the Continental and Southern European countries, the share ofpart-timers could not have been starker. Recently, the Continental European countries haveincreased the number of part-timers, but Japan already began to employ part-timers in the
1970s and it still outnumbers its Continental European counterparts except the Netherlands.
This fact leads us to hypothesize that the role played by part-timers allows Japanesecompanies to retain labor force without infringing upon restriction against dismissal. Indeed,wage differentials between full-time workers and part-time workers are significantly large inJapan. The hypothesis of the low-wage sector might be sustained in the realm of
part-timers.
Several pieces of evidence support this view, although it is quite difficult to conduct
cross-national comparisons. Definitions of part-timers are not the same across countries
and even differ within a country depending on surveys. As far as Japan is concerned, pāto
refers to workers who are supposed to work part-time (e.g., less than 35 hours), but
approximately 20 % of “part-timers” work more than 35 hours or as long as regular workers3.
At the same time, some regular workers work less than statutory working hours (e.g. mostly
40 hours). Actual working hours thus do not correctly differentiate pāto from regular
workers.
The major differences, instead, reside in the wage determination system and the promotion
system. Wages for pāto are determined by the market and are barely above minimum wages4.
Pāto are not guaranteed to receive promotions or raises, even if they take higher job
responsibilities5. Length of employment is hardly taken into account in determining pātowage levels unlike regular workers. The fact that regular workers and pāto are under different
wage determination systems makes it very difficult to compare wage levels in a meaningfulway.
The gap between regular worker and pāto is partly reflected in gender differences, as over 80%of pāto are women. This rate itself is not so peculiar because it is similar elsewhere.
Actually, Japan has relatively a large number of male part-timers. But, the pattern of thegender divide in Japan cannot be understood without taking into account part-timers.
A striking feature of Japanese female employment performance is relatively high employment
rates and low wages. Japanese women’s employment rates during the prime ages aremoderate to low internationally, but moderate to high among countries that can be classified
as a strong male breadwinner regime. More interestingly, Japanese women between 55-59
years still stay in the market and elderly women (older than 60 years old) work as much as
their counterparts in Sweden and the US, surpassing the rates seen in Italy, Germany, France,
Part-timers here refer to both parto and arubaito and the source of data is Special Survey of the Labour
Force Survey, Management and Coordination Agency. There are no clear differences between parto andarubaito, but parto is such a gendered concept that parto usually means middle age women working as
part-time and arubaito means young people, including students, working as part-time.
4 Minimum wages are determined by prefecture and industry in Japan, and the level of minimum wages
reflect wages determined by the market. Currently, prefectural minimum wages range from 708 yen to
600 yen per hour.
5 8.7% of full-time parto experience promotion and 54.3% of them receive regular raise.
Pātotaimā noJittai [Realities of Part-timers], the Ministry of Labor, 1992.
3

9

the Netherlands, and Belgium to a considerable degree. In a typical case of the malebreadwinner regime, male workers receive family wages necessary to support their families.
High family wages, in turn, become an obstacle for women to work, as most women lacksufficient skills to receive high wages. The UK, Germany, Italy and Netherlands are
considered to be the strong male breadwinner regimes and Sweden and Denmark are labeled
weak male breadwinner regimes. France is located somewhere in the middle (Lewis 1993).
If we consider that Japan also shares many traits of the strong male breadwinner model,
Japanese female employment rates in their fifties and later appears paradoxical.
Even though Japan’s female employment rates are relatively high or at least comparable toother strong male breadwinner countries, as far as wage levels are concerned it lags far behind.
For example, Japan’s Economic Planning Agency estimates that female regular workers earn
63.5% of the wages of male workers in Japan, which lags behind the 80.8% in France, 75.5%
in the US, and 74.2 % levels seen in Germany6. Blau and Kahn compute different numbers,
but indicate a similar trend. They show that Japanese female workers earn approximately
half of male workers, whereas female/male hourly pay ratios are about 65-75% in the US,
UK, Ireland, and Germany, 80-90% in France, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand and the
Scandinavian countries. Data for Italy are not calculated by the same method, yet theirresearch by using micro-data files shows that Italian women earn 82.3% of male earnings
followed by 77.2% of Swedish women on the basis of gender earning ratios adjusted forhours. Moreover, Japan is the only country among their cases that demonstrated adownward trend in the female pay rates since the mid-1970s (Blau and Kahn 1995). Several
variables need to be controlled for in order to get meaningful figures such as age, education,
sector, firm size, and length of work. Yet, these numbers, taken together, clearly point tointernationally low wages of Japanese female workers7. If these numbers fairly portray thereality of Japanese female worker’s working conditions, it means that the Japanese version of
the male breadwinner model is distinctive in the sense that the participation rates of womenare high, but their wages are low. This presents a sharp contrast, for instance, to the Italianversion of the male breadwinner model—low female employment rates, but high pay equality
between the two sexes.
The above data on Japanese part-timers and female workers indicate that atypical workers
constitute a low-wage sector. From this observation, we are able to conclude that a
low-wage sector sustains the co-existence of highly regulated labor market and highemployment rates.

Two-tier Deregulation vs. Asymmetrical Deregulation
How did the above characteristics of the Japanese labor market institutions change in the last
decade? One of the problems associated with regime analyses is that typologies are staticand only offer a snapshot. In order to overcome this drawback, a comparison of snapshotsof the two time periods helps.
Figure 1 indicates the difficulty of dismissing regular employees among major OECD
Source: Kokumin Seikatsu Hakusho, the Economic Planning Agent, 1996. Gaps between core maleworkers and female workers, which exclude atypical workers. Japanese number is calculated by using datafrom Wage Structure Basic Statistics Survey, the Ministry of Labor.
7 When education, length of employment, and firm sizes are controlled for, female workers receive
approximately 75% of male wages. (Useful Rodo Tokei 2000, JIL, 2000, pp. 182-183.)
6

10

countries in the late 1980s and the late 1990s. This index is slightly different from the one in
the table. By this criterion, Japan and Norway stand out as holding the highest employment
protection, which marks a sharp contrast to the liberal economies such as the UK and the US.
It also illustrates that Spain eased its regulation against dismissal, whereas the Netherlands
and Finland tightened their regulations. With the exception of these three countries, it isstriking that most countries did not change their difficulty of dismissal in the last decade.
Figure 1 Difficulty of Dismissal
5.0
Norway
Japan

4.5
Italy
Sweden4.0

Germany
Netherlands

3.5

Austria
Spain

Late 1990s

3.0
France2.5

Denmark
Finland
IrlandCanadaBelgium
Switzerland

2.0
1.5
1.0
US

0.5
UK
0.0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5
Late 1980s

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Figure 2 and 3 show both the difficulty of dismissal and the strictness of temporary
employment regulations in selected OECD countries. In general, there are two clusters ofcountries in the 1980s: highly regulated markets versus little regulated markets. ‘Liberal’countries have neither strict regulation against dismissal or temporary workers. Anglo-Saxon
countries, Denmark and Switzerland are included in this category. In contrast, the highly
regulated market group has strict regulations both against dismissal and toward temporary
workers. Italy, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Spain and Japan are classified in this group.
Among these, Italy, Norway, Sweden and Germany were the most rigid markets, yet Sweden
and Germany deregulated their temporary employment regulations in the 1990s. The
Netherlands also followed this path. As a result, by the end of the 1990s, a new category,
which deregulated their regulations on temporary workers while maintaining their protection
to regular workers, emerged. Sweden and the Netherlands fall into this new type.

11

Figure 2 Rigidity and Flexibility (1990s)
5.0

4.5

Norway
Japan

4.0

Italy

Sweden3.5

Sweden (1980s)

Germany (1980s)

Germany

Netherlands

Spain

Diffuculty of Dismissal

Austria
3.0
Netherlands (1980s)
2.5

New Zealand

2.0

CanadaIrlandDenmark

FranceFinland

Belgium
Australia

1.5

Switzerland

1.0

US

0.5

UK
0.0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Strictness of Temporarary Employment Regulations

3.5

4.0

4.5

Figure 3 Reform Paths in the 1990s
4.5

4.0

Spain

Protection against Dismissal

3.5
Netherlands

3.0

Italy 90s

SwedenAustria

2.5

Sweden 80s
Italy

FinlandGermany
NorwayFrance2.0
Denmark

Irland

1.5

Belgium
Switzerland

1.0

CanadaUK

Australia

0.5
US
0.0
0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0
Regulation on Temporary Workers

4.0

5.0

6.0

A general tendency exists that the more difficult it is to dismiss regular workers, the more
likely it becomes that the temporary labor market is deregulated. Figure 4 illustrates therelationship between the difficulty of dismissal in the late 1980s and the degree of
deregulation in the temporary labor market between the late 1980s and 1990s. It clearlyshows four distinct clusters. First, the liberal regimes (US, UK, Australia, Finland,
Switzerland, Ireland and Canada) did not deregulate their temporary labor markets, as they
did not have much regulation on temporary workers in the first place. Second, Sweden, Italy,
and Germany significantly deregulated their regulations on temporary workers. So did the12Netherlands albeit to a lesser degree. The first and second clusters of countries match wellwith the hypothesis. However, Austria, Spain, and Norway did not deregulate theirtemporary labor markets at all or only to a minor degree, even though they offered highdegrees of protection to their regular workers. In contrast, Belgium and Denmark
considerably deregulated their temporary labor markets, even though their degrees of job
protection were moderate.
Figure 4 More Segmentation?
Degree of Flexibilization for Temporary Employment (1990s-1980s)

3.0

Sweden2.5

2.0
Belgium

Italy

Denmark

Germany

1.5
Netherlands
1.0
Norway0.5

UK

Switzerland
Finland
Australia

US

Ireland
CanadaAustria

Spain

0.0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0
2.5
3.0
Difficulty of Dismissal (1980s)

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Since Japan’s late 1980s information on the regulation on temporary workers is missing fromthe OECD’s data, it is impossible to locate Japan in Figure 3. However, it is quite plausible
to argue that Japan’s path was similar to that of Sweden and Netherlands. Japan’s position in
the late 1990s probably reflects the deregulation of the Dispatched Manpower Business Act
in 1996 but not its substantial amendment in 19998. If deregulations in temporary labormarkets in 1999 were taken into account, Japan’s location would move leftward, closer toSweden and the Netherlands.
A combination of the deregulation of the temporary labor market and the protection ofregular workers is in fact seen not only in Japan, Sweden, and the Netherlands but also in Italy
and Germany. In fact, many studies reveal that “two-tier” approach was pursued in many
European countries with the exception of the UK (Lodovici 2000, Bertola et al 2001).
Even though two-tier deregulation can be found in a number of countries in the 1990s, it
should be considered separately from market segmentation. The strictness of temporary
employment regulation captures only an aspect of segmentation in the labor market. As far
as the Japanese case is concerned, large discrepancies between regular workers and atypical
workers in terms of compensation packages and employment security make its labor market
quite segmented. In some countries, such gaps are prohibited. The notable case is the
1996 Law on the Equal Treatment of Part-time and Full-time Employment in the
Netherlands by which equal treatment in terms of hourly earnings and social protection
between part-time and full-time workers is required. Legal protection for part-time workers
in pay, benefits, and working conditions prohibits discrimination of part-time workers by
8

On detail account on the Dispatched Manpower Business Act in 1999, see Nakamura and Miura (2001).

13

employers. By contrast, in Japan as well as in Germany, Ireland, and Sweden, the samerights and benefits guaranteed by national law or agreed upon by collective bargaining are notapplied to part-time workers who work below a certain threshold. Unemployment benefits,pensions, and public health insurance require hours and earning minima for eligibility.
From date collected above, it is premature to conclude that Japan is the only case that
followed the path of asymmetrical deregulation, yet it should not be underestimated thatasymmetrical deregulation is qualitatively different from two-tier deregulation.

3. Who Wants What Reform?

Segmentation in Market and Politics
Why did Japan follow the path of asymmetrical deregulation? Why was not an extension ofa safety net pursued? Has does Japan’s labor market segmentation have something to dowith it? A number of theoretical frameworks help sort out where we should look.
Scholars of comparative social policies have long investigated what factors cause national
differences in policy outcomes. In the nexus of“problem-institutions-actors-politics-policy” (Sharpf and Schmidt 2000: 17), variables thatgain analytical weight in a relative sense partly depend on the research design and controlled
variables. It is not difficult to infer that the same social coalition brings about reforms due
to changes in their policy preferences in coping with a new socioeconomic environment.
Alternatively, a seemingly status-quo outcome can be achieved by a shift in social coalitions,when a new partner of the social coalition also supports the existing arrangement. In orderto adequately comprehend degrees and paths of reforms, we need to first understand “whowants what reform.” Indeed, actors’ orientations and policy preferences vary to aconsiderable degree across countries, across sectors, and across time. It is thus
indispensable to specify intentional actors and their preferences in reform options in order toevaluate roles played by other variables.
Policy advocates emerge when they perceive institutional incongruities between their interestsand existing regulation. When they see that the social protection system is the cause ofproblems that they intend to solve, it is only natural that they seek to remove or replace
problematic regulations. In fact, existing social protection systems are now increasingly seen
as problems rather than solutions to socioeconomic crises. Welfare institutions shape thecharacteristics of the problems, the urgency for reforms, and alternative policy proposals.
Regarding labor market reforms, three sets of intentional actors are particularly relevant:government, employers, and unions. The two major policy advocates, government andemployers, pursue different goals. Government proposes reforms when it commits itself toattacking unemployment. Its attempt at financial reconstruction also drives it to engage inreforms. In contrast, the main concern of employers is improving the competitiveness of
their firms. With these different objectives—unemployment, financial reconstruction, andfirm competitiveness—, government and employers perceive different kinds of institutionalincongruities, which make them diverge on how they evaluate the necessity and urgency oflabor market reforms. Furthermore, different degrees of pressure that these two actors
perceive due to varying levels of unemployment, financial deficits, and firms’ competitivenessalso make them favor different policy proposals. Thus, who initiated the reforms influences
the content of reforms
14

Mass and persistent unemployment might trigger an expansion of income-maintenanceprograms, which ultimately lead to welfare reforms in order to constrain costs of supporting
an inactive workforce. Although a cure of unemployment is the fundamental issue, available
policy options are limited under open economies and intensified global competitions. In
this context, governments pursue labor market reforms, hoping for the improvement of
unemployment rates.
This chain—unemployment-welfare expansion-retrenchment—may be found in many ofadvanced industrialized countries, especially in Northern and Continental Europe. If massunemployment was not the problem, like in Japan at least until recently, or if massunemployment did not accompany the upsurge of social transfer, as in many Anglo-Saxon
countries, the linkage takes different forms.
As far as Japan is concerned, a long period of quasi-full employment has precluded thedevelopment of a social safety net toward the unemployed. This means that unemployment
insurance reforms are not necessary for the purpose of cutting the inactivity trap. Instead,
employers essentially initiated labor market reforms. Questions arise: Why did not the
government extend a social safety net when facing rising unemployment rates? Why did
employers seek asymmetrical deregulation instead of total deregulation? Moreover, didunions cooperate or block asymmetrical deregulation and why?

Government: Why Is It Difficult to Extend a Social Safety Net?
With increasing rates of unemployment, an extension of unemployment insurance coverageor the increase of benefit levels could be an option. Also, the intensive use of active labormarket policies could have been pursued. None of these outcomes resulted because thefinancing method of the social safety net—social contributing system—makes it hard tomobilize the political support necessary for such a policy shift.
If unemployment rates remain high, some might demand the improvement of
unemployment insurance benefits and active labor market policies to enhance theemployability of unemployed workers. However, the way of financing the unemployment
insurance system suggests that such a policy shift is less likely to receive adequate politicalsupport. The extension of the safety net towards unemployed workers is not attractive toemployers or unions since they must bear the costs. The tight relationship between
contributions and benefits in the program structure of unemployment insurance makes it
difficult to create active labor market policies for vocational training.
The financing methods of social security systems and of labor market policies have a great
impact on the formation of preferences. Whether social policy programs are funded bysocial contributions or by the state budget, it has different effects on reform processes. The
major difference between social contributions and general taxes is the existence of thereciprocity principle between contributions and benefits. Once this principle is embedded infinancing and distributing systems, a distinctive political logic follows.
Social-contribution systems are more likely to embody the reciprocity principle between
contributions and benefits. Social insurance programs are, in theory, not based on thereciprocity principle as with other insurance mechanisms. Risks are pooled among
contributors and levels of contributions and benefits are calculated actuarially. However,15

social contribution-funded social security systems are less redistributive, often
earnings-related, and have a tighter relationship between contributions and benefits thantax-funded social security systems, which, in turn, shapes the sense of entitlement and rights
among contributors. Benefits are considered as deferred wages in the case of old-age
pensions and as reserved wages in the case of unemployment insurance. The distinction
between insurance and saving becomes blurred. This impacts differently when the system is
expanding or retrenching. In general, raising social contributions tends to be easierpolitically than raising taxes, especially income taxes.
The costs of raising benefits canmore easily be externalized under contribution-supported systems than tax-funded systems
because of the reciprocity principle. While employers are able to externalize the costs ofrising contributions to wages, employees are likely to accept such expansion since benefits are
earnings-related. When financial cutbacks are pursued, the reciprocity principle works insuch a way that the relationship between contributions and benefits becomes tightened.
This is more likely to be supported by contributors than a reform plan that would only curb
benefits. Thus, under the contribution-funded systems, expenditures are more likely toincrease, whereas drastic cutbacks are less likely to occur.
In contrast, tax-funded systems are more likely to be subjected to policy priorities set by thegovernment. When the government commits itself to financial reconstruction, it has more
incentives to reform welfare programs because such reforms are expected to contributedirectly to improving the government’s financial profile under tax-financed systems.
However, open retrenchment requires skillful political maneuvering. Such constraint could
lead to a reduction in targeted areas where political support is scant. Alternatively, a
universal cutback to even out burdens of retrenchment to all recipients is another strategy to
be pursued in order to avoid political mobilization of relevant groups9. Either way, a loose
connection between contributions and benefits under tax-financed systems enables sudden
shifts in expenditure levels once a policy priority changes due to power alternation and/or
mounting financial pressures.
The strength of the reciprocity principle embedded in labor market institutions certainly
affects a range of desirable policy options. A well-discussed case is the relationship between
financing systems and expenditure levels of active labor market policies. On the one hand,the absence of the reciprocity principle, allows the government to expand welfare programsfor general objectives, but on the other hand it gives the government incentives to cut
programs for financial reconstruction. For example, Sweden’s high expenditure on active
labor market policies would not have been realized if it were not funded by the state budget(Schmid and Reissert 1987). National variance in using active labor market policies does not
squarely correspond to the three or four typologies. Instead, different financing methods
seem to affect the development of active labor market policies.
To summarize, financing methods of social safety nets affect a range of political support.
As a result, political strategies to mobilize a new support or demobilize resistance also varydepending on the amount and type of available political support.

Employers: Seeking a New Access to Politics?
If the government was not the main advocate of labor market reforms in Japan, what role
Targeted cutbacks can be found in Japan’s social assistance expenditure in the 1980s. An example ofuniversal cutbacks is Britain’s’ unemployment insurance reforms in the late 1970s to early 1980s.

916did the employers’ associations play? Major reforms in work hour rules and temporary work
agencies in the late 1990s were led by employers, which was actually unusual in the labor law
making processes in Japan (Kume 2000). Employers assertively pursued asymmetricalderegulation and in so doing they sought a new access to politics. The question is, why did
they prefer asymmetrical deregulation and why did they seek a new access to politics?
Employers’ policy demands are partly shaped by the way in which production and protection
are linked. When firms are able to maintain their competitiveness through labor shedding,
and when such a strategy is facilitated by welfare and labor market policies such as
unemployment insurance and early retirement programs, employers do not have incentives toadvocate labor market reforms since their competitiveness depends on such policies.
However, “welfare without work” increases the non-wage labor costs needed to finance suchwelfare programs that underpin a firm’s competitiveness. When high labor costs arecoupled with compressed wage structures, job growth in low productivity sectors stagnates, as
the German experience illustrates. (Hemerijck, Manow, and Kersbergen 2000).
If such a production-protection system causes a politically unacceptable level of
unemployment, the government has incentives to implement activation policies. However,as discussed above, under social contribution systems, it is politically difficult to receive
support from employers to finance active labor market policies as they deviate from thereciprocity principle. Moreover, once productivity stagnates, firms have incentives to seek
pension reforms as well as other social insurance reforms in order to curtail their non-wagelabor costs to improve their competitiveness. As long as welfare programs are the basis fortheir strategy of upgrading technology and skills to maintain competitiveness, an attractive
solution to employers is to increase the level of government subsidies allocated to social
security accounts. Such demands conflicts with the government, if the latter seeks tocontain governmental deficits.
Even if protection is not tightly connected with production via skill formation or technology
advancement, the existence of high employment protection legislation itself also serves afirm’s competitiveness. A higher degree of protection against dismissal often results fromcooperation between unions and employers. Even if the state or the court grants suchprotection in the absence of cooperative industrial relations, deregulation of employment
protection risks worsening industrial relations, thereby eroding the basis of competitiveness.
It is therefore not surprising that countries having a highly regulated labor market pursued a
two-tier or asymmetrical deregulation.
Nikkeiren and other employer associations repeatedly articulate their adherence to long-term
employment practices offered to regular workers. At the same time, they demand
deregulation of temporary labor markets. For instance, Nikkeiren advocates that Japanneeds to renew its management style and corporate governance. From mid-1995, it has
proposed that Japanese firms should have three different sets of employers: core workers
who are employed with contracts of undefined length and whose skills are developed within
the firm; workers with special skills who switch companies occasionally; and routine workers
who are flexibly employed and relocated. Nikkeiren foresaw that the ratio of core workers
would/should shrink to 70% of the male workforce, instead of the current level of 80%.
Most routine work is expected to be assigned to atypical workers in order to meet peakdemand, yet minimize the cost of maintaining regular workers. Nikkeiren’s policy proposals
have been consistent with its support of the new management style. More concretely, itdemanded the deregulation of the dispatched manpower business, the entry of private
replacement service companies, the flexible and irregular work hour rules, and the extension
17

of term-contracts, etc.
Logically, other employers associations probably share the image of the three types ofworkers and industrial relations as well. Keidanren goes one step further aggressively
seeking to put the deregulation of labor market regulation on a political agenda. In so doing,
it lobbied the Deregulation Subcommittee, which eventually accelerated the process ofderegulation thereby making the labor politics openly contentious (Miura 2001). Keidanren’s
intention to establish a new and direct access to political decisions resonates with experiencesof other countries. Public commissions are commonly used to legitimatize neo-liberal
reforms. German’s Deregulierungskommission or Sweden’s Lindbeck Commission had similar
missions as Japan’s Deregulation Subcommittee.
To sum up, when a trade-off exists between a cooperative relationship with unions and highnon-wage labor costs, the deregulation of employment protection is not an attractive option
to employers. Moreover, because of the cooperative industrial relations, employers have
incentives to seek a new policy making procedure that allows them to institute new policy
agenda.

Unions: Who are Insiders?
The asymmetrical deregulation can be also partly explained by the insider-outsider cleavage.
Unions above all defend the interest of their members. This creates a sharp cleavage
between employed and unemployed or between insiders and outsiders (Saint-Paul 1996,
Lindbeck and Snower 1998). The failure of French attempts to reduce minimum wages inorder to facilitate young workers’ entry to the labor market well illustrates the point that
insiders block reforms that would have a negative impact on them. Pareto optimal outcome
could be achieved, but burden sharing between insiders and outsiders is less likely to result
without skillful political maneuvering.
Labor economists treat employed or unionized workers as insiders. In the case of the
two-tier or asymmetrical deregulation, however, the boundary of insiders and outsiders
should be drawn between permanent workers and atypical workers. High degrees of
employment protection legislation increase vested interests of permanent regular workers,
which makes the cleavage deep.
The insider-outsider cleavage is even deeper in Japan. The fact that unions prioritize
employment protection elevates the stakes for insiders even higher. Furthermore, theorganizational structure of unions that does not include many atypical workers makes it hardto overcome the already profound insider-outsider cleavage.
The order of preferences among unions’ organizational goals varies across place and time.
Generally, unions pursue the increase of real wages, better working conditions, and job
protection. When unions face trade-offs among these goals, they place different priorities toeach item. In the Japanese case, unions have been concerned the most with the preservationof long-term employment. Unions most vigorously resisted any changes that might
potentially undermine long-term employment practices and employment protection
legislation for permanent workers. Instead, unions accepted deployment, wage moderation,
and wage dispersion. The lack of a seniority rule to determine who has to be fired first,
coupled with an organizational form of enterprise unionism, made union leaders prefer
employment security even more in exchange for wage protection.
18

No matter what actually made unions prioritize employment protection, the intensity of theirpolicy preferences has had an impact on the path of reforms. Japanese unions’preference—attachment to strong employment protection and tolerance of wage moderationand dispersion—pushes employers to pursue asymmetrical deregulation because employers
anticipate unions’ resistance at any attempt to weaken employment protection. These policy
options were less likely to offend unions, thereby allowing employers to secure both smoothindustrial relations and the necessary amount of labor market flexibility.
Unions’ organizational structures also account for their priority and intensity of interest
representation. Female unionists occupy approximately 28 % in Japanese unions, which isevidently lower than the actual share of women at workplace10. Unionization rates ofpart-timers are not easy to measure, yet it is extremely low. The Japan Federation ofCommercial Workers' Unions (Shōgyō Rōren) and National Union of General Workers(Zenkoku Ippan) are the only exceptions who organize a large number of part-timers. The
share of part-timers in these unions are 24.29 % and 17.35 % respectively, whereas theJapanese Electric Electronic and Information Union (Denki Rengo) organizes only 0.55 %,the Japanese Federation of Textile, Garment, Chemical, Commercial, Food and Allied
Industries Workers' Union (Zensen) does 4.97 % (Nakamura 2001). Many of the enterprise
unions in the manufacturing sector do not even organize part-timers. Unionization rates ofdispatched workers are even worse. Due to the organizational boundary of enterprise
unions, they cannot be organized at workplace as they are not employed by the managers theywork for, but by temporary work agencies11.
In the process of the asymmetrical deregulation in Japan, some of the rights for atypical
workers were slightly strengthened. Unions, especially Rengo (rather than industrial
federations or enterprise unions), defended interests of unorganized workers anticipatingorganizational expansion by recruiting atypical workers (Miura 2001). However, the bottom
line is that unions block any reforms that undermine long-term employment practice. Such
stance taken by unions, coupled with employers’ ultimate goals to improve a firm’s
competitiveness, produces asymmetrical deregulation as an optimal outcome.
Conclusion
My findings about various reform paths of labor market institutions in major OECD
countries in general and the Japanese case in particular will make a contribution to the current
debates as to the impact of globalization on welfare reforms and the survival of welfare
states.
My cases suggest that we should go beyond the debate that pit globalization forces against
domestic institutions. Studies that stress the importance of domestic institutions in
explaining cross-national differences tend to take socioeconomic factors as uniform.
However, it is absurd to hold globalization pressure constant across places because the degreeof exposure is different. Obviously, firms strive to control wage increases and curtail
non-wage labor costs in order to restore their competitiveness in the world market.
Governments also have great interests in reforming labor market institutions to solve massive
and long-term unemployment and improve their financial outlays. These pressures are
10
11

Labor Force Survey, Labor Union Survey, the Ministry of Labor (2001).
Union federations that allow individual participation organize dispatched workers.

19persistent, but uniform across nations.
The fact that firms and governments face different degrees of pressure for change was nottotally dismissed in the past studies. Welfare states are now considered a source of challenge
rather than a solution because different welfare states create different sets of challenges (e.g.,
rates and types of unemployment) (cf. Scharpf and Schmidt 2000). This line of thought
does not anticipate convergence of domestic institutions to the least common denominators,
unlike the view that emphasize the sweeping power of globalization. Instead, it expects
regime-dependent changes by which each welfare state regime evolves in a certain way due toan institutional logic peculiar to that regime (Pierson 2001, Esping-Andersen 1999).
My findings cast doubt on this argument. Regime-dependent changes were not empiricallyobserved in my cases. At least as of the late 1990s, variations in reform paths within eachregime were conspicuous. This fact leads us to consider two possibilities or two future
research goals.
First, this mismatching between regime typologies and reform paths could have resulted frommis-conceptualization of labor market institutions. I proposed the six indices because these
items influence employment performance thereby constituting a bridge between labor market
regulation and welfare states. It could be the case that labor market reforms take place
whether or not functional equivalents exist between labor market institutions andincome-maintenance programs.
Second, my Japanese case suggests that policy advocates (i.e., the government and/or
employers) prefer certain kinds of reforms not only responding to institutional incongruities
between exogenous pressures and labor market institutions, but also anticipating the politicalfeasibility of reforms. Political feasibility is, in turn, constrained by policy opponents’preferences and capabilities to block reforms. Consequently, unions’ order of preferences
and their organizational structure matter.
References
Bertola, Giuseppe, Tito Boeri, and Giuseppe Nicoletti. 2000. Welfare and Employment in a United Europe: A
Study for the Fondazione Rodolfo Debenedetti. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Björklund, Anders. 1999. “Going Different Ways: Labour Market Policy in Denmark and Sweden,” inGosta Esping-Andarsen and Marino Regini eds. Why Deregulate Labour Markets? Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Blau, Francine D. and Lawrence M. Kahn. 1995. “The Gender Earnings Gap: Some International
Comparisons” in Richard B. Freeman and Lawrence F. Katz eds., Differences and Changes in Wage
Structures, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bonoli, Giuliano. 2000. “Social Policy Through Labour Markets: Understanding National Differences in
the Provision of Economic Security,” paper presented at the Research Committee 19, International
Sociological Association, Tilburg, the Netherlands, Aug 24-27.
Castles, Francis G. and Mitchell, Deborah. 1993. “Worlds of Welfare and Families of Nations”. in Francis
G. Castles ed. Families of Nations. Brookfield USA: Dartmouth.
Ebbinghaus, Bernhard. 2000. “Between State and Market: Occupational Pensions, Welfare Regimes andLabor Relations in Comparison,” paper presented at the Research Committee 19, International
Sociological Association, Tilburg, the Netherlands, Aug 24-27.
Esping-Andersen, Gosta. 2000. “Who is Harmed by Labour Market Regulation?: Quantitative Evidence,”
in Gosta Esping-Andarsen and Marino Regini eds. Why Deregulate Labour Markets? Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
_____. 1999. Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
_____. 1990. The Three World of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
_____. 1996. Welfare States without Work: “the Impasse Of Labour Shedding and Familialism in

20

Continental European Social Policy”. in Gosta Esping-Andarsen ed. Welfare States in Transition.
London: SAGE Publications.
Esping-Andersen, Gosta and Marino Regini. (eds.) 2000. Why Deregulate Labour Markets?. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ferrera, Maurizio. 2000. “Reconstructing the Welfare State in Southern Europe”. in Stein Kuhnle ed.
Survival of the European Welfare State. London: Routledge.
Hemerijck, Anton, Philip Manow, and Kees Van Kersbergen. 2000. “Welfare without Work? Divergent
Experience of Reform in Germany and the Netherlands.” in Stein Kuhnle ed. Survival of theEuropean Welfare State. London: Routledge.
Huber, Evelyne and Stephens, Jophn D. 2001. “Welfare State and Production Regimes in the Era ofRetrenchment”. in Paul Pierson ed. The New Politics of Welfare States. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
ILO, 1999. Yearbook of Labour Statistics.
Kume, Ikuo. 2000. “Rodo Sesaku Kate no Seijyuku toHenyo.” [Japanese Labour Policy Making inTransition], Nihon Rodo Kenkyu Zasshi. No.475: 2-13.
Lewis, Jane. 1993. “Introduction: Women, Work, Family and Social Policies in Europe,” in Jane Lewis ed.
Women and Social Policies in Europe: Work, Family and the State. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Levy, Jonah D. 1999. “Vice into Virtue? Progressive Politics and Welfare Reform in Continental Europe,”
Politics & Society, Vol.27, No.2, June: 239-273.
Lindbeck, Assar and Dennis Snower. 1998. The Insider-Outsider Theory of Unemployment. Cambridge:
MIT Press.
Lodovici, Manuela Samek. 2000. “The Dynamics of Labour Market Reform in European Countries,” inGosta Esping-Andarsen and Marino Regini eds. Why Deregulate Labour Markets? Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
OECD. 2000. Employment Outlook. Paris.
_____. 1999a. Employment Outlook. Paris.
_____. 1999b. Implementing the Job Strategy: Assessing Performance and Policy. Paris.
Manow, Philip and Eric Seils. 2000. Adjusting Badly: “The German Welfare State, Structural Change, andthe Open Economy.” in Fritz W. Scharpf and Vivien A. Schmidt eds. Welfare and Work in the Open
Economy. Vol.2: From Vulnerability to Competitiveness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miura, Mari. 2001. The New Politics of Labor: Shifting Veto Points and Representing the Un-organized,”
paper presented at the Conference on Japanese Politics, June 28, University of Tokyo.
Nakamura, Keisuke. 2001. “Sanbetsu Soshiki no Case Study [Case Study of Industrial Trade Unions],” inRodo Soshiki no Mirai wo Saguru: Henkaku to Teitai no 90 nendai wo Koete. Tokyo: Rengo Sogo Seikatsu
kaihatu Kenkyusyo.
Nakamura, Keisuke and Mari Miura. 2001. “Rengo no Seisaku Sanaka: Rokiho, Hakenho Kaisei wo
Chushin ni [Policy Participations of Rengo: Cases of the Labors Standard Act and the Dispatched
Manpower Business Act],” in Rodo Soshiki no Mirai wo Saguru: Henkaku to Teitai no 90 nendai wo Koete.
Tokyo: Rengo Sogo Seikatsu kaihatu Kenkyusyo.
Pierson, Paul. 1997. “The Politics of Pension Reform,” in Keith G. Banting & Robin Boadway (eds.) Reformof Retirement Income Policy: International and Canadian Perspectives. Kingston: School of Public Studies.
Rhodes, Martin (ed.) 1997. Southern European Welfare States: Between Crisis and Reform. London: Frank Cass
Publishers.
Saint-Paul, Gilles. 1996. Dual Labor Markets: A Macroeconomic Perspective. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Scharpf, Fritz W. and Vivien A. Schmidt (eds.) 2000. Welfare and Work in the Open Economy. Vol.1: From
Vulnerability to Competitiveness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmid, Günter and Bernd Reissert. 1986. “Do Institutions Make a Difference: Financing Systems ofLabor Market Policy,” Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 8. No. 2: 125-149.
Uzuhashi, Takafumi. 1997. Gendai Fukushi Kokka no Kokusai Hikaku: Nihon Moderu no Ichizuke to Tenbo[International Comparisons of Contemporary Welfare States]. Tokyo: Nihon Hyoronsha.

21