平成 27 年度 日欧フォーラム（欧州）
JEF-Chatham House Symposium“The Political Economy of Japan and the EU:
Challenges and Strategies”

報 告 書2015 年 11 月 13 日（金）（英国

ロンドン開催）一般財団法人 国際経済交流財団

この事業は、競輪の補助を受けて実施しました。

http://ringring-keirin.jp

平成 27 年度日欧フォーラム（欧州） 2015 年 11 月 13 日（金） （於：ロンドン）

2015/11/13

2015/11/13

開会の辞 チャタムハウス Nilsson-Wright 氏

開会の辞 JEF 日下会長
Introduction
日本側 JEF 日下会長

会場の様子

セッション１ スピーカー 志賀氏

セッション１ モデレーター JEF 原岡専務理事

セッション１ スピーカー Reiterer 氏

ディスカッションの様子

セッション１ スピーカー 福永氏

セッション２ スピーカー 深尾氏

セッション３ スピーカー 秋元氏
Introduction
日本側 JEF 日下会長

セッション３ スピーカー Bailey 氏

ディスカッションの様子

2015/11/13

セッション４ スピーカー 加藤氏

セッション４ スピーカー Kiefer 氏
池内氏（若手研究者）

セッション４ モデレーター Stockwin 氏

会場の様子

目

次

1.

開 催 趣 旨 ················································································

1

2.

開 催 概 要 ················································································

2

3.

詳 細 日 程 ················································································

4

4.

出

者 ················································································

7

5.

略

歴 ················································································

86.

議 事 要 旨席

日本語 ··············································································

14

語 ··············································································

237.

発 表 資 料 ················································································

32

8.

若手研究者の参加報告

英略歴・感想文 ··············································································

75

9.

成

果 ················································································

80

10.

共催団体紹介 ················································································

82

11.

事

局 ················································································

83務１．開催趣旨

国際経済交流財団は、我が国と諸外国との経済交流を促進するため、各年における経済問題等を取り上げ、欧州・米国・アジアの有識者間でこれらの問題解決等について、フォーラムという形で議論を重ねてきた。
日欧フォーラムは、政界、官界、学会、産業界など政策提言に影響力をもつ日本、欧州を中心とする有識者が一堂に会して、共有する課題などにつき忌憚のない意見交換を行い、我が国の政策立案に資すると共に、日欧協力の一層の強化を図りその成果を広く普及させることを目的としている。
特に近年は、日本及び欧州といった対象地域それぞれが持続的発展を遂げ、ひいては世界経済の持続的発展に貢献するという観点で、それぞれが抱えている課題、成長抑制要因をとりあげ、それらの解決策の発見と解決策の実行に向けて、政治・経済など複合的な視点での意見・情報交
換、相互の学びを志向している。
今次、当財団は英国王立国際問題研究所（チャタムハウス）との共催で11月13日（金）、同研究所に於いて、チャタムハウスルールに基づいたラウンドテーブル・ディスカッション形式でフォーラムを開催した。同研究所との共催は2007年が始めてであり、2013年以来の開催で今回が５度目となる。
今回のメインテーマ「The Political Economy of Japan and the EU: Challenges andStrategies（日本と EU の経済の政治的側面：課題と戦略）」の下、日欧が現在抱えている共通的な以下の４つの課題に関し解決策、対応策が議論された。
- セッション１「EU-Japan Trade and Economic Relationships（EU と日本の貿易・経済関係）」－世界経済の減速のリスクが顕在化する中で如何に潜在成長力を高めるのか- セッション２「Age, Gender and Migration: The Challenges of Demography（年齢、ジェン
ダー、移民：人口動態の挑戦）」－日本の少子高齢化や欧州の難民、移民受け入れといった人
口動態上の課題- セッション３「Energy and the Environment: Is a Green Future Possible?（エネルギーと環境：グリーンな未来を迎えられるか？）」－11月下旬（2015年）に COP21を控え、エネル
ギー・地球環境分野での課題- セッション４「Local Government and New Models of Accountability（地方自治体とアカウ
ンタビリティーの新モデル）」－EU の拡大・深化の中で加盟国内の中央政府と EU 政府との関係は、日本の中央政府と地方自治体との関係は、そして役割分担、例えば災害対策、エネ
ルギー・地球環境問題などは如何あるべきか
なお、本事業は競輪の補助（２７－２１）を受けて実施した。

12．開催概要1.

開催日時： 2015 年 11 月 13 日（金） 10:00am～5:15pm

2.

開催場所：

ロンドン（英国）
英国王立国際問題研究所（チャタムハウス）ヘンリープライスルーム
The Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House)
10 St James’s Square, London SW1Y 4LE, UK

3.

主催者：
＜日本側＞
一般財団法人国際経済交流財団／Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)＜英国側＞
英国王立国際問題研究所(チャタムハウス)／The Royal Institute of International Affairs(Chatham House)

4.

テーマ：
“The Political Economy of Japan and the EU: Challenges and Strategies”（日本と EU の経済の政治的側面：課題と戦略）
SESSION 1 EU-Japan Trade and Economic Relationships（EU と日本の貿易・経済関係）
SESSION 2 Age, Gender and Migration: The Challenges of Demography（年齢、ジェンダー、移民：人口動態の挑戦）
SESSION 3 Energy and the Environment: Is a Green Future Possible?
（エネルギーと環境：グリーンな未来を迎えられるか？）
SESSION 4 Local Government and New Models of Political Accountability（地方自治体とアカウンタビリティーの新モデル）

5.

出席者：

日欧より計 15 名、及び若手研究者 1 名

＜日本側＞

計7名

秋元 圭吾

公益財団法人地球環境産業技術研究機構 (RITE)（氏名の五十音順／敬称略）

システム研究グループ グループリーダー・主席研究員
加藤 創太

国際大学 教授／公益財団法人東京財団 上席研究員

日下 一正

一般財団法人国際経済交流財団 会長

志賀 俊之

日産自動車株式会社 取締役副会長

原岡 直幸

一般財団法人国際経済交流財団 専務理事
2

深尾 京司一橋大学経済研究所 教授

福永 哲郎

日本機械輸出組合 (JMC) ブラッセル事務所 所長

他、若手研究者 1 名
池内 健太

文部科学省科学技術 学術政策研究所 第１研究グループ研究員＜英国側＞ 計 8 名（氏名のアルファベット順／敬称略）

Rob Bailey, Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources Department,
Chatham House（ロブ・ベイリー チャタムハウス エネルギー環境資源部門 調査部長）
Evelyn Ersanilli, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, VU University Amsterdam（エブリン・エルサニッリ アムステルダム自由大学 社会学部 助教授）
Neil Hirst, Senior Policy Fellow, Faculty of Natural Sciences, The Grantham Institute for
Climate Change, Imperial College London（ニ―ル・ハースト インペリアル・カレッジ・ロンドン 気候変動委員会 自然科学部
シニアポリシーフェロー）
Janet Hunter, Saji Professor of Economic History, Economic History Department, London
School of Economics and Political Science（ジャネット・ハンター ロンドン・スクール・オブ・エコノミクス・アンド・ポリティカル・サイエンス 経済史部 経済史学教授）
Andreas Kiefer, Secretary General of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities,
Council of Europe（アンドレアス・キーファ 欧州評議会 欧州地方自治体会議長）
John Nilsson-Wright, Head, Asia Programme, Chatham House（ジョン・ニルソン=ライト チャタムハウス アジアプログラム長）
Michael Reiterer, Principal Advisor, Asia and Pacific Department, European External
Action Service（マイケル・ライテラー 欧州対外行動局 アジア太平洋部門 最高顧問）
Arthur Stockwin, Emeritus Fellow, St Antony’s College, University of Oxford（アーサー・ストックウィン オクスフォード大学 セント・アントニーズ大学 名誉フェロー）
6.

形式：

ラウンドテーブル・ディスカッション

7.

使用言語：

英語

3

（聴衆を含め計 39 名）

3．詳細日程

AgendaThe Political Economy of Japan and the EU:
Challenges and Strategies
Friday 13 November 2015
This roundtable aims to explore the changing economic and political ties between Japan andthe European Union. It considers not only formal negotiations between the EU and Japan,
but also a number of key sectoral and structural concerns, as well as examining therelationship between transnational, national and local political actors in Europe and Japan.
09:45 REGISTRATION Tea & Coffee
10:00

INTRODUCTION

Speakers:
John Nilsson-Wright, Head, Asia Programme, Chatham House
Kazumasa Kusaka, Chairman and CEO, Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)
10:15

SESSION 1 EU-Japan Trade and Economic Relationships

Key Questions:・

What are the prospects for a successful completion of an EU-Japan Free Trade
Agreement (FTA) in 2015?

・

What are the implications of this agreement economically both within Europe andJapan?

・How might success in the FTA talks foster a wider and more cooperative strategic
partnership between Japan and the EU?

Speakers:
・ Toshiyuki Shiga, Member, Board of Directors and Vice Chairman, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
・ Michael Reiterer, Principal Advisor, Asia and Pacific Department, European External
Action Service
・ Tetsuro Fukunaga, Executive Director, Brussels Office, Japan Machinery Center for
Trade and Investment (JMC)
4

Moderator:
・ Naoyuki Haraoka, Executive Managing Director, Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)
11:30

Tea & Coffee

11:45

SESSION 2 Age, Gender and Migration : The Challenges of Demography

Key Questions:・ How have Japan and EU member countries responded to the challenge of aging andgender inequality and what lessons can be learnt from their respective experiences inpromoting greater social cohesion and labour flexibility?
・ What are the benefits and challenges to Europe and Japan from increasing migration,
whether regulated or unregulated?
Speakers:
・ Kyoji Fukao, Professor, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University
・ Evelyn Ersanilli, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, VU University
Amsterdam
Moderator:
・ Janet Hunter, Saji Professor of Economic History, Economic History Department,
London School of Economics and Political Science
13:30

LUNCH

14:00

SESSION 3 Energy and the Environment : Is a Green Future Possible?

Key questions:・ What has been the role of national governments in Europe and Japan in mitigatingclimate change?
・ What are the prospects for and obstacles to the reactivation of Japan’s nuclear reactors?
・ How have technological advances helped to enhance Japan’s ability to manage thechallenge of global climate change?
Speakers:
・ Keigo Akimoto, Chief Researcher and Leader, Systems Analysis Group, ResearchInstitute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE)
・ Rob Bailey, Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources Department,
Chatham House

5Moderator:
・ Neil Hirst, Senior Policy Fellow, Faculty of Natural Sciences, The Grantham Institutefor Climate Change, Imperial College London
15:15

Tea & Coffee

15:30

SESSION 4 Local Government and New Models of Political Accountability

Key questions:・ How have the triple disasters of 3/11 influenced the role of local government in Japan,
both in limiting the power of central government and in providing localized solutions toparticular policy problems?
・ Is Japan turning inwards and embracing a new model of ‘slow economic growth’? What
are the costs and benefits of such a change?
・ What do the experiences of Europe and Japan suggest are the benefits of greater
political devolution?
Speakers:
・ Sota Kato, Professor, International University of Japan; Senior Fellow and Director of
Research, Tokyo Foundation
・ Andreas Kiefer, Secretary General of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities,
Council of Europe
Moderator:
・ Arthur Stockwin, Emeritus Fellow, St Antony’s College, University of Oxford
16:45

WRAP-UP AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

Speakers:
・ John Nilsson-Wright, Head, Asia Programme, Chatham House・ Kazumasa Kusaka, Chairman and CEO, Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)
17:15

DRINKS RECEPTION

18:30 END

6

4．出席者

計 15 名（氏名のアルファベット順／敬称略）
Keigo Akimoto

Chief Researcher and Leader, Systems Analysis Group, ResearchInstitute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE)

Rob Bailey

Research Director, Energy, Environment and Resources Department,
Chatham House

Evelyn Ersanilli

Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, VU University Amsterdam

Kyoji Fukao

Professor, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University

Tetsuro Fukunaga

Executive Director, Brussels Office, Japan Machinery Center for Tradeand Investment (JMC)

Naoyuki Haraoka

Executive Managing Director, Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)

Neil Hirst

Senior Policy Fellow, Faculty of Natural Sciences, The Grantham
Institute for Climate Change, Imperial College London

Janet Hunter

Saji Professor of Economic History, Economic History Department,
London School of Economics and Political Science

Sota Kato

Professor, International University of Japan; Senior Fellow and Directorof Research, Tokyo Foundation

Andreas Kiefer

Secretary General of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities,
Council of Europe

Kazumasa Kusaka

Chairman and CEO, Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)

John Nilsson-WrightHead, Asia Programme, Chatham House

Michael Reiterer

Principal Advisor, Asia and Pacific Department, European External
Action Service

Toshiyuki Shiga

Member, Board of Directors and Vice Chairman, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

Arthur Stockwin

Emeritus Fellow, St Antony’s College, University of Oxford

他、若手研究者１名
Kenta Ikeuchi

Research Fellow, National Institute of Science and Technology Policy(NISTEP)
7

5．略歴（氏名のアルファベット順／敬称略）
Keigo Akimoto was born in 1970. He received a Ph.D. degree from Yokohama National University
in 1999. He joined the Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE) to workwith the Systems Analysis Group in 1999, was a senior researcher in 2003 and the Leader of the
Systems Analysis Group and an associate chief researcher at RITE in 2007. Currently he is theLeader of the group and a chief researcher at RITE. He was a guest researcher at IIASA in 2006.
He was a guest professor, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, the University of Tokyo between
April 2010 and March 2015, and is currently a part-time lecturer. He was a lead author for theFifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. He is an associate member at the Science Council of Japan,
and a member for several advisory bodies on energy and environmental policy for Japanese
government, including the Strategic Policy Committee, the Advisory Committee for Natural
Resources and Energy; the Global Environment Subcommittee, Industrial Structure Council; andthe Climate Change Impact Assessment Subcommittee, Central Environment Council. Hisscientific interests are in modelling and analysis of energy and environment systems. He received
the Peccei Scholarship from IIASA in 1997, an award from the Institute of Electrical Engineers ofJapan in 1998, and an award from the Japan Society of Energy and Resources in 2004.

Rob Bailey became director of the Energy, Environment and Resources Department in 2014,
having joined as a senior research fellow in 2011 from Oxfam GB where he was responsible
for policy on food security, trade, agriculture and climate change. Prior to this he worked at
the advisory firm Oliver Wyman, where his clients included many of the world’s leadingbanking, insurance and investment companies. His publications have covered a range of
topics including food security, conflict and resources, low-carbon development, bioenergy,
and resource governance. Rob was named one of the 2011 DEVEX 40-under-40 leading
thinkers on international development for his work on sustainability. He holds degrees fromthe University of Cambridge and the London School of Economics.

Evelyn Ersanilli is an assistant professor at the Department of Sociology at the Vrije
Universiteit Amsterdam. Her research interests include migration policy development,
citizenship, identity of migrants and their descendants, migrant family life and researchmethods. Most of her work has a cross-national comparative angle. She uses both qualitativeand quantitative research methods and has been involved in data collection in a dozen
8countries. Her current research projects include a study of marriage migration andintegration in the UK and development of low skilled labour policies in the Republic of Korea.
Before coming to Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Dr. Ersanilli was a departmental lecturer inmigration studies at the International Migration Institute (IMI) at the University of Oxford,
and prior to that worked as a senior researcher at the Migration, Integration andTransnationalization unit of the Social Science Research Centre in Berlin (WZB). She holds
a PhD in Sociology from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and an MSc in Interdisciplinary
Social Science (Utrecht University).

Kyoji Fukao is a professor at the Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University,
as well as a program director and faculty fellow at the Research Institute of Economy, Tradeand Industry (RIETI). Other positions include: vice-chairperson of the Working Party on
Industry Analysis (WPIA), OECD; member of the Executive Committee of the AsianHistorical Economics Society (AHES); external research associate at the Centre on
Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE), Warwick University. He has
published widely on productivity, international economics, economic history, and related
topics in journals such as the Journal of Political Economy, Quarterly Journal of Economics,
Review of Income and Wealth, Explorations in Economic History, and Economica. In
addition, he is the author of Japan’s Economy and the Two Lost Decades (Nikkei PublishingInc., in Japanese) and, with Tsutomu Miyagawa, the editor of Productivity and Japan’s
Economic Growth: Industry-Level and Firm-Level Studies Based on the JIP Database(University of Tokyo Press, in Japanese).

Tetsuro Fukunaga currently holds the position of executive director of the Brussels office of
the Japan Machinery Center (JMC), where he represents almost 250 Japanese machine
manufacturers and trading companies. One of his primary responsibilities is the promotionof the EU-Japan trade and investment relationship, by encouraging both parties toaccelerate the EPA/FTA negotiations. Prior to joining JMC in 2013, he was the director for
trade policy of the Southwest Asia Office at the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry(METI) in Tokyo. Currently, he serves as a special adviser to the Ministry. Mr. Fukunaga
has a diverse background in trade and investment, developed during his more than 20 yearsof work experience for the Japanese government. As the director of METI’s APEC (Asian
Pacific Economic Corporation) from 2008 to 2010, he was responsible for hosting the
successful APEC Yokohama in 2010, which triggered Japan’s participation in thenegotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). His role with regards to TPP continued
in the National Policy Unit of the Cabinet Secretariat from 2010 to 2012. In the Cabinet
Secretariat, he was also responsible for drafting Japan’s energy policy after the nuclear
9

accident at Fukushima. Mr. Fukunaga was also the lead author on the White Paper on
International Economy and Trade 2008, which reinvented Japan’s global strategy. After
graduating from Tokyo University with a Bachelor of Science in Economics, Mr. Fukunaga
earned his MBA at Goizueta Business School, Emory University.

Naoyuki Haraoka was born in Tokyo in 1955. After graduating the University of Tokyo in
1978 (Bachelor of Economics), he joined Japan’s Ministry of International Trade andIndustry (MITI). Having been posted in the industrial policy section and the international
trade policy section for a few years, he was enrolled in a two-year MPA (Master of Public
Administration) programme at Woodrow Wilson School of Princeton University in the US ona scholarship from the Japanese government. After having acquired his MPA at Princeton,
he re-joined MITI in 1984 as an economist. Since then he has been posted as deputy director
and director of a number of MITI divisions including Research Division of International
Trade Policy Bureau. He was also posted to Paris twice, first as principal economist of theTrade Bureau at the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) from1988 to 1992 and second as counsellor to the Japanese Delegation at the OECD from 1996 to
1999. After coming back to MITI from his second stay in Paris, at the occasion of thegovernment structural reform in 2001 when MITI was remodeled as METI (Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry) he joined the efforts to found a METI research institute, theResearch Institute of Economy Trade and Industry, which he joined as director ofadministration. He became chief executive director of JETRO San Francisco in 2003 andstayed in San Francisco until 2006. He was Director-General of METI Training Institutefrom 2006 until July, 2007 when he left METI permanently and joined JEF as Executive
Managing Director.

Neil Hirst is the senior policy fellow for energy and mitigation at the Grantham Institute,
Imperial College London. He is currently working with China’s Energy Research Institute of
the NDRC on a joint project on China and international energy governance. He is the leadauthor of the recent Grantham Institute/Chatham House discussion paper ‘The Reform of
Global Energy Governance’. From 2005 to 2009 Neil was a director of the International
Energy Agency. Initially, as director for technology, he pioneered the IEA’s flagshiptechnology publication, Energy Technology Perspectives. Subsequently, as director for global
dialogue, he forged closer relations and joint programmes with IEA partner countries,
especially China, India, and Russia. Before that Neil was a senior UK energy official withresponsibilities for international energy policy and (at different times) most domestic energy
sectors. In 1997 Neil was the chairman of the G8 Nuclear Safety Working Group and in
1985-8 he was the energy counsellor at the British Embassy in Washington. He has worked
10

on energy finance on secondment to Goldman Sachs. He holds a first class degree in politics,
philosophy and economics (PPE) from Oxford University and an MBA from Cornell USA.

Janet Hunter is Saji professor of economic history at the LSE. She has written widely on theeconomic and social history of modern Japan, focussing in particular on the development of
the female labour market, the history of Anglo-Japanese economic relations, and thedevelopment of communications. She is currently researching the economic effects of theGreat Kantō Earthquake of 1923 and attitudes towards business ethics in pre-World War II
Japan. Recent publications include ‘“Extreme Confusion and Disorder”? The Japanese
Economy in the Great Kantō Earthquake of 1923’ (Journal of Asian Studies, 2014) and“Obtaining Wealth through Fair Means”: Putting Shibusawa Eiichi’s Views on Business
Morality in Context’, in P.Fridenson & T.Kikkawa (eds.), Shibusawa Eiichi and Global
Context (forthcoming, University of Toronto Press).

Sota Kato is a professor at the International University of Japan and a senior fellow anddirector of research at the Tokyo Foundation. After earning a law degree (LLM) from the
University of Tokyo in 1991, he joined the Ministry of International Trade and Industry(MITI) of the Japanese government. His positions at MITI include assistant director for the
Aircraft and Defence Industries Division, deputy director for the International Economic
Division, and a senior research fellow for the Research Institute of Economy, Trade andIndustry (RIETI). After turning to academia, he has served as a professor at theInternational University of Japan since 2008. He concurrently holds/held positions at
various policy think tanks, such as senior fellow and director of research at the Tokyo
Foundation, senior fellow at the Canon Institute of Global Strategy, and senior fellow at
Mitsui Global Strategic Studies Institute. His research interest includes comparative
political economy, comparative institutional analysis, political methodology, and Japanesepolitical economy. He received the Nikkei Prize for Economics Books in 2001, Jiro Osaragi
Rondan Prize (Asahi Shimbun) in 2002, and the Best Paper Award of the Society of
Advancement of Socio-Economics in 2012. He received an MBA (with honors) from Harvard
Business School and a PhD in political science from the University of Michigan.

Andreas Kiefer was elected secretary-general of the Congress in 2010 and was re-elected in
March 2015 for another 5-year mandate. He holds a doctorate of Law and finished apost-graduate university programme on “General Management” with a focus on publicmanagement. He worked as head of the Private Office of Land Salzburg’s president and was
director of the European Affairs Service of Land Salzburg. He served as secretary general of11the Conference of Presidents of Regions with Legislative Powers (REGLEG). He has
published widely and is a member of the Scientific Committee of the Institute for Studies onFederalism and Regionalism of the EURAC Bolzano/Bozen and the board of the Salzburg
Institute for Education.

Kazumasa Kusaka has been chairman and CEO of the Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)
since April 2013, and is also a professor at University of Tokyo Graduate School of Public
Policy. He previously served for 36 years in Japan’s Ministry of International Trade andIndustry (MITI), rising to become vice-minister for international affairs in the reorganized
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) in 2004. During his long career in public
service, Kusaka was seconded to the International Energy Agency (IEA)/OECD and wasJapan’s senior official for Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). He played a central
role in Asia’s economic integration, promoting FTAs in the region as well as serving as asenior official negotiating the Doha development agenda of the WTO. He was head of Japan’s
Energy Agency and held director-general positions in technology and environmental policy
in addition to trade and investment-related areas within METI. He was also instrumental in
finalizing the Kyoto Protocol, and developing Japan’s energy and environment policies.
Among many other posts Kusaka has held are special adviser to the Prime Minister on
Global Warming, senior vice president of Mitsubishi Electric, executive adviser to Dentsu
Inc., and president of the Japan Cooperation Center for the Middle East.

John Nilsson-Wright is head of the Asia Programme at Chatham House, senior university
lecturer in Japanese Politics and International Relations at Cambridge University and an
official fellow of Darwin College, Cambridge. He has a BA in Politics, Philosophy andEconomics (PPE) from Christ Church, Oxford; an MA in International Relations and East
Asian Studies from SAIS, Johns Hopkins; and a DPhil in International Relations from St
Antony’s, Oxford. He comments regularly for the global media on the international relationsof East Asia, with particular reference to Japan and the Korean peninsula. He has testified
on East Asian affairs to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee and is a memberof the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global Agenda Council (GAC) on Korea as well as the
UK-Japan 21st Century Group. He is a member of the editorial board of Global Asia and is afounding member of the European Japan Advanced Research Network (EJARN).

Michael Reiterer studied law at the University of Innsbruck (Dr. Juris) and holds diplomas
in international relations from the Johns Hopkins University/Bologna Center and the
Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva. In 2005, he was appointed adjunct12

professor (Dozent) for international politics at the University of Innsbruck. Time permitting,he teaches at various universities and specializes in EU foreign policy, EU-Asia relations
and interregionalism, areas in which he has published extensively.
As an official of the European Union Mr. Reiterer is currently senior advisor at the Asia andPacific Department, European External Action Service (EEAS). He previously served as EUambassador

to

Switzerland

and

the

Principalityof

Liechtenstein(2007-2011),

minister/deputy head of the EU-Delegation to Japan (2002-2006) and ASEM Counselor(1998-2002).

Toshiyuki Shiga is a member of the Board of Directors, vice chairman of Nissan Motor Co.,
Ltd. Before assuming his current position in November 2013, Shiga acted as chief operating
officer from 2005 and as senior vice president in charge of the general overseas market(GOM) Sales & Marketing division from 2000 to 2005. Since joining NML in 1976, Shiga has
held a number of positions in Sales operation in Asia and Corporate Planning. Shiga holds a
degree from the faculty of economics at Osaka Prefecture University.

Arthur Stockwin became interested in Japan while embarking on a doctoral thesis at theAustralian National University (ANU) in Canberra back in 1960, an subsequently taught
Japanese politics there (1964-81). In 1982 he became founding director of the Nissan
Institute of Japanese Studies at the University of Oxford, from where he retired in 2003. He
is still involved in the study of Japan, especially its politics and foreign policies

13

6．議事要旨（日本語）
以下の日本語サマリーは、英国王立国際問題研究所（チャタムハウス）側で作成した英文サマリーを当財団で仮訳したものである。

サマリー（仮訳）

日本と EU の経済の政治的側面：課題と戦略
はじめに
本文書は、2015 年 11 月 13 日（金）に英国王立国際問題研究所（チャタムハウス）に於いて開催されたフォーラム、“The Political Economy of Japan and the EU: Challenges and Strategies”の内容を要約したものです。このフォーラムは、一般財団法人国際経済交流財団（JEF）との共催で行われました。
すべての議論はチャタムハウスルールに則って行われました。ここに示す見解は参加者のものであり、チャタムハウスのそれを示すものではありません。

開会のあいさつシンポジウムは、チャタムハウス アジア・プログラム長 ジョン・ニルソン＝ライト氏と国際経済交流財団 会長 日下一正氏のあいさつで幕を開けました。
このフォーラムは、歴史と国家保安に関する非常に困難な問題から、連携の機会へと焦点を切り替える好機であることが強調されました。日本とヨーロッパにおける持続可能な開発の制約となっている、政治的要因、経済的要因、社会的要因を明らかにするよう計画されました。世界需要が低迷する中、経済成長を生み出す新たな戦略を考案すべく、ヨーロッパと日本が互いに学びあうことが不可欠です。日本は深刻な人口問題を抱えています。中国もまた、社会的セーフティー
ネットが機能し始める前に、同様の問題に直面するでしょう。ヨーロッパは、移民、そして EU
内での労働の移行を通じてこのような問題を処理してきました。同時に、政治的および安全保障上のリスクがますます顕著となるにしたがい、政治専門家と経済専門家との間のコミュニケーシ
ョンを改善する必要が出てくるでしょう。本フォーラムは、そのためのものです。日本は TPPへの加入、アベノミクスとして掲げられた政策群の実施、EU－日本間の自由貿易協定（FTA）
締結に向けた交渉開始など、同国の経済を回復させるために、統制のとれた取り組みを行ってき14ました。しかし、最も重要な課題は、固定的な物の見方に改革をもたらすことです。例えば、関税撤廃への抵抗力を弱め、投資拡大のための環境を整備するなどです。

セッション１「EU と日本の貿易・経済関係」
第１セッションでは、EU が東アジアに対して大きな政治的・経済的関心を持っていることについて言及がなされました。アジア太平洋地域は世界で最も急速に成長している輸出の市場と経済を擁し、すでに EU の輸出の 25％近くを占めています。世界の海運量（トン）のほぼ 50％が南シナ海を経由しており、東アジアの海運問題は EU およびその他の国々にとってきわめて重要なものとなっています。この重要性に鑑み、最近 EU は韓国およびシンガポールと FTA を締結したほか、日本を含むその他数ヶ国とも現在 FTA の交渉中です。
EU と日本はすでに、さまざまな問題への取り組みについて協力体制にあります。日本は、EUにとって貿易や投資面での重要な経済パートナーであり、EU と同様に、同じ地域における開発・平和活動にも取り組んでいます。さらに重要なのは、ヒューマンセキュリティ、地域間の関係、そして外交政策としてのソフトパワーといった安全保障上の関心を、双方ともに有していることです。最後に、EU と日本は緊密なつながりを持ち、三国間の協力を現実的な選択としています。以上のような理由から、日本は EU にとって必然の政治パートナーであり、EU の対東アジア政策ガイドラインでは、日本との関係についてより明確な外交ポリシーが求められました。
2015 年の日 EU 首脳会議では、政治・経済における協力を拡大すること、またヨーロッパの共通安全保障・防衛政策（CSDP）に関して定例閣僚会議を開くことについて、双方が合意しました。
ただし、日本と EU の協力関係は、外交政策面のみならず、貿易経済関係に関しても重要なものです。例えば自動車業界です。ここ数年間で、日本の自動車メーカーは EU での生産量を伸ばし続けています。そして今日、EU で販売される日本車の 3 分の 2 は EU 内で製造されています。
また、ここ 15 年間で、日本国内でのヨーロッパ車のシェアも堅実に伸びており、現在のシェア
は 4.9％となっています。
日欧が計画通りに経済連携協定（EPA）、FTA を結ぶとなれば、それは新時代の幕開けとなるでしょう。EPA/FTA によって広大な経済圏が誕生するだけでなく、雇用機会が創出され、技術革
新、生産性、競争が促進されることになります。さらに、このような協定が合意されれば、貿易および投資に関する世界的なルールを構築するうえで役立つものとなるでしょう。
EPA/FTA の交渉において、日本の主な関心は、工業製品に課される EU の関税を廃止すること、また、ヨーロッパに所在する日系企業が直面している規制上の課題を取り除くことのようです。
一方、EU 側としては、非関税障壁（NTMs）を廃止すること、EU が日本へ輸出する主要な品
目（特に農産物）に課される比較的高額な関税を撤廃すること、公的調達への参入を容易にする
こと、地理的表示を保護することを求めるでしょう。

15

日本にとって、EU と EPA/FTA を締結すれば、これは環太平洋経済連携協定（TPP）、東アジア
地域包括的経済連携（RCEP）、日中韓 FTA を含む、いくつかの主要貿易交渉の一部となります。
とりわけ TPP に関しては、投資、競争、そして一般的なビジネスの促進に関する共通のルールを提供することによって自由化を図るうえで、関与するすべての国々に役立つであろうという議論がありました。あるスピーカーは、最近の TPP の合意が日本と EU 間の EPA/FTA 交渉に新たなダイナミズムを注入するだろうという EU 貿易官の意見に同意しながらも、「TPP の条件は、
ただコピーして EU と日本間の協定にペーストすればいいというものではない」というオランダのマーク・ルッテ首相の発言に言及しました。
貿易が日本経済の活性化に貢献するという点で、これらの交渉はアベノミクスの政策の一部となっています。アベノミクスは、2013 年、安倍晋三首相が第 2 次安倍内閣発足時において掲げた経済政策です。アベノミクスは、20 年間に及ぶ日本のデフレを終わらせ、これまで停滞していた経済に弾みをつけたとされました。現在までの成果を見て、あるスピーカーは、日本政府は今後もアベノミクスに注力し、持続可能な経済成長を促進していくことを確信していると話しました。

セッション２「年齢、ジェンダー、移民：人口動態の挑戦」
日本と EU は双方ともに、高齢化により経済成長および社会福祉の提供に関していくつかの問題を抱えています。というのも、私たちの経済成長モデルは基本的に人口増加、すなわち労働者と消費者の拡大を基盤としているためです。人口の高齢化と減少は、このモデルには相いれません。
さらに、高齢化により依存人口比率（労働者に対する子供および年金生活者の比率）が上がり、
社会保障制度の有用性が脅かされることになります。その対応策として、ここ数年ほど、補充移民（Replacement Migration）が提案されています。経済成長モデルと社会保障制度を維持するために十分な移民を受け入れるということです。
しかしながら、補充移民が、人口高齢化に対する長期的な解決策ではないことを示す 2 つの主な理由があります。第一に、補充移民に必要となる移民数が、すでに人口過密となっている国々をさらに圧迫する可能性があることです。もちろん、人口増加がない場合、依存人口比率を下げる
よう移民数を管理することもできるでしょうが、移民自身が依存人口（扶養される側）となる前に帰国してもらう必要が出てきます。しかし、ヨーロッパのゲストワーカーシステムの経験から
みると、このような政策は、倫理的な側面を抜きにしても、きわめて困難なアプローチであることがわかります。
第二に、出生力水準の落ち込みがますます拡大していることです。英国への移民の多くは EU の
東欧諸国出身であり、これらの国々の現在の出生力水準は 1.4 です。これは、長期的にみて十分な移民人口を提供するには低すぎる数値です。
同様のことが日本にも言えます。日本は、晩婚化、人口の高齢化、生産性と需要の停滞が経済成長率の低下を引き起こすという、人口動態上の悪循環に悩まされているようです。日本の労働市

16

場は比較的柔軟性に欠けるため、企業は若い労働者をフルタイムで雇いたがりません。したがって低賃金のパートタイム労働者の割合が上昇しフルタイムの仕事に就いても労働時間が長くな
り、結果として若者が結婚や家族を持つことを先延ばしにすることにつながっています。
労働年齢人口が減少し、アベノミクスによる需要重視の取り組みがしばらくの間効果を上げるな
か、経済専門家の中には、労働市場が逼迫し、フルタイム労働者の割合と実質賃金率が向上する
ことで、悪循環を止められると期待していた者もいました。しかし、中国の経済成長が遅滞したことで日本の経済成長も衰え、このような期待も今では消えつつあります。
日本への移民の多くは中国の出身者ですが、同国の出生力水準も急激に落ち込んでいます。 その他の国々、ベトナム、フィリピン、インドネシアなどでも下降しています。これらの国々の出生率は補充の水準を上回っているかもしれませんが、それも長期的なものではないでしょう。これらの国々の持続した経済成長と出生率の低下を背景に、今後日本へ移民する可能性がある人口
プールも大幅に減るでしょう。
これもまた、補充移民が人口の高齢化に対する長期的な解決策ではないことを示すものです。とは言うものの、私たちが現在直面している問題を緩和するうえでは、移民は十分に役立つでしょう。高度なスキルを持つ移民は技術革新の後押しとなり、受け入れ国がグローバルな競争力を維持するための力となります。グローバルな人材募集はベストな人材を獲得する方法であるだけでなく、多様性に敏感で、国際的な取引や買収を促進する企業文化を形成する方法でもあるのです。
例えば、韓国企業の多くは国際的な買収に苦労していますが、これは、韓国の企業文化が非常に均質的であるためかもしれません。
移民に関する議論といえば、高度なスキルを持つ移民の話題に集中しがちです。しかし、実際はスキルの面でそれと対極にある分野、とりわけ農業や介護にも移民は必要とされています。技術は進歩し、例えば日本ではケアロボットの実験が行われたりしていますが、それでもこれらの分
野は労働集約的であり、国内の労働者を集める取り組みはそれほどうまくいっていません。
このように、移民によってもたらされる機会はありますが、そのコストについても検討しなければなりません。移民の受け入れにより、女性の就労率にマイナスの影響を及ぼす可能性が指摘されています。雇用主が、女性よりも移民の男性を採用したがる可能性があるからです。しかし、移民の割合が高い国々では、女性の就労率も高いことが分かっています。一方、日本では、そのどちらもが低いのです。日本における女性の就労率の低さは、仕事がないからではなく、むしろ仕事と家庭の両立の困難さに関係していることが指摘されています。
もう一つの主な懸案事項は、移民が社会的な混乱を招くということです。確かに、EU において、受け入れ社会に移民を組み入れるプロセスが問題なく進んだことはありません。価値観の衝突が起き、中でも最も重要なのはジェンダーと宗教に関するものです。またいくつかの移民集団にとっては、学業成績が平均未満であることや、失業率の高さが問題となります。移民にまつわる社
会問題への対応として、多くの政府はいわゆる「望まれない」あらゆる種類の移民を制限しよう

17

としてきました。カナダやオーストラリアのような国が選択的な移民受け入れの方針が可能であることを示す一方で、EU や日本は制約的な態度を過度に強調するあまり、マイナスの影響も出ています。EU、日本の双方ともに高度なスキルを要する労働者を誘致するプログラムはあるものの、移民が多い時期でさえも目標の定員数は満たされません。この理由の一つには、高度なスキルを持つ人材はグローバル市場で活動しているために多くの選択肢があり、これにより自分を歓迎してくれて、高い給料をもらえる場所を選べるということが挙げられるでしょう。このダイナミクスは、移民に関する非常にネガティブな議論、そして EU と日本の双方にある同化の強調とは、対極にあるものです。
移民に関する問題を軽視しないことは重要ですが、その重大さを誇張しないことも、また等しく重要であるようです。政府がすべきは、現実を見ることです。大量の難民の流入を前に政府は、この難民たちの多くがここに滞在するという現実を認識すべきです。政府が、労働市場への難民、移民の組み入れを推進する方針を迅速に取り決めれば、社会的・金銭的な負担は少なくなるでしょう。また、移民を受け入れる利益も誇張すべきではありません。研究では、移民の受け入れによる経済効果はプラスではあるが、それほど大きいものではないとしています。

セッション３「エネルギーと環境：グリーンな未来を迎えられるか？」2009 年の国連気候変動コペンハーゲン会議において、日本と EU はともに、気候変動に関する問題の国際的にリーダー的な存在でした。両者とも、低炭素への迅速な取り組みを行っており、米国外で特許取得済みの最新技術を有していました。国際的な気候変動レジームに深く関わっていたのです。当時、既存の気候変動レジームは、日本で署名と合意がなされた京都議定書を基にしたものであり、法的拘束力のある合意を得ようと最も強く求めたのは、ほぼ間違いなく EU でした。日本と EU は、気候問題に対する主要な資金の融資者であり、また両者ともに、当時も現在も変わらず輸入に依存しているため、第三国の気候変動の影響を受けやすいのです。このリーダーシップは、会議において日本と EU が提示した目標に明確に反映されていました。
しかし、コペンハーゲンでこのように同じ地点から出発し、以来、同様の課題を抱えていたものの、その後両者が進んだ道は異なりました。興味深いことに、この違いは、2011 年の福島原発事故ではなく、日本の CO2 排出量が 4.2%上昇した 2010 年に始まっていたと言えます。2010
年にカンクンで開催された UNFCCC 会議では、コペンハーゲン後の国際的な団結を確保することが不可欠でしたが、日本は 第二約束期間には不参加となりました。2011 年、福島第一原子力発電所の事故が起きました。その後の結果や影響については、よく知られているところです。当時、日本は CO2 排出量削減の目標の多くを達成することを目的として、2030 年までに原子力エネルギーを 50%とするエネルギー混合を計画していました。原子力発電所が一時的に停止したことで、日本のエネルギー混合はその穴を埋めるため化石燃料の消費の増加となりました。この状況は当然、CO2 排出量と炭素強度の上昇という結果を引き起こしました。日本のエネルギー
混合のうち 20%強を原子力エネルギーとするという政府の計画が現実的なものであるか否かは、企業が長期的な投資を率先して行うかどうかにかかっていますが、これは確実というにはほど遠いものです。

18

福島の原発事故は当然ヨーロッパにも影響を与え、なかでも最も顕著な反応を示したドイツは、
2022 年までに同国の原子炉を段階的に廃止すると発表しました。日本と同様、ドイツのエネル
ギー混合での原発の穴埋めも短期的に化石燃料、とりわけ石炭によるものとなりました。しかし、ドイツはこれと同時に CO2 排出量削減目標の達成と、再生可能エネルギーへの転換に向けて取り組みました。一方、日本は、再生可能エネルギーの利用について非常に高い目標を掲げてはいたものの、おそらく政治・経済的な原因で実現には至りませんでした。対してドイツは今や、電力のうち約 30%を再生可能エネルギーに依存するまでになっています。ベルリンのエネルギー
転換（Energiewende）によって、CO2 排出量削減や電力の価格の面ではもちろんマイナスの影
響がありましたが、ここで重要な点は、ドイツが CO2 排出量と経済成長とをうまく切り離したことにあります。ドイツは CO2 排出量を減少する一方で GDP は向上しています。これは本当に素晴らしい成果です。
2013 年以降、米国ではシェールガスによる革命が始まり、ヨーロッパと日本双方におけるエネ
ルギーおよび競争に関する話題も様変わりしています。当時、天然ガスは 100 万英サーマルユ
ニットあたり米国で$4-5、EU で$12 、日本で$18 でした。このことは、気候変動に関する政策とエネルギー保全の政治・経済に大きな影響を与え、2013 年の気候変動・エネルギー政策パッ
ケージの CO2 排出削減目標に反映されましたが、実際はこれまで通りの二酸化炭素除去の指針が示されることになりました。 つまり、CO2 排出削減への熱意はほとんど向上しなかったということです。これとほぼ同時期に、日本がコペンハーゲン合意を放棄し、2020 年に向けた新たな目標を提示しました。その中には、1990 年よりも多い CO2 排出量が含まれており、志としてかなりの逆転が見られました。
私たちは、今どこに向かっているのでしょうか？日本と EU は両者ともに約束草案（INDC）を提出しています。2013 年を基準年とすれば、日本の CO2 排出削減目標は、米国や EU のそれと比べてより意欲的なものに見えます。 しかし、より一般的な 1990 年または 2005 年のベースラ
インと比較すると、この目標はそれほど素晴らしいものとは言えません。また、この INDC は2020 年-2030 年向けのものであり、 ここに提示されている CO2 排出削減の年率をみると、日本の意欲は EU と米国のそれよりも低くなります。一方、日本の CO2 排出削減における限界コスト（単位 CO2 削減量あたりのコスト）概算は、EU と米国のそれよりも高いものでした。日
本、EU、米国を含む先進国と、多くの発展途上国の間には、この限界コストにおける大幅な差異があり、これがカーボン・リーケージ（炭素の漏れ）を引き起こす可能性があります。すなわ
ち、排出量の多い生産工程が規制の緩い他の国へと移されることで、排出量が増加してしまうので削減のための取り組みが台無しになってしまうということです。したがって日本と EU が
INDC を実現できるかどうかは、他の国々の努力と協力にかかっています。
また、日本も EU も関与していない、新たなリーダーシップのダイナミクスもあります。気候変動において米国と中国がリーダー役を務め始め、日本と EU ともに流れから取り残されている感があります。G7 の国々は現在、CO2 排出量削減なくしての石炭の利用を禁じる法律が制定されたことにより、新たな石炭火力発電所の開発から脱却しつつあります。その他の国々では、石炭の需要がきわめて少なくなったため、これにまつわる座礁資産が非常に多く存在しています。

19

しかしながら日本は、40 数ヶ所の新たな石炭火力発電所の開発を計画しています。また日本は、
発展途上国の石炭発電に融資をし、輸出信用保証を通じて、国外での石炭生成に対する主要資金
提供国の一つでもあります。
グリーンな未来を迎えることは可能であり、それは確実にやって来るでしょう。しかし問題は、
地球温暖化を今後摂氏 2℃以下に抑えるのに、どれだけ早くたどり着けるか、ということなのです。コペンハーゲン会合以降、太陽エネルギーと風力エネルギーのコストは大幅に低下し、貯蔵設備（ストレージ）に関しては大きな前進がありました。
EU にとって今後の重大な課題は、次のようなものがあります。①エネルギー安全保障、②計画されたエネルギー同盟（Energy Union）でのガスの役割に対する過度な集中を避ける必要性、③送電グリット網の向上、④排出権取引制度の改修、⑤輸送分野での脱炭素化、⑥ブリュッセル（EU 政府）を悩ます多くの危機や妨げの中で気候変動政策一貫して維持する必要性です。
日本は、低炭素化のための技術開発という課題について最大の貢献者の一つとなる潜在性があるにもかかわらず、近年、来た道を引き返していることはほぼ間違いありません。ストレージ、ス
マートグリッド、第二世代の太陽エネルギー、自律走行車、水素エネルギーなど、今後どのような技術が隆盛しようとも、日本は低炭素化に取り残されないように努めるべきです。実際、安倍首相は「技術的な貢献を基盤とする温暖化対策に向けた積極的な外交戦略を策定する」意図を示しています。これから分かることは、日本による地球温暖化解決のための貢献、努力が行われており、これはおそらく、鉄鋼生産や石炭火力発電所等のエネルギー効率を向上させる、広く利用可能で革新的な技術の開発という形になるということでしょう。これを達成するために、日本政府は 2014 年、Innovation for Cool Earth Forum（ICEF）を設立しました。

セッション 4「地方自治体とアカウンタビリティーの新モデル」
このセッションでは、日本と EU における地域・地方自治体の重要性、構造、目的に関する概要が示されました。
ヨーロッパには、国家ならびに EU および欧州評議会（CoE）といった国際レベルでの政策の策定に影響を与えることを目的とした、地域・地方自治体のさまざまなネットワークがあることが分かりました。あるスピーカーは、一部の国々にとって、ヨーロッパの問題が自国の国内問題の延長となっており、オーストリアには「連邦ヨーロッパ統合外務省」という名の役所が設置されていることからも分かると主張しました。
ヨーロッパの地域・地方当局はそれぞれ、似たような問題に頻繁に直面しています。例えば以下のような問題があります。
異なるレベルの機関内部／間における不明瞭な権限と責任の割り当て

不十分な財源20

コンサルテーションの欠如または不十分さ

地域・地方当局による権力の侵害に対する法的救済手段の欠如または不十分さ

ヨーロッパの状況とは反対に、日本はきわめて一極集中型であり、地方自治体がより大きな権限を求めることもほとんどありません。しかしながら、現在の人口動向（大都市では 安定成長、農村部では減少または低迷）を見ると、主要都市圏外の地方自治体は、高齢者に対する医療などの公共・社会サービスを維持するうえで大きな課題に直面するであろうことが分かります。早ければ 2030 年には日本のいくつかの都市でこうしたサービスが維持しなくなるとの予想があり、そうなれば日本の地方自治は大きく弱体化する可能性があります。
ヨーロッパの主要都市と比較すると、日本の人口は首都に極度に集中しています。繰り返される
財政赤字や、自然災害への脆弱性の継続といった背景を基にしてみると、日本の地方自治体が抱える課題は、地方に住まう人々に向けた公共・民間サービスの質の維持となるでしょう。この課
題への解決策はいくつかあります。


従来、自民党は、中央政府の資金を用いて地方機関を助成してきました。福島の原発事故以降、地方市民の間にローカルな結束とコミュニティの意識が生まれ、多くの政策担当者は、原発事故後の再建は、分権化または地方への権限委譲を伴うものである
べきだと考えました。同時に、原発事故前には地方への公共投資が縮小していたとこ
ろ、再建によって従来の自民党の政治が活性化されることにもなりました。2011 年に日本を襲った地震、津波、原発事故の後、経済専門家が推奨するレベルを大幅に上回る GDP の 77%が再建に充てられました。しかし、増大する日本の公債、成長遅滞、そして高齢化社会という状況では、このアプローチは今後持続できるものではありません。



もう一つの解決策としては、日本がより緩慢な成長モデルを選ぶことです。 これは「里山資本主義」と呼ばれることもあり、物質的な豊かさではなく、クオリティ・オ
ブ・ライフを優先するモデルをいいます。 ただし、｢里山資本主義」モデルの原型は地方での自給自足経済であり、ここに経済成長はもはや必要ありません。このような状況において緩やかな成長または現状を維持していくのは、非常に困難でしょう。このモデルを持続可能なものとするには、日本の地方は生産性を大幅に向上させる必要がありますが、それによって地方の社会構造は変化せざるをえなくなるでしょう。



第三の解決策は、分権化と地方への権限地方への権限委譲です。このアプローチは、
社会民主主義者やネオリベラルな経済専門家がよく提唱するものです。ネオリベラリ
ストは、中央政府から地方政府への財政支援の停止を推奨し、地方自治体の自給自足、
自己責任、自立の必要性を強調する傾向があります。このアプローチは、2001 年～
2006 年の小泉政権下（ネオリベラルな自民党の方針）で支持されていました。他には、官僚的手法による低効率、低生産性を改善するためには、公益事業の地方分権が必要であるとの主張があります。生産性を向上させるためには、地方の小規模な町に21

リソースを再分配し、地方産業には徹底的な構造改革が必要です。しかし、この解決策は、現実的な適用が非常に困難となります。国家レベルから地方レベルへ資金を再分配するのは困難であり、産業の構造改革には反発が生じるでしょう。それゆえ、分権化に向けての実質的な取り組みには、中央政府と地方自治体ともに、強力なリーダ
ーシップが不可欠となります。

22

（英語）English Summary drafted by Chatham House
Summary

The Political Economy of Japan and the EU:
Challenges and Strategies
Introduction

This document summarizes the symposium ‘The Political Economy of Japan and the EU:
Challenges and Strategies’, which took place at Chatham House on Friday 13 November
2015. The symposium was generously supported by the Japan Economic Foundation (JEF).
All discussions were held under the Chatham House Rule. The views expressed are those of
the participants and do not represent the views of Chatham House.

Opening remarks
The symposium began with opening remarks by John Nilsson-Wright and Kazumasa
Kusaka.
It was emphasized that the symposium was an opportunity to shift the focus away from themore intractable issues of history and national security, and towards opportunities forcooperation. The symposium was designed to bring to light political, economic and social
factors constraining sustainable development in Japan and Europe. With global demandslowing, it is imperative that Europe and Japan learn from each other in order to devise newstrategies for generating economic growth. Japan is facing substantial demographic
challenges. China will face a similar challenge before its social safety nets become functional.
Europe has moved forward on these issues through immigration and the transfer of labour
within the European Union. Simultaneously, as political and security risks become moresalient, the communication between political scientists and economists will need to improve.
This event is an effort to that end. Japan has made a concerted effort to revive its economy,
participating in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), through the policies of ‘Abenomics’ andby entering negotiations for a free-trade agreement (FTA) with the EU. However, the mostimportant task will be to reform mindsets – i.e. to reduce resistance to abolishing tariffs, andto provide an investment-friendly climate.

23

SESSION 1 EU-Japan Trade and Economic Relationships
During the first session, it was argued that the EU has substantial political and economic
interests in East Asia. The Asia-Pacific region is host to the world’s fastest-growing export
markets and economies, and already accounts for nearly 25 per cent of EU exports. Almost
50 per cent of global shipping by tonnage transits via the South China Sea, rendering East
Asia’s maritime disputes of vital importance to the EU and others. Reflecting thisimportance, the EU recently concluded FTAs with South Korea and Singapore, and isnegotiating FTAs with a number of other countries, including Japan.
The EU and Japan are already cooperating on a range of issues: Japan is an importanteconomic partner for the EU in terms of trade and investment, and is engaged indevelopmental and peace-building activities in the same regional theatres as the EU. More
importantly, both sides share common security interests, such as an interest in humansecurity, inter-regionalism and soft power as a means of foreign policy. Finally, both the EU
and Japan are closely linked, making trilateral cooperation a realistic option. For the above
reasons, Japan is a natural political partner to the EU, which called for more coherent
foreign policy cooperation with Tokyo in its 2012 East Asia Policy Guidelines. At the 2015
EU–Japan Summit, both sides agreed to increase political and economic cooperation, as wellas to hold regular ministerial meetings on Europe’s Common Security and Defence Policy(CSDP).
Japan and the EU are important partners not only in terms of foreign policy, but also inrespect of their trade and economic relations. The automobile industry is an example inpoint. Over the past few years, Japanese automakers have consistently increased theirproduction in the EU, and today two-thirds of all Japanese-brand vehicles sold in the EU are
produced there. At the same time, the share of European vehicles in the Japanese market
has steadily increased over the past 15 years, and currently stands at 4.9 per cent.
Should the two sides conclude an economic partnership agreement (EPA) or FTA as planned,
this may signify the beginning of a new era. Not only would an EPA/FTA create an enormous
economic zone, it would also create employment opportunities and enhance innovation,
productivity and competitiveness. Furthermore, such an agreement would be likely tocontribute to the establishment of global rules on trade and investment.
In the context of the EPA/FTA negotiations, it appears that Japan’s main interests will be toeliminate the EU’s current tariffs on industrial products, as well as to remove the regulatory
challenges facing Japanese companies in Europe. The EU, on the other hand, is likely to ask
Japan to remove non-tariff measures (NTMs), eliminate the relatively high tariffs on the
EU’s main exports to Japan (agricultural products in particular), facilitate access to public
procurement and protect geographical indications.
24For Japan, the potential EPA/FTA with the EU forms part of a number of key tradenegotiations, including the TPP, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP),
and the Japan–China–Korea FTA. It was argued that the TPP in particular would help all
countries involved to liberalize by providing a common set of rules – facilitating investment,competition and general business. One speaker expressed his agreement with the EU tradecommissioner that the recent agreement on the TPP could inject new dynamism into the
EPA/FTA negotiations between Japan and the EU, but cited Dutch Prime Minister Mark
Rutte’s statement that ‘the terms of the TPP deal can’t simply be copied and pasted into the
EU–Japan agreement’.
To the extent that trade will serve to stimulate economic growth in Japan, these negotiations
form part of the policy of ‘Abenomics’, which was launched in 2013 following the election ofPrime Minister Shinzo Abe. It was suggested that Abenomics had helped to pull Japan out of
two decades of deflation and to kick-start its hitherto stagnant economy. Based on the results
so far, one speaker felt confident that the government would remain committed to Abenomics
in order to lead Japan to sustained economic growth.

SESSION 2 Age, Gender and Migration: The Challenges of Demography
Both Japan and the EU are experiencing an ageing population. This poses a number ofchallenges to economic growth and the provision of social services, because economic growthmodels are essentially based on population growth and thus on an expanding base ofworkers and consumers. An ageing and shrinking population is at odds with this model.
Furthermore, an ageing population worsens the dependency ratio, i.e. the ratio of children
and pensioners to workers, jeopardizing the affordability of the welfare state. It has beensuggested for several years that ‘replacement migration’ might be an option, i.e. attracting
sufficient migrants to maintain the prevailing economic growth model and the welfare state.
However, there are two key reasons why this is no long-term solution to the ageing of the
population. First, the number of migrants required for replacement migration could add
further pressure to those countries which are already densely populated. Of course, one
could manage migration in such a way as to decrease the dependency ratio in the absence of
population growth, but this would require migrants to leave before becoming dependents
themselves. However, the European experience with guest workers suggests that, evensetting aside the ethical dimensions of such a policy, this is a very difficult approach.
Second, a fall in fertility levels is an increasingly widespread phenomenon. Much of theimmigration to the United Kingdom comes from the EU's eastern member states, where thecurrent average fertility rate is 1.4, and thus too low to provide sufficient people in the long
term.

25

The same applies to Japan. Japan appears to be suffering from a demographic vicious cycle,
in which late marriage, an ageing population and stagnating productivity and demand areleading to low economic growth rates. Given Japan’s relatively inflexible labour market,
companies are therefore hesitant to hire young full-time workers. Consequently, theproportion of low-wage, part-time workers is increasing, and those who do find full-time
employment face tough working hours. This leads the young to postpone marrying andhaving children.
Since the working-age population is declining and the demand-side stimulation of
Abenomics worked for a while, some economists had expected that the labour market would
tighten and that this would stop the vicious cycle by raising the percentage of full-timeworkers and real wage rates. However, with China’s economic slowdown weakening growth
in Japan, this hopeful expectation is now fading away.
A major source of immigration to Japan is China, where fertility levels are rapidly
decreasing. Other source countries include Vietnam, the Philippines and Indonesia, all ofwhich feature declining fertility rates. Fertility rates in these countries may be above
replacement level, but possibly not for much longer. Given sustained economic growth anddeclining fertility rates in many ‘source’ countries, the pool of potential migrants is likely todecrease significantly.
This suggests that for Japan and the EU replacement migration is not a long-term solution
to the problem of an ageing population. That said, migration may very well serve to mitigate
the challenges faced. Highly skilled migrants can boost innovation and help countries
remain competitive globally. Global recruitment is a way not only to enlist the best people,
but also to create a corporate culture sensitive to diversity – thus facilitating international
trade and takeovers. Many South Korean companies, for instance, struggle withinternational takeovers, possibly because the corporate culture is highly homogeneous.
However, too often the debate focuses on highly skilled migrants, despite the fact that
migrants are also needed at the other end of the skills spectrum, in particular in the
agricultural and care sectors. Despite technological advances – Japan, for instance, isexperimenting with care robots – these sectors remain labour-intensive, and efforts torecruit domestic workers have proven rather unsuccessful.
So while migration provides a number of opportunities, it also involves costs. It has beenargued that migration may have a negative impact on female labour force participation, as
employers may prefer migrant men over women. However, evidence suggests that countries
with a high rate of migrant labour participation also have a high rate of female labour
participation. Japan, on the other hand, has low rates of both. As has been pointed out before,

26

the reason underlying the low female labour participation rate in Japan may be not so mucha lack of jobs, but rather relate to the difficulties of combining work and family life.
Another major concern is that migration will lead to social unrest. To be sure, the process of
integrating migrants into the receiving societies in the EU has not been without problems.
There are clashes of values, most importantly with regard to gender and religion; and, forsome groups, below-average school performance and high unemployment rates. In responseto the social problems associated with immigration, many governments have tried to limit
all forms of what they consider ‘unwanted’ immigration. And while countries such as Canada
and Australia show that a policy of selective immigration is possible, many countries in the
EU and Japan have over-stressed a restrictive attitude, and have done so at a cost. Whileboth the EU and Japan have programmes to attract highly skilled labour, neither market ismeeting target quotas, even in times of high migration. One of the reasons may be that thehighly skilled operate in a global market and thus have many options, enabling them tochoose places that will afford them a good salary while also making them feel welcome. This
dynamic seems at odds with the highly negative discourse on immigration, and with theemphasis on assimilation that prevails in both the EU and Japan.
So while it is important not to downplay the problems associated with immigration, it seems
equally important not to overstate their significance. A key lesson for governments is to facereality. Facing a large influx of refugees, governments should recognize that many of thesepeople will stay. The earlier governments enact policies to facilitate the integration of
refugees and migrants into the labour market, the lower the social and monetary costs will
be. Neither should the benefits be overstated. Studies suggest that migration may have apositive, but none the less modest, impact on the economy.

SESSION 3 Energy and the Environment: Is a Green Future Possible?
Japan and the EU came to the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference as international leaderson the issue of climate change. Both were early movers on low-carbon innovation, owning themost patents for renewable technologies outside the United States. They came to the summit
as polities that were deeply invested in the international climate change regime. At the timethat regime was based on the Kyoto Protocol – which had been signed and agreed in Japan –and arguably no actor had done more than the EU to push for a legally binding agreement.
Both Japan and the EU were major providers of international climate finance, and of course
both were – and still are – import-dependent entities, and as such vulnerable to the impact
of climate change in third countries. This leadership was clearly reflected in the targets thatJapan and the EU put forward at the conference.
However, despite this similar starting point in Copenhagen, and similar challenges facedsince then, their paths have diverged. Interestingly, one can argue that this bifurcation did
27

not start with the Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011, but actually in 2010, when Japan’semissions increased by 4.2 per cent. At the 2010 UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) conference in Cancún, when it would have been vital to ensureinternational cohesion post-Copenhagen, Japan declined to renew its Kyoto Protocolcommitment. In 2011, the Fukushima Daiichi disaster happened, with now well-known
consequences for Japan’s nuclear sector. At the time, Tokyo had planned on nuclear energy
constituting 50 per cent of the country’s energy mix by 2030, a scenario that had
underpinned many of its emissions reduction goals. With the country’s nuclear plants
temporarily shut down, the resulting hole in Japan’s energy mix was filled by increases infossil-fuel consumption. This resulted in an increase in emissions and carbon intensity.
Whether Tokyo’s new plan of establishing the nuclear portion of Japan’s energy mix at justover 20 per cent is realistic will depend on businesses’ willingness to make long-term
investments, which is far from certain.
The Fukushima disaster also had implications for Europe. The most striking response camefrom Germany, which decided to phase out nuclear reactors by 2022. As had been the case inJapan, the short-term hole in its energy mix was filled by fossil fuels, and by coal inparticular. However, Germany simultaneously pushed ahead with its emissions reduction
targets and commitment to renewable energies. In Japan, on the other hand, targets forrenewables capacity were ambitious, but so far have not been met, probably for reasons ofpolitical economy. Germany, in contrast, now relies on renewables for approximately 30 per
cent of its electricity. Of course, Berlin’s ‘Energiewende’ has had negative impacts in terms ofemission reductions, the price of electricity etc., but the key point is that Germany has
successfully decoupled emissions from economic growth. Germany’s emissions are being
reduced while its GDP is increasing, which is quite an achievement.
From 2013 onwards, the shale gas revolution took off in the US. This completely changed theconversation about energy and competitiveness in both Europe and Japan. At the time,natural gas cost $4–5 per million British thermal units (Btu) in the United States, $12 in the
EU and $18 in Japan. This had a big impact on the political economy of climate change
policy-making and energy security, reflected in the emissions reduction targets proposed in
the 2013 energy and climate change package, which really delivered a business-as-usual
decarbonization pathway. In other words, there was little increase in ambition on mitigation.
Around the same time we saw Japan abandon its Copenhagen pledge, and put forward a
new target for 2020 which included an increase in emissions levels compared with 1990 –quite a reversal in ambition.
Where are we now? Both Japan and the EU have submitted ‘intended nationally determined
contributions’ (INDCs). Taking 2013 as the base year, Japan’s emissions reduction targets
look more ambitious than those of the US or EU. However, measured against the more28

common 1990 or 2005 baselines, the targets look less impressive. Also, these INDCs are forthe years 2020–30. Looking at the annual rates of decarbonization implied by theirrespective INDCs, Japan is less ambitious than the EU and the US. On the other hand, theestimated ‘marginal abatement costs’ (the costs for an additional unit of CO2 being abated)of Japan are higher than those of the EU and the US. Substantial differences between themarginal abatement costs of developed economies (including Japan, the EU and the US) andthose of many developing countries could lead to ‘carbon leakages’ – i.e. increases inemissions through carbon-intensive production being transferred to countries with weakregulation. This could undermine efforts to curb emissions. Thus the success of the INDCs ofJapan and the EU will depend also on other countries’ efforts and cooperation.
There is also a new leadership dynamic involving neither Japan nor the EU, both of whichhave been somewhat marginalized as the US and China have taken on a leading role in the
climate change agenda. The G7 countries are now rolling back from developing new coalcapacity, with a number having enacted laws that prohibit developing coal withoutabatement. Other countries are facing substantial stranded assets in the coal industry, andhence have very little appetite for developing additional capacities in this respect. Japan,
however, is planning some 40 new coal plants. Also, Japan is among the largest financers ofcoal generation overseas, including through financing coal in developing countries andexport credit guarantees.
A green future is possible and no doubt under way, but the question remains whether theworld will get there fast enough to avoid more than two degrees of global warming. The costsof solar and wind energy have significantly decreased since Copenhagen, and there are
significant advances with regards to storage.
Going forward, critical issues for the EU will include energy security; the need to avoid
excessive focus on the role of gas in the planned Energy Union; enhancement of gridinterconnections; repair of the emissions trading scheme; decarbonization of transport; andthe need to maintain a steady course in climate change policy given a host of crises andpolicy distractions plaguing Brussels.
Arguably Japan has backtracked recently, despite having the potential to stand as one of thelargest winners in low-carbon development. Whatever the next wave of low-carbon
technologies will be – storage, smart grids, second-generation solar, autonomous vehicles orhydrogen – Japan should focus on ensuring that it is not left behind. In fact, Prime Minister
Abe has expressed his intention of developing an aggressive diplomatic strategy for global
warming response measures based on technological contribution’. Such statements suggestthat efforts are under way for Japan to contribute to tackling global warming, possibly bydeveloping and making widely available innovative technologies for increasing energy

29efficiency, e.g. in respect of steel production or coal plants. To this end, in 2014 the Japanese
government established the Innovation Cool Earth Forum (ICEF).

SESSION 4 Local Government and New Models of Accountability
This session provided an overview of the significance, structures and objectives of local andregional governments in Japan and the EU.
It was shown that Europe is host to a range of networks of local and regional governments
aiming to influence policy-making at the national and international level, in the EU and at
the Council of Europe. One speaker argued that for some countries, European affairs had
become an extension of domestic affairs, reflected for example in the name of the Austrian‘Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and International Affairs’.
Local and regional authorities in Europe frequently encounter similar problems, such as:Unclear allocation of competences and responsibilities within/among different
levels of authority;

Inadequate financial resources;

A lack of or inadequate consultation; andA lack of or inadequate legal remedies against infringements of local and regional
authorities’ powers

In contrast to the European experience, Japan is a highly centralized state, with very few
arguing for greater local government power. However, current demographic trends –moderate growth in big cities, population decline or stagnation in rural areas – suggest that
local governments outside major cities will face major challenges in maintaining public andsocial services, including medical care to the elderly. The failure of these services, a scenariothat could come true in parts of the country as early as 2030, could seriously undermine local
politics in Japan.
Compared to European metropolises, Japan shows an extreme concentration of its
population in its capital city. Against the background of Japan’s recurring fiscal deficit andcontinued vulnerability to natural disasters, the challenge for local authorities in Japan will
be to maintain the quality of public/private services to citizens living in local areas. There
are a number of potential solutions:

Traditionally, the LDP has tended to subsidize rural authorities with central
government funds. After the Fukushima nuclear disaster, there was a sense of
local ties and community among local citizens. Many policy planners thought thatreconstruction should be combined with decentralization or devolution. At the30same time, reconstruction helped to revitalize traditional Liberal Democratic
Party (LDP) politics as, before the disaster, public investment in rural areas had
been shrinking. Following the tsunami and nuclear disaster of 2011, 77 per centof GDP was invested in reconstruction, well above the optimal level recommended
by economists. However, Japan’s mounting public debt, slow growth and ageing
society mean that this approach will not be sustainable into the future.


Alternatively, Japan could opt for a model of slower growth, sometimes named‘Satoyama capitalism’, emphasizing quality of life over material wealth. However,
the archetypical ‘Satoyama capitalism’ model envisages a self-sufficient economy
in a rural area, where economic growth is no longer necessary. Attaining slow oreven zero growth under such circumstances would be highly ambitious. For sucha model to be sustainable, Japan’s rural areas would need significantly toenhance their productivity, which would inevitably alter the social structure ofthese areas.

A third option would be decentralization and devolution, an approach often
advocated by social democrats and neoliberal economists. Neoliberalists tend toadvocate cuts in financial support from central to local governments, emphasizing
the need for self-sufficiency, self-accountability and autonomy for local
governments. This approach (the neoliberal LDP way) was supported by theadministration of Junichiro Koizumi in 2001-06. Another argument suggests that
improvements in bureaucratic efficiency and productivity will require thedecentralization of public services. Resources should be reallocated to compact
cities in rural areas, and local industries should undergo substantial reforms toenhance their productivity. However, this option will be very difficult to apply inpractice. Reallocating funds from the national to the local level is difficult, andefforts at industrial reform will encounter resistance. Substantial efforts atdecentralization will therefore require strong leadership in both central and local
governments.

31

7．発表資料

パワーポイント資料
SESSION 1 EU-Japan Trade and Economic Relationships①

Toshiyuki Shiga, Member, Board of Directors and Vice Chairman, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

②

Tetsuro Fukunaga, Executive Director, Brussels Office, Japan Machinery Center for
Trade and Investment (JMC)

SESSION 2 Age, Gender and Migration: The Challenges of Demography③

Kyoji Fukao, Professor, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University

SESSION 3 Energy and the Environment: Is a Green Future Possible?
④

Keigo Akimoto, Chief Researcher and Leader, Systems Analysis Group, ResearchInstitute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE)SESSION 4 Local Government and New Models of Political Accountability⑤

Sota Kato, Professor, International University of Japan; Senior Fellow and Director of
Research, Tokyo Foundation⑥

Andreas Kiefer, Secretary General of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities,
Council of Europe32

①

Toshiyuki Shiga

Towards an EU-Japan
EPA/FTA
from the viewpoint ofAutomotive Industry
November 13, 2015

Toshiyuki Shiga
Director & Vice Chairman
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

33

Recent developments - Nissan
Nissan Micra will be manufactured at a Renault plant in Europe. Dueto start production in 2016, the vehicle will be exported acrossEurope's left-hand drive markets.

The first Infiniti production facility will be constructed in Europe in
Sunderland, UK. The expansion will create 1,000 jobs at Sunderland
and among its UK suppliers.

(C) Copyright NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.
2015 All rights reserved.

www.nissan-global.com

33

Trends in production and imports
Japanese Automakers in the EU(Units)(Yen/Euro)1,800,000

170

1,600,000

160

1,400,000

150

1,200,000
140
1,000,000
130
800,000
120
600,000
110

717,117840,971

771,493
943,062

918,668
1,058,842

958,259
1,173,321

849,644
1,252,270

892,393
1,319,052

889,504
1,606,381

778,752
1,544,101

532,397
1,084,676

553,1091,150,621

507,371
1,157,876

398,127
1,358,954

366,877
1,379,733

446,749
1,382,061

200,000

879,205
709,027400,000

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

0

100
90

Japan→EU exports

Japanese automakers' EU production

Yen/Euro exchange rate trends (right scale)■ EU production by Japanese automakers has risen steadily.
■ In 2014, EU production by Japanese automakers totalled 1.38 million units, ormore than two-thirds of all Japanese-brand vehicles sold in the EU.
Source: JAMA
www.nissan-global.com

34(C) Copyright NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.
2015 All rights reserved.

44

Corporate relations between
the EU and Japan Automotive ties
50% equity stake Joint development of a fuel-cell system, sports vehicle, lightweight

Supply of finished vehicles (from 2015)

technology, and post-lithium-ion battery technology

Toyota Peugeot
Citroën
Automobile Czech(Czech Republic)

Supply of diesel engines(from 2014)
Supply offinished vehicles

50%
equity stake

Supply offinished vehicles
jointly developed
Supply of engines andin the EU
transaxles

supply of finished vehicles and EV
powertrain component

Supply ofdiesel engines

Supply of engines
and transmissions

Supply of finished vehicles
jointly developed in the EU

Supply of engines
1.55%
equity stake89%
equity stake

Supply of diesel
engine spare parts

3.1%
equity stake

100% equity
stake

Supply ofdiesel engines

Supply of diesel
engine spare parts(Europe)

43.4% equity stake

Cooperative sales ties
in the Japanese market

15% equity stake
1.55% equity stake
3.1% equity stake

Source: JAMA(C) Copyright NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.
2015 All rights reserved.

www.nissan-global.com

5

European makers in Japanese Market■ The share of European vehicles in Japan’s home market has steadily
increased over the past 15 years.
■ European brands have 4.9% of share in whole Japanese market in 2014.
Share (in units and %) of European Vehicles in Japan’s Home Market
Units

Number of European vehicles soldNumber of U.S. vehicles soldShare of European vehicles

Share of U.S. vehicles

6%

250,000
4.9% 4.9%
4.6%

200,000
3.6%
3.3%

150,000
3.0%

3.9% 3.8%

3.8%

3.8%

3.9%

5%

4.2%

4.0%

4%
3.6%

3.4%

3.3%

3.5%

3.1% 3.1%

3%

2.6%

100,0002%
1.4% 1.6% 1.4%
1.1%

50,000

0.9%

0.8%

0.7%

1%
0.5% 0.4%

0.3% 0.4% 0.3%
0.3% 0.2%

0.2% 0.2%

'04

'09

0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

0

0%
1995

'96

'97

'98

'99

2000

'01

'02

'03

'05

'06

'07

'08

'10

'11

'12

'13

'14

Including mini Vehicles

Source: JAMA
www.nissan-global.com

35(C) Copyright NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.
2015 All rights reserved.

6

Automobile sector trade balance
between the EU and Japan◆ The trade balance in the automotive sector between the EU and Japan
used to be marked by an overall surplus on the Japan side until 2011,
while the surplus was steadily declining year by year.
◆ Since 2012, the trade balance in automobiles between the EU and Japan
has showed a reversal, with the EU gaining a surplus.
Unit: Thousand yen
EXPORTS (Japan to EU)

IMPORTS (EU to Japan)

BalanceUnit

AmountUnit

AmountAmount2007

1,093,152

2,178,011,704

196,818

723,316,911

1,454,694,793

2008

992,167

1,866,231,039

149,664

571,495,314

1,294,735,725

2009

583,770

903,950,912

109,654

373,157,373

530,793,539

2010

634,097

1,016,218,802

146,061

460,891,451

555,327,351

2011

580,373

940,606,503

178,139579,261,254

361,345,249

2012

433,358

698,819,797

213,002699,843,644-1,023,847

2013

390,435

776,256,575

239,090

834,689,873-58,433,298

Motor
Vehicles

Source: Ministry of Finance

WWW.nissan-global.com(C) Copyright NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.
2015 All rights reserved.

7

Automobile Sector trade balance
between the Germany and Japan◆ The trade balance in the automotive sector between Germany and Japanis marked by an overall deficit on the Japan side.
◆ The trade balance in automobiles between Germany and Japan ismarked by a steadily increasing surplus on the side of Germany.
Unit: Thousand yen

MotorVehiclesExports (Japan to Germany)
Unit

Amount2007

157,125

308,193,606

2008

130,563

2009

Imports (Germany to Japan)
Unit

BalanceAmountAmount98,333453,258,894-145,065,288

236,957,194

92,111

393,941,770-156,984,576

106,519

152,572,685

70,579271,285,310-118,712,625

2010

111,802

163,874,390

91,948326,457,803-162,583,413

2011

112,618

159,735,204

113,503411,148,489-251,413,285

2012

99,595

141,592,872

131,083

486,055,833-344,462,961

2013

83,615

149,248,438

146,792578,284,881-429,036,443
Source: Ministry of Finance

WWW.nissan-global.com

36(C) Copyright NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.
2015 All rights reserved.

8

44th Tokyo Motor Show
Dates :
Venue:

From 29th October to 8th November, 2015
Tokyo Big Sight

All 14 manufacturers / 15 brands of Japan and 17 manufacturers / 27 brands fromabroad (passenger cars, commercial vehicles, motorcycles) to exhibit
Passenger cars : DAIHATSU, HONDA, LEXUS, NISSAN, MAZDA, MITSUBISHI, SUBARU, SUZUKI, TOYOTA,
ALPINA (Germany), AUDI (Germany), BMW (Germany), MINI (UK), CITROËN (France), DS (France),
FIAT (Italy), ALFA ROMEO (Italy), ABARTH (Italy), JEEP (U.S.A.), JAGUAR (UK), LAND ROVER (UK),
Mercedes-Benz (Germany), Mercedes-Maybach (Germany), Mercedes-AMG (Germany),smart (Germany), PEUGEOT (France), PORSCHE (Germany), RADICAL (UK), RENAULT (France),
VOLKSWAGEN (Germany)

Commercial Vehicles : HINO, ISUZU, MITSUBISHI-FUSO, UD TRUCKS, VOLVO TRUCKS (Sweden),Motorcycles : HONDA, KAWASAKI, SUZUKI, YAMAHA, BMW (Germany), BRP (Canada),
INDIAN (U.S.A.)/VICTORY (U.S.A.), POLARIS (U.S.A.), KTM (Austria)

WWW.nissan-global.com

37(C) Copyright NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.
2015 All rights reserved.

99TPP reached a broad agreement
on Oct. 5 after 7 years of negotiations

11
WWW.nissan-global.com

38(C) Copyright NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.
2015 All rights reserved.

11

Regulatory cooperation in the third countries

UN-R

FMVSS

GB
UN-R

BS

ASEAN
MRA
UN-R

EU-Japan EPA will facilitate harmonisation of regulations / mutual recognition ofcertification under 58 Agreement / UN-R
13
WWW.nissan-global.com(C) Copyright NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.
2015 All rights reserved.

13

13

Global Common Regulations might be led by TPP…

Accounts for 40% of
the world’s economy
Tariffs immediately eliminatedon more than 80 % ofauto parts to the US

WWW.nissan-global.com

39(C) Copyright NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.
2015 All rights reserved.

14

Early conclusion of EPA
between the EU and Japan expected !

WWW.nissan-global.com(C) Copyright NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.
2015 All rights reserved.

15

Thank you for getting connected

WWW.nissan-global.com

40(C) Copyright NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.
2015 All rights reserved.

16

15

WWW.nissan-global.com

41(C) Copyright NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.
2015 All rights reserved.

17

②

Tetsuro Fukunaga

New era for EU-Japan business relations:
Beyond the EU-Japan EPA/FTA

13 November,2015
Tetsuro Fukunaga
Executive Director, JMC Brussels

1Japan accelerates “MEGA” FTAs
TTIP (Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership)
Started in 2013

ＥＵ

USA

EU-Japan EPA/FTA

TPP(Trans Pacific Partnership)

Started in 2013

Japan joined in 2013

Japan
Japan-China-Korea FTA
Started in 2013

RCEP
(Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership)
Started in 2013

FTAAP
(Free Trade Area of Asia Pacific）
2

42

TPP and EU-Japan EPA/FTA embody “Abenomics”
Japan has targeted FTA ratio in force to be 70% by 2018
in its Revitalization Strategy(30 June 2015), Cabinet Decision

Milestones of the FTAs
EU-Japan EPA/FTA

TPP
Originally launched as “P4” among
Brunei, Chile, Singapore, and NZ in 2006
US announced its participation in 2008

2010

Joint Study between EU and Japan started

2011

May

Scoping Exercise started

2012

May

Scoping Exercise concluded

2013

2014
2015

March
The U.S., Australia, Peru and Vietnam joined
October Malaysia joined negotiation
November APEC Yokohama

November Japan, Canada and Mexico expressed
their interests

March

Launch of negotiations at EU-Japan Summit

April

1st Negotiation round

October

Canada and Mexico joined negotiation

March

Japan announced its participation

July

Japan joined negotiation

October

Agreement reached

Summer EU’s one-year review

PM Abe has expressed several times the objective ofconcluding the negotiations in general by the end of
2015

43

「 グロ ーバルビ ジネス対応能力開発コ

日・ EUビ ジネス・ ラ ウン ド テーブル 第１ ５ 回年次会合がパリ で開催さ れまし
日・ EUビ ジネス・ ラ ウン ド テ ーブル

たたEU-JapanEPA/FTA seeks seamlessbusiness environments
Japan’s main areas of interest

EU’s main areas of interest-Eliminate EU’s tariffs on industrial
products-Remove NTMs(Non-Tariff Measures)
e.g. auto (harmonization with UN regulations)food safety(designation of food additives),

e.g. Automobiles(10%), TV(14%)

medical devices and pharmaceuticals*both 0% in Japan(simplification of evaluation and authorization)-Remove regulatory issues facing-Eliminate high tariffs on main export
products to Japan(Esp.
個人情報の取扱い
Copyright
2013 foods)

Japanese companies in Europe

Copyright 2013

個人情報の取扱い-Easy access to public procurement(Esp. railways)-Protect GI (Geographical Indications)
5

Japan is relevant to Europe
EU companies have a 40% of cumulative investment into Japan and forthem “Japan is the profitable market”

644

EU-Japan EPA/FTA has progressed on Japan NTM’s
The negotiation had “passed” the one-year review of the Council lastsummerAutomotive

Food

Adoption of UNECE regulations• 41/47 passenger vehicle regulations wereadoptedHydrogen Gas Airbags• Exemption of airbags containing hydrogen gas
from import inspection under the High Pressure
Gas Safety Act
Zoning for automobile service shops• Facilitation of the establishment of automobile
service shops
The number of approvals in FY2013 is 52(FY 2011:14)
Pyrotechnic Safety devices• Exemptions of automotive pyrotechnic safety
devices from the Explosive Control Act
High-pressure gas tanks (Fuel Cell Vehicles)• Adoption of Global Technical Regulation(Phase 1)

Food additives• 12 food additives were newly designated.
Beef Import• The ban on imports of cattle meat and offal
was lifted: France(Feb 2013), Netherlands(Feb2013), Ireland(Dec 2013), Poland(Aug 2014).
Liquor wholesale license• Establishing new license categories for cashand-carry wholesalers

Medical Device•

Revision of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law
was entered into force.

平成27年5月29日 日・ Ｅ Ｕ 定期首脳協議等 | 平成27年 | 総理の一日 | 総理大臣 | 首相官邸ホームページ

2015/0

言語選択

En gli sh

中文

ご 意見・

文字サイ ズの変更

7
総理大臣
首相官邸ト ッ プ

記者会見
総理大臣

総理の一日

閣議

国の政策

歴代内閣

資料集

平成2 7 年5 月2 9 日 日・ Ｅ Ｕ 定期首脳協議等

総理大臣

平成2 7 年5月2 9 日

日・ Ｅ Ｕ 定期首脳協議等
EU-JapanEPA/FTA has earned both Leaders’commitments

総理の一日
平成27 年ツ イ ート

178

Joint press statement following the 23rd JapanEU Summit, in Tokyo, on 29 May 2015
To consolidate our solid and evolving trade andeconomic partnership and pave the way for the
future, we reaffirm the importance of a highly
comprehensive and ambitious EPA/ FTA to beconcluded as soon as possible.
Such agreement will address notably issues
related to market access for goods, services andinvestment, procurement including railways, aswell as those related to non-tariff measures andthe protection of geographical indications as wellas intellectual property rights.
To this end we have entrusted our negotiatorswith the mandate to settle the outstanding
平成２ ７ 年５ 月２ ９ 日、 安倍総理は、 総理大臣官邸で 欧州連合（ Ｅ Ｕ ） のジ
differences with a view to reaching agreement ャ ン ＝ク ロ ード ・ ユン カ ー欧州委員会委員長と ド ナルド ・ ト ゥ ス ク 欧州理事会
議長と 日・ Ｅ Ｕ 定期首脳協議等を 行いま し た。
encompassing all the key issues preferably by the
ま ず、 儀仗隊によ る 儀礼に続き 写真撮影を 行いま し た。 続いて、 日・ Ｅ Ｕ 定期
end of 2015.
首脳協議を 行い、 その後共同記者発表を 行いま し た。

平成26 年
歴代総理の一日総理の演説・ 記者会見な
総理指示・ 談話な ど
施政方針/所信表明
総理の動画

第３ 次安倍内閣 閣僚等名
主な 本部・ 会議体

政府の基本方針・ 計画等

定期首脳協議前の握手

8

国の政策
省庁のあら ゆる 政策を ワン ス ト ッ検索

特集ページ ／東日本大震災関
最新情報から 探す
キーワード から 探す各府省から 探す

新着情報
平成2 7年6 月1 1日

安倍総理は産業競争力会議を 開催
した
平成2 7年6 月1 1日

安倍総理は三重県知事によ る 表敬
けま し た平成2 7年6 月1 1日

安倍総理はほこ たブ ラ ン ド 大使等

http ://w w w.kantei.g o.jp /jp /97_ ab e/actions/201505/29eu.htm l#inner_ content1

45

TPP brings higher liberalization

TPP

9

TPP rules facilitate trade and investment
 The TPP provides common rules to facilitate doing
business, competition and investing in othermember countries
 Some general rules include:• 6-hour rule for express custom clearance(standard clearance within 48 hours)• Stricter rules on intellectual property (counterfeits)
and prohibition on royalty rate restrictions• General prohibition on demanding technology
transfer, local contents, or access to source codefrom an investor• Visa waivers for short-term business travelers andtheir families (except for United States andSingapore)• Opening domestic public procurement to member
state bidders• Prohibition on levying import duties on digitalcontents and general rules on e-commerce• Support for small and medium-sized enterprises tobenefit from TPP• Environmental and over-fishing protection
measures46

In the Electronic Commerce chapter,
TPP Parties commit to ensuring freeflow of the global information anddata that drive the Internet and thedigital economy, subject to legitimate
public policy objectives such as
personal information protection. The
12 Parties also agree not to requirethat TPP companies build data
centers to store data as a condition
for operating in a TPP market, and, in
addition, that source code ofsoftware is not required to betransferred or accessed. The chapter
prohibits the imposition of customs
duties on electronic transmissions,and prevents TPP Parties fromfavoring national producers or
suppliers of such products throughdiscriminatory measures or outrightblocking.
10

TPP impacts EU-Japan EPA/FTA negotiation•”That the TPP negotiations are done is good news for world trade as a whole. It
is also good news for the trade negotiations between the EU and Japan, becausewith TPP done, we will be able to approach our negotiations with an evengreater focus from both sides. Success breeds success, and from an EU
perspective we are hopeful that the conclusion of TPP spurs further progress inglobal trade liberalisation - both within the WTO system as well as via bilateralfree trade agreements, and deals negotiated by groups of countries. Tradeliberalisation is a force of good in a world where we need growth, jobs andinvestment.”
October 9, 2015, EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström•“The terms of the TPP deal can’t simply be copied and pasted into the EU-Japanagreement.”
November 7, 2015, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte (Source: Kyodo News)
11

EU-JapanEPA/FTA steps towardsRegulatory Cooperation
Technical Harmonization through EU-Japan EPA/FTA will facilitate
global regulatory convergence
Landscape for Global Automotive Standard (Source: Originally JAMA and amended by JMC)
UN-R

EU-Japan
FMVSS

UN-R
ASEAN
MRA
UN-R

12

47

EU-JapanRegulatoryCooperationcreates further expectation• The 18th Japan-EU Industrial Policy Dialogue in Brussels(March 2015)
The term “Regulatory Cooperation” refers to a joint initiative in which the public and private sectors in Japanand the EU will cooperate at an earlier stage in the respective legislative and related processes so as tocreate new markets while focusing on the future release of new products in such markets five or even ten
years hence, thereby decreasing regulatory discrepancies and formulating common rules necessary for the
future. At the dialogue, both sides compiled the progress and outcome reports of discussions on 13 topics in
12 fields, including robotics, chemicals, and automobiles, into the joint document.

燃料電• Joint press statement following the 23rd Japan-EU summit, in Tokyo(May 29 2015)
The Japan-EU Industrial Policy Dialogue held in March 2015 put an emphasis on deepening regulatory
cooperation involving both government and business, which was also welcomed by the Japan-EU Business
Round Table. We express our great expectation for further progress in regulatory cooperation between
Japan and the EU, while noting that the cooperation is also to be dealt with via the EPA/FTA negotiations.
Home

PeoplePublication

Movies

平成２ ７ 年１ 月１ ５ 日、 安倍総理は、 総理大臣
Ｖ ） 第一号車に試乗し ま し た。

•

Statement from KEIDANREN, “Reaffirming the promotion of EU-Japan Regulatory総理は、 燃料電池自動車に試乗し 、 官邸前庭を
Cooperation” (Japanese Business Federation) (11 November 2015)
いて次のよ う に述べま し た。
Currently, in developed countries, efforts aim the creation of added value has become more active on theutilization of various data with regards to production process and consumers by digital「technology.
いよ いよ 、While
水素時代の幕開けだと 思いま す。
progressed globalization of corporate activities requests to ensure the integrity and convergence of
快適でし
た。
全省庁で
regulations and standards in digital field along with cyber security, it is necessary to promote the EU-Japan 導入し たいと 思っ て いま す
おいて は、 今ま でも 多く の規制を 緩和・ 撤廃し てcooperation between the EU and Japan on this front.
Humanoid Research Group (HRG for short) has developed humanoid robots HRP-2, HRP-3, HRP-4C and HRP-4

with cooperation of several private companies and software platform for humanoid robotics OpenHRP and
Choreonoid. HRG has realized various motions of humanoid robots such as biped locomotion on a rough terrain,lying down and getting up, safety falling, passing through narrow passage, manipulating objects while
supporting itself by a hand, Japanese traditional dancing, and demonstrated them at several events including
Aichi Exposition. The current objectives of HRG is the realization of a humanoid robot that can walk on a roughterrain in the real world, plan its motion autonomously, open/close doors, and does not lose the mobility whenfalling down in order to assist to industrialization of humanoid robots.

13

革、 そし て 技術開発、 こ の二本立て で 前進さ せてま た、 それだけではな く て、 水素において も 、TOPContact us:humanoid-inquiry-ml@aist.go.jp

ために、 規制改革に取り 組みたいと 。 そのために

All Copyrights Reserved 2001-2015. Humanoid Robotics Group Intelligent Systems Institute AIST

Beyond EU-Japan EPA/FTA

し て ま いり たいと 思っ て いま す。 いずれにし て もて 車も ス タ イ リ ッ シュ ですし 、 環境にも 優し い、 EU-Japan EPA/FTA negotiation appears to be ripe for action to fill
h ttp : //w w w . k a n te i. g o . jp /jp /9 7_ a b e /a c tio n s/2 0 15 0 1/15 f cv. h tm l# in n e r
its identified gaps in some sensitive areas
The negotiation has already paved the way for more regulatory
convergence and cooperation to the benefit of both parties
EU-Japan regulatory cooperation has the potential to be extended
to other strategic areas(e.g. IoT and digital manufacturing) EU-Japan EPA/FTA and its regulatory cooperation can be influential
in rule-making in third countries(e.g.standard-setting)

14

48

③

Kyoji Fukao

Immigration and the utilization of thedomestic labor force in Japan
Prepared for the Japan Economic Foundation Roundtable,
the Political Economy of Japan and the EU: Challenges andStrategies, Friday 13, November 2015, Chatham House.

Kyoji Fukao(Hitotsubashi University)

1

Structure of this presentation
1. Recent immigration trends in Japan

2. Utilization of the domestic labor force
3. Does Japan need more immigration?
4. Refugees in Japan249

1. Recent immigration trends in Japan• The number of non-Korean foreign workers has increased
threefold in the period 1990-2005.
• The Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act wasrevised in 1988 (enacted in 1990) and 1993. It became
easier to work in Japan for foreigners who engage inservices which require special skills, for foreigners receiving
job training in Japan, and for foreigners of Japanese descent.
Number of Employed Persons by Nationality
1990
Total
61,679,340
Japanese
61,239,390
Foreigners
439,950
Korean260,900
Others179,050
Source: Population Census.

1995
64,181,890
63,575,270
606,620
268,220
338,400(100.0)(99.3)
(0.7)
(0.4)
(0.3)

(100.0)(99.1)
(0.9)
(0.4)
(0.5)

2000
63,032,270
62,350,330
681,940
256,140
425,800(100.0)(98.9)
(1.1)
(0.4)
(0.7)

2005
61,530,200
60,753,330
776,870
225,200
551,670(100.0)(98.7)
(1.3)
(0.4)
(0.9)

3

1. Recent immigration trends in Japan
Number of Employed Persons by Nationality
Other countries

900,000

From 1990 to 1995,
the number ofBrazilians
increasedconsiderably. After
1995, the numberof Chinese andFilipinos grew
rapidly (Fukao and
Makino 2011).

Thailand

800,000

Vietnam
700,000

Indonesia
600,000

Stateless or notreported
U.S.A.

500,000

Peru

400,000

Philippines
300,000

Brazil
200,000

China
Korea

100,000

Total

0
1990

1995

2000

2005

Source: Authors' estimation based on the Population Census and Statistical Survey4ofRegistered Foreigners .

50

1. Recent immigration trends in Japan

The international migrant stock (as a percentage of the population) is
still very small in comparison with other developed countries. But
following the Lehman shock, Japan suffered a huge negative GDP gap
and manufacturing firms accelerated the relocation of production
abroad. Many migrant workers returned to their home countries.
International migrant stockin Japan, as a percantageof the population

International migrant stock at mid-year(percentage of the population)

%
14

%

12

1.8

10

1.7
1.6

8

1.5
6

1.4

4

1.3

2

1.2
1.1

0
UK
2000

GER
2010

FRA

1.0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014

JPN

2013

Source: Trends in International Migrant Stock: The 2013 Revision(UN)

Source: Statistics on Foreign National
5
Residents

2. Utilization of the domestic labor force
The labor force participation rate of aged workers is
relatively high in Japan.
Labor Force Paticipation Rate by Age (%): 2013

100
90

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39
JPN

40-44

45-49

UK

50-54
GER

55-59

60-64

65-69

75-

FRA

Source: OECD.Stat (UK, GER, FRA), Labour Force Survey (JPN)

51

70-74

6

2. Utilization of the domestic labor force
In the case of female workers in Japan, the labor force
participation rate by age is M-shaped.
Labor Force Paticipation Rate by Age: Female (%): 2013
100
90
80
70
60

50
40
30
20
10
0
15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

JPN

45-49

UK

50-54
GER

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-74

75-

FRA

Source: OECD.Stat (UK, GER, FRA), Labour Force Survey (JPN)7

2. Utilization of the domestic labor force
Most aged male workers are not regular employees.
Labor Force Paticipation Rate by Age and Status in Employement: Male(%, 2013)
100

90
80
70
60
50

40
30
20
10
0
15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

Regular employees

40-44

45-49

50-54

Non-regular employees

Source: Labour Force Survey

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-

Other
8

52

2. Utilization of the domestic labor force
Most female workers work as non-regular employees.
Labor Force Paticipation Rate by Age and Status in Employment: Female(%, 2013)
100

90
80
70
60
50

40
30
20
10
0
15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

Regular employees

40-44

45-49

50-54

Non-regular employees

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-

Other

Source: Labour Force Survey

9

2. Utilization of the domestic labor force
Firms have increased the share of low-wage part-time workers andmake young full-time workers work long hours.

Monthly hours worked by age:
Regular employees
184
182
180
178
176

174

1996
2014

172
170

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64
Source: Basic Survey on Wage Structure.

53

10

2. Utilization of the domestic labor force
Highly educated young full-time workers work long hours.
Monthly hours worked: age 35-39, graduates ofuniversities or graduate schools, enterprises with
1000 employees or more
185
180

175
170
165
160

Male

FemaleSource: Basic Survey on Wage Structure

11

2. Utilization of the domestic labor force
Demographic Vicious Cycle in Japan
Average age of first marriage increases(Sakamoto and Kitamura 2008, Brinton 2015)
Decline ofworking age
population,
low TFP
growth,stagnationof final
demandAlmost zero
growth rate,
substantial
negative
GDP gap

Inflexible
labor market

Firms increase
low-wage parttime workers andmake highly
educated young
full-time workers
work long .

Part-time workers cannot accumulate skills (Fukao et al. 2008).
Abundant supply of female and aged part-time workers reduces
their wage rates. And with low wage rates, firms have few
12
incentives to make efficient use of part-time workers.

54

3. Does Japan need more immigration?
• Japan’s working age
population is declining rapidly.
• Over the medium term,
immigration is a very
important step to mitigate
the negative effect of adeclining and aging
population.
• But, at present, Japan does
not efficiently utilize its
domestic workforce,
especially female and older
workers.
• Because of slow GDP growth
and an increase in part-timeworkers, average working
hours per worker are also
declining

1.5

Change in labor input (man hours)
Change in working age population

Change in average working hours per
worker

1.0

Other factors such as changes in thelabor force participation rate
Man-hour growth

0.5

0.0
1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010 2010-2020 2020-2030

-0.5

-1.0

13

-1.5

3. Does Japan need more immigration?
Japan’s Real GDP Gap, Potential GDP, andInflation Rate (%): 1980Q1-2014Q4(trillion yen per year)
550.0
GDP (in 2005 prices)
525.0
500.0
475.0

8.0

Potential GDP (in 2005 prices)

7.0

Inflation rate (CPI, annual rate, right
axis)

6.0

450.0

5.0

425.0

4.0

400.0

3.0

375.0

2.0

350.0

1.0

325.0

0.0

300.0

-1.0

275.0

-2.0

250.0

-3.0

1980/ 1- 3.
1981/ 1- 3.
1982/ 1- 3.
1983/ 1- 3.
1984/ 1- 3.
1985/ 1- 3.
1986/ 1- 3.
1987/ 1- 3.
1988/ 1- 3.
1989/ 1- 3.
1990/ 1- 3.
1991/ 1- 3.
1992/ 1- 3.
1993/ 1- 3.
1994/ 1- 3.
1995/ 1- 3.
1996/ 1- 3.
1997/ 1- 3.
1998/ 1- 3.
1999/ 1- 3.
2000/ 1- 3.
2001/ 1- 3.
2002/ 1- 3.
2003/ 1- 3.
2004/ 1- 3.
2005/ 1- 3.
2006/ 1- 3.
2007/ 1- 3.
2008/ 1- 3.
2009/ 1- 3.
2010/ 1- 3.
2011/ 1- 3.
2012/ 1- 3.
2013/ 1- 3.
2014/ 1- 3.

Japan still has alarge negative GDP
gap.

% 9.0

55

14

3. Does Japan need more immigration?
Japan is losing its attractiveness as a destination for migrants.
Hourly Compensation Costs, in US Dollars, in Manufacturing
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

NorwaySwitzerland
Belgium
SwedenDenmark
Germany
Australia
Finland
Austria
FranceNetherlands
Ireland
Italy
United States
CanadaUnited Kingdom
Japan
Spain
New ZealandSingapore
IsraelSouth Korea
Argentina
GreecePortugal
Slovakia
Czech Republic
Estonia
BrazilHungary
TaiwanPolandMexicoPhilippines

0

1996

2013

Source: Conference Board.

15

3. Does Japan need more immigration?
And wage rates for part-time workers are very low and have notincreased much.
Scheduled earnings per hour (yen), part-timeworkers in manufacturing, establishmentswith 10 or more regular employees

1,300
1,200
1,100
1,000

900
800

1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014

700

Male
FemaleSource: Basic Survey on Wage Structure.

56

16

3. Does Japan need more immigration?
• Over the medium term, immigration is a very important step tomitigate the negative effect of a declining and aging population.
• However, at present, Japan is not able to efficiently utilize its
domestic workforce, especially female workers and aged
workers.
• Since the working age population is declining and the demandside stimulation of Abenomics worked for a while, some
economists had expected that the labor market would tighten
and this would stop the vicious cycle by raising the percentage
of full-time workers and real wage rates.
• However, with China’s slowdown weakening economic growth inJapan, this hopeful expectation is now fading away.
• Before promoting immigration, Japan needs to reform its labormarket and increase final demand.
17

4. Refugees in Japan• The refugee stock in Japan is very small.
Estimated refugee stock at mid-year (persons)
1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
02000 3,994
2010 2,586
2013 2,649
JPN

UK
2000

GER
2010

2013

Source: Trends in International Migrant Stock: The 2013 Revision (UN).

57

FRA

18

4. Refugees in Japan• Compared to Germany at the time of reunification, the relative
gap in economic size and incomes between North and South
Korea is very large.
• If the North Korean government collapses and there is a liberaland democratic unification process, there will be huge pressure
on South Korean fiscal expenditure to reduce migration pressure.
• If the unification process becomes chaotic, Japan might face alarge number of refugees from North Korea.
GDP per capita
Total population(thousand US(million persons)dollars)
South Korea: 2015

49.8

30.3

North Korea: 2015

25.2

1.3

South/North: 2015

1.98

22.67

West Germany: 1989

62.7

20.9

East Germany: 1989

16.4

7.3

West/East: 1989

3.8

2.9

Source: Fukao, Inuiand Kwon (2014).
19

References
Brinton, Mary C. (2015) “Japanese Low Fertility and the Low Labor Force
Participation of Married Women: The Role of Rigid Labor Markets andWorkplace Norms,” Perspectives from Around the World, No. 56, ResearchInstitute of Economy, Trade and Industry.
Fukao, Kyoji, Tomohiko Inui, and Hyeong Ug Kwon (2014) A Study to Analyze CostBenefits of the Reunification of Korean Peninsula to Japan (in Korean/Japanese),
Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (KIIEP).
Fukao, Kyoji, Ryo Kambayashi, Daiji Kawaguchi, Hyeog Ug Kwon, Young Gak Kim, andIzumi Yokoyama (2006) “Deferred Compensation: Evidence from EmployerEmployee Matched Data from Japan,” Hi-Stat Discussion Paper Series, No. 187,
Hitotsubashi University.
Fukao, Kyoji, and Tatsuji Makino (2011) “The Economic Impact of Migration: A
Growth Accounting Analysis for Japan at the National and the Local Level,” PPT
prepared for the conference “Immigration at the national and local level: The
impact on future economic growth and community relations in Japan and theUnited States,” May 6-7, 2011, Graduate School of International Relations andPacific Studies at the University of California, San Diego.
Sakamoto, Kazuyasu, and Yukinobu Kitamura (2008) “Marriage Behavior from the
Perspective of Intergenerational Relationships,” The Japanese Economy, vol. 34,
no. 4, Winter 2007–8, pp. 76–122.
20

58

④

Keigo Akimoto

The Political Economy of Japan and the EU: Challenges and Strategies

November 13, 2015; Chatham House

Climate Change Response
Strategy and the Role of Japan
Keigo AkimotoGroup Leader, Systems Analysis Group
Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE)

Introduction (topics of presentation)2

 After the Great East Japan Earthquake and the Fukushima nuclear

power accident, the Japanese government decided the energy mix for2030 and GHG emissions reduction targets (INDCs) that are consistent
with this energy mix in July, 2015. What principles has the government
adopted for the decision?
 Climate change is one of the serious issues to hinder sustainable

future, and should be tackled. However, the important points are1) how to make a balance among several risks we are facing (e.g., poverty,
biodiversity, water stress, energy security, economic crisis),2) how to manage uncertain risks of climate change (e.g., The uncertainty
range of climate sensitivity is 1.5 to 4.5 C, and aggregated climate change
damages for +2.5 C are 0.2 to 2.0% of global income (Losses are more likely than
not to be greater, rather than smaller, than this range) according to the IPCC AR5),and3) how to develop an international effective framework for climate change
response in the real world (we have nearly 200 countries and the cooperation isnecessarily for the effective greenhouse gas emission reductions) How can and will Japan contribute to resolving climate change issues?

59

Japan’s energy mix in 2030
– final energy and primary energy mix –3

The Japanese government, July 2015

The energy mix was designed with the following three major objectives, and also a general objective ofsafety: 1) The self-energy sufficiency ratio should be the same as one before the earthquake (around 25%). 2)
The electricity cost should be reduced compared to the current level. 3) Greenhouse gas emissions should
be reduced as to make Japan a leading example for the rest of the world and the reduction efforts should bewell compared with the EU’s and the US’s.

Japan’s energy mix in 2030
– Electricity mix –4

The Japanese government, July 2015

The government intends to reduce the dependence on nuclear power compared with the share of nuclear
power before the accident. However, the government had to also take the 3E: energy security, economic
efficiency, environment into account, and the share of nuclear power is 20-22% of total electricity in 2030. I
believe that this is a good balance of electricity mix in Japan. But the concern is how to achieve the target of
nuclear power under electricity market reform. Utilities will prefer to the short-term return on investment
under the market reform. The government needs to prepare the related policy measures for avoiding market
failures (Carbon prices of ETS are volatile, and ETS is not effective enough to induce such a long term
investment as required for nuclear power.).

60

Emissions reduction ratio from base year of INDCs
for Japan and other major countries

5

Emissions reduction ratio from base year
From 1990

From 2005

From 2013

Japan：in 2030, -26% from2013 levels-18.0%-25.4%-26.0%

US： in 2025, about -26 to-28% from 2005 levels-14 to -16%

-26 to -28%

-18 to -21%

EU28： in 2030, -40% from1990 levels

-40%

-35%

-24%

Russia： in 2030, -25% to
30% from 1990 levels-25 to -30%

+10 to +18%

ー

China： in 2030, CO2
intensity of -60% to -65%
from 2005 levels+379 to +329%+129 to +105%

ー

If we take 2013 as the base year, the Japan’s emission reduction target is more ambitious in theemissions reduction ratio than the US’s or the EU’s.

Comparison of CO2 marginal abatement costs
for the INDCs
Switzerland

380

Japan

378

EU28

6

210

Canada

166

Korea

144

New Zealand95

United States

85

Norway70

East Europe (Non-EU member)

58

Thailand54

Australia

33

Mexico27

Kazakhstan

14

Belarus12

Russia4South Africa

1

Turkey

0

India

0

Ukraine

0

China

0

0

Source) Estimate by RITE (Oct. 4, 2015)
50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

CO2 marginal abatement cost ($/tCO2)* The average values are shown for the countries submitted the INDC with the upper and lower ranges.

Most countries excepting some countries mainly in the Middle-East have submitted their INDCs. Thisis a good first step for the effective global emission reductions for the future. However, the estimatedmarginal abatement costs for the INDCs are largely different among countries. Such large differencein marginal abatement costs will induce carbon leakages, and the leakages will reduce theeffectiveness of global emission reductions.

61

Outlook of Global GHG emissions of the Aggregated INDCs
and the corresponding emission pathways toward +2 C goal 7
GHG emissions (GtCO2-eq./yr)

200

150

Baseline emissions reported
in the IPCC AR5

It is important to induce the achievements of
INDCs and further emission reductions forcountries having room for more reductions
through PDCA (plan-do-check-act) cycle.

100

It is important to seek deeper emission
reductions through developments anddeployments of innovative technologies.

50

0
1990

around +2.5 to 3ºC
around +2 to 2.5ºC
below +2ºC
2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

Historical emissions
Emission outlook under current policies+2.5 ºC stabilization under climate sensitivity of 2.5 ºC (around +2.6 ºC in 2100 and +3.0 ºC in 2200 under C.S. of 3.0 ºC）+2 ºC stabilization under climate sensitivity of 2.5 ºC; temporary overshoot of 580 ppm (+2.5 ºC stabilization under C.S. of 3.0 ºC)
Below +2 ºC in 2100 under climate sensitivity of 3.0 ºC; temporary overshoot of 530 ppm+2 ºC stabilization under climate sensitivity of 3.0 ºC; temporary overshoot of 500 ppm and around 450 ppm in 2300

Source) Estimate by RITE (Oct. 4, 2015)

INDC submitted by October 1 (119 countries) assumed to be implemented- The expected global GHG emission in 2030 is about 59.5 GtCO 2eq. when all the submitted INDCs are achieved (about
6.4GtCO2eq reduction from the emission outlook under current policies). Some of the emission reduction effects are
estimated to be offset due to carbon leakages caused by large differences in marginal emission reduction costs.
- The expected temperature change in 2100 is +2 to +3 C from preindustrial levels. The range depends on theuncertainties of climate sensitivities, and on future deep emission reductions through developments and deployments ofinnovative and low cost technologies.

Japan’s Environment and Energy Technology
Innovation Plan

8Prime-minister Abe requests “Developing an aggressive diplomatic strategy for global warming
response measures based on technological contribution” on January, 2013.
Japan contributes to tackling global warming and energy issues through the development anddiffusion of innovative technologies in order to achieve the target of halving global emissions by
2050.

1) Specifying innovative technologies
37 of innovative technologies were specified. Suchtechnologies should be developed for satisfying
the needs of donor countries etc.
For short- and mid-term (up to 2030)
Production/supply

Investment of research and development/
searching seeds of innovative technologies
Stimulating investments of private sector to innovativetechnologies through renovations of taxation. The
government directly supports developments of technologies
with high risk but with large effects.

・High energy efficiency coal and natural gas power, wind
power, solar energy, geothermal. Ocean energy, nuclear
power etc.

3) Policy measures for international
deployment and diffusion

Consumption/demand・ Next generation vehicle, innovative structure materials,
innovative device, energy management, high energy
efficiency building etc.

Expansion of bi-credit off-set
mechanism

Distribution/integration
・Fuel cell, elect. storage, thermal storage and insulation etc.

For mid- and long-term (after 2030)- CCS, artificial photosynthesis, biomass,
production, transportation and storage etc.

2) Enhancing policy measures fortechnology development

Better use of international standards
hydrogenStrategic use of public funds

Source) Japanese government, Environment and Energy Technology Innovation Plan, 201362

Comparison of energy efficiencies andemission reduction potentials (1/2)
43

Japan

41

Germany

39

Coal power generation

US

37

Efficiency(%)

9

Source: RITE, 2014 (estimation based IEA
data, 2013)

China

35

Korea

33

Russia

31

India

29
EU (27)
27
World
25
1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

There are large differences inenergy efficiency of coal power
plant among countries.
There are large potentials ofemission reductions in the world
through wide deployment of highenergy efficiency technologies
and maintenance improvements.
Japan can contribute to theachievements of such emission
reduction potentials in the world.

Comparison of energy efficiencies andemission reduction potentials (2/2)
Primary energy consumption of BOF steel(GJ/ton of crude steel)

35

33.1

2005
30

28.3
25.9 25.7

25

2010

23.1

22.9

26.8

27.7 27.7

28.1 28.2

28.9

28.3

29.1

30.0 30.3

10

34.5
33.2

Iron andsteel(BOF
steel)

31.1

28.3

23.5 23.8

20

15

Source: Oda et al. 2012;
RITE, 2012
10
Japan

Korea

Germany

China

FranceUK

India

There are also large differencesin energy efficiency andemission reduction potentials ofsteel making processes among
countries.

63

BrazilUS

RussiaUkraineEmission Reduction Costs for Different Levels of
CO2 Concentration (IPCC AR5)11

430-530 ppm CO2eq
around 1000-3000$/tCO2

around 100-300$/tCO2- The global CO2 marginal abatement costs (Carbon prices) for 430-530 ppm CO2eq in 2050 and 2100
(nearly +2 C goal) are about 100−300 $/tCO2 (25-75 percentile) and about 1000−3000 $/tCO2,
respectively, even under the most cost efficient measures with equal marginal abatement costs.
- It will be very challenging to achieve such deep levels of emission reductions. Technology innovations
with widely acceptable costs are necessary for such deep emission reduction targets.

Japan’s Environment and Energy Technology
Innovation Plan: Technology Development and Diffusion
toward Halving Global Emissions by 2050
Near- and mid-termMid- and long-term

2020

2030

Geothermal

Contribution of tech.
to halving global
emissions in 2050

2050

2040

Emission of tech.-frozen caseHigh-effic. coal power(IGCC, A-USC)

Others (diffusions ofexisting tech. etc.)
27%

Nuclear power
High-effic. gas power(1700 C class)Wind (offshore)

Diffusions
andimprovementsof existingtech.

Photovoltaics (14JPY/kWh)Solar heat
Ocean energy (wave, tidal, current)
Next gene. vehicle

Next gene. vehicle

(EV)

(FCV)

High-efficiency heat pump Innovative structural(hot-water supply)
material (CERP)
Innovative device

Production/
supply37%

High energy effic.
aviation, navigation & railway
Intelligent transportation system(Tele-work)

Global GHG emissions

12(prove information use)

Innovative device

Innovative device(SiC semiconductor)(Normally off processor)

Energy management system

Energy management system(HEMS/BEMS/CEMS)(power interchange, network tech.)

High-efficiency energy use
in industry (cogeneration)

Innovative industrial process(innovative cement production)

Current emission
Technologies for thermal
storage, insulation, etc.

Biomass use(Microalgae)

Artificial
photosynthesis

CO2 capture and storage (CCS)
Innovative steel making process
Superconducting powertransm. (cable)

High energy effic. building

Consumption/
demand15%
Distr./integration
7%
Other mitigation
tech.
14%

Tech.
diffusionsof innovative
Tech.

Hydrogen production

Fuel cell(PEFC/SOFC)

Hydrogen transportationand storage

High-effic. Elec. storage

CO2 fixation throughAfforest. (super tree)

Tech. for reducing
methane etc. (Anaeration treat.)

Earth observ. & proj. of climate change

Estimated by RITE

Halving global
emission

nuclear fusion
Space Solar Power

Adapt. to climate change

2030

2050

Source) Japanese government, Environment and Energy Technology Innovation Plan, 201364

Conclusions
13












Better welfare requires a good balance in the energy mix. The Japanese government
designed the energy mix for 2030 with three major objectives: 1) The self-energy sufficiency
ratio should be the same as one before the earthquake. 2) The electricity cost should be
reduced compared to the current level. 3) Greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced as
to make Japan a leading example in the world. The decided energy mix is consideredreasonable having a good balance. But the government needs to develop policies andmeasures for avoiding the market failures under electricity market reforms particularly for
nuclear power.
Also for climate change policies, a better balance of emission reduction targets harmonizing
other issues is important.
However, for climate policies, more difficult issues than domestic energy policies exist.
International cooperation is essential for climate policies. Otherwise, the effective emission
reductions are difficult and many countries cannot continue reduction efforts sustainably.
The post-2020 international climate change framework will be a pledge & review type foremission reduction targets. The expected global emissions by the submitted INDCs by Oct.
1st are almost stay on the pathways of +2 to +3 C from pre-industrial levels.
It is important to induce the achievements of INDCs and larger emission reductions forcountries having room for more reductions through PDCA (plan-do-check-act) cycle. Japan
will be able to contribute to the review processes based on the experiences of the
Keidanren’s Voluntary Action Plan.
In addition, deeper emission reductions are required for long term, and it is important to seek
deeper emission reduction possibilities thorough developments and deployments ofinnovative technologies. Japan can also contribute to them, and the Japanese government
has organized the Innovation Cool Earth Forum (ICEF) initiated by Prime-minister Sinzo Abe
since 2014 to facilitate them.

Appendix65Trajectory of Energy Intensity in Japan
15

1600
Keidanren's Volantary
Action Plan (1997-)

Total primary energy supply per GDP(toe/billion JPY)

The energy conservation law (1978-)

1500
1400
1300
1200
1100

1000

2010

2005

2000

1995

1990

1985

1980

1975

900

Source: EDMC, 2013

The energy intensity of Japan had been improved drastically before year of 1997 when the
Keidanren’s Voluntary Action Plan started.

Global GHG Emissions
1200

Potential emission
Increase toward 2050

Diffusion of current technologies having
high energy efficiency in the world

16

Non CO2 GHGs

GHG emission （10^8 tCO2-eq/yr）

1000
Other LULUCF
800
Non energy-related CO2
Developing innovativetechnologies and theirdeployment and diffusion
Aforestation

600
400

Energy-related CO2(International marine andaviation bunkers)
Energy-related CO2

200
0

-200
Technology-frozen
case
2005

Base case
2050

Halving GHG
emissionsTechnology-frozen case fixes
sectoral CO2 intensity at thelevel of 2005.
Base case of DNE21+ is fully
considered the mitigation
measures with negative cost.

Large emission reductions are required for halving global GHG emissions.

66

CO2 Emission Reduction Contribution for Halving
Global Emissions from Technology-Frozen Case in 2050

17International marine
bunkers, 0.7
International
aviation bunkers,
1.1

Residential & Commercial
sector: Others, 1.1
Residential & commercial
sector: Heat, 2.1

Afforestation, 7.4

Power sector: CCS, 8.3[Gton-CO2]

Residential & Commercial
sector: Lighting, 2.3
Railway, 0.2
Domestic navigation, 0.4
Domestic aviation, 0.5
Road transportation: Others,
2.5
Road transportation:
Intelligent transportation
system, 0.6
Road transportation: Bio
fuel, 0.7
Road transportation: Next
generation vehicles, 3.0

Power sector: Efficiency
improvements, 12.7

Power sector: Nuclear
power, 6.9

Other industrial
sector, 5.6

Power sector: Hydro power,
0.6

Aluminum sector, 0.0

Chemical sector, 0.7
Pulp & paper sector, 0.2
Cement sector, 0.3

Iron & Steel sector, 2.2
Other energy
conversion sector, 1.5

Power sector: Fuel switchingamong fossil fuels, 1.2

Power sector:
Transmission, -1.0
Power sector: Hydrogen, 1.3

67Power sector: Ocean
energy, 0.1

Power sector: Geothermal,
0.2
Power sector
Wind power,
Power sector: Solar
1.9
photovoltaics, 2.5

Power sector: Biomass, 1.1

⑤Sota Kato

Decentralization in Aging Society
with Declining Birth Rate
Sota Kato
Professor, International University of Japan
Director of Research, Tokyo Foundation

Local Effect of Aging Society with Declining Birth Late
Population Forecast for 2050 (2010=100%)

0〜50%
99〜50%
100％〜

68Constraints (1/２)•••

Aging society
Declining birth rate
Concentration of population to Tokyo (and other large cities)
Percent of Total Population (Source: MLIT)Tokyo

London

Rome

Paris

Berlin

New York

Constraints (2/2)•

Fiscal Deficit (National + Local)
Gross and Net Fiscal Deficit (% of GDP, OECD)

69

Challenge: Maintain the quality of public/private service
to citizens living in local area
Solution 1: Traditional Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) way.
• Provide fruits of growth to LDP’s main constituencies (i.e., rural area)
through public investment. Pork barreling.
• Reconstruction （7%GDP in total) from 3/11 disasters revitalized the
traditional LDP way of politics. LDP further implemented “Fundamental
Plans for National Resilience.”⇒ Sustainable? (Low growth, aging society, public debt…). Remnants ofhigh-growth era?.

Challenge: Maintain the quality of public/private service
to citizens living in local area
Solution 2: Slow growth. “Satoyama Capitalism”（Kosuke Motani）• Values quality of life over material wealth.
• The ultimate form of “satoyama capitalism” is self-sufficient economy inrural area.
⇒ Is slow growth possible in rural areas? Attaining slow growth in rural
areas facing severe decline of population requires substantial amount of
productivity growth.

70

Challenge: Maintain the quality of public/private service
to citizens living in local area
Solution 3: Decentralization/Devolution (Neoliberal LDP Way)
• Advocates of this view range from social democrats to neoliberal
economists.
• Neoliberalists express, self-responsibility, self-accountability, andautonomy of local governments. In exchange to devolution of national
power, cut financial support from the central government.
• Strongly pushed forward by Koizumi administration (Neoliberal LDP way).
• To efficiently provide public/private services, local citizens need torelocate to “compact city” in rural areas. Local industries need to undergo
selection and concentration to enhance their productivity.
⇒ Politically feasible? Requires strong political leadership both in central
and local governments.

71

⑥

Andreas Kiefer

REGIONAL, TERRITORIAL AND ETHNICALLY ORIENTED PARTIES IN PACE AND CONGRESS

National Delegations72

T HE CONGRESS OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL AUTHORITIES OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

An ASSEMBLY of local and regional elected representatives• A consultative body of representative for local andregional authorities for the Committee of Ministers andthe Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (CoE)• A monitoring body of local and regional democracy:• European Charter of Local Self-government• Observation of local and regional elections• A political partner of governments in implementing its
Recommendations in CoE Action Plans• Supporting the implementation of CoE policies:• fight against corruption• « 1 in 5 » campaign against sexual exploitation ofchildren• Alliance of cities and regions for Roma inclusion

Presentation of the Charter Website

73

Full Charter Text
Contextualised by the Charter Index
The Charter Index:
To precise and explain some of the Charter’s CAPITALISED KEYWORDS,
the Charter’s online version will give access to the Charter INDEX

74

8．若手研究者の参加報告

当財団では、平成 25 年度からの試みとして、若手研究者を対象に各国有識者等との交流を通じ、将来に向けた見識の向上に役立つ場を提供している。今次フォーラム事業においては、セッショ
ン２のスピーカーである一橋大学経済研究所の深尾京司教授のご推薦により、文部科学省科学技術・学術政策研究所の池内健太様にオブザーバーとしてご参加いただいた。その成果の一部として、略歴並びに感想文を掲載する。
（略歴）
池内健太（いけうち けんた）
文部科学省 科学技術・学術政策研究所
第 1 研究グループ 研究員
2004 年中央大学商学部卒業。2006 年一橋大学大学院経済学研究科修士課程修了。2012 年同大学 大学院同研究科博士後期課程単位修得満期退学。民間企業でのマーケティング・リサーチ業務を経て、2011 年 4 月から現職。2014 年から政策研究大学院大学客員研究官（科学技術イノベーション政策研究センタープロジェクト・マネー
ジャー補佐）。専門は、企業経済学、応用ミクロ計量経済学、空間計量経済学。近著は、「新規開業者の事業継続意欲：『就業構造基本調査』匿名ミクロデータによる実証分析」（北村行伸編『応用ミクロ計量経済学 II』第 7 章、日本評論社）（岡室博之氏と共著）。
Kenta Ikeuchi is Research Fellow at the National Institute of Science and Technology Policy(NISTEP). He also served as Visiting Researcher at the National Graduate Institute for
Policy Studies (GRIPS). His main fields of research are business economics, spatial
economics and innovation policy. He has been conducting a government statistics, theJapanese National Innovation Survey, which is carried out according to the Oslo Manual(OECD/Eurostat international guidelines for measuring innovation) and empirical analyses
based on firm/establishment-level microdata of several statistics on productivity effects of
R&D spillovers at the NISTEP and has published several research papers on these topics.
He also has been conducting a research project as a program manager assistant of theSciREX (Science for Re-Designing Science, Technology and Innovation Policy) Center at the
GRIPS for development and implementation of the method to evaluate the economic impactsof science, technology and innovation policies. He has also collaborated with the DynEmp
and MultiProd project of the OECD for microdata based cross-country comparisons of
employment and productivity dynamics. He has published a paper with Hiroyuki Okamuro(Hitotsubashi University) in the refereed book Entrepreneurship, Growth and Economic
Development (Frontiers in European Entrepreneurship Research 23), edited by M. Raposo etal., Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2011, among others. He received a B.A. in Commercefrom Chuo University and a M.A. in Economics from Hitotsubashi University.
75

（感想文）
日欧フォーラム「日本と EU の経済の政治的側面：課題と戦略」に参加して池内 健太
この度、国際経済交流財団と英国チャタムハウスが共催する日欧フォーラムに若手研究者派遣
プログラムによるオブザーバーとして参加させていただいた。ここでは、会議での議論を振り返りながら、私が感じた点をまとめたい。
会議はロンドン市街中心にあるチャタムハウス１階「ヘンリープライスルーム」で11月13日（金）の午前10時から18時半まで１日かけて行われた。議論のテーマは政治・経済から環境問題まで多岐にわたっていたが、会議全体を通じて和やかな雰囲気の中で濃密な議論が行われた。
これは会議に先立って前日の12日（木）の夕刻にはチャタムハウス主催の夕食会が催され、参加者同士の自己紹介や意見交換が既になされていたことも大きいと感じた。
まず、会議の開始に先立ち、ジョン・ニルソン＝ライト氏（チャタムハウス・アジアプログラ
ム長）より主催者を代表して、本会議に「チャタムハウス・ルール」を適用する旨が宣言された。
「チャタムハウス・ルール」という言葉は以前から耳にしていたが、チャタムハウスにおいて実際に適用されている会議に参加できたことは感慨を覚えた。また、以降の会議の内容については「チャタムハウス・ルール」に従って、発言者の身元や所属を明らかにしないことをお許しいただきたい。また、本会議の議論のテーマは多岐にわたっており、また私の専門を超えている内容も多く、誤った解釈が含まれている可能性があることをご留意いただければ幸いである。
会議は４つのテーマについて、それぞれ１時間半のセッションに分けられており、各セッショ
ンでは２～３名のプレゼンテーションの後に質疑・応答と議論が行われた。
セッション１のテーマは「EU と日本の貿易・経済関係」であり、EU と日本の FTA（自由貿易協定）の締結の見込みや欧州と日本それぞれにとっての両国間の FTA の経済的な意義、FTAの交渉が日本と EU のより広範囲かつ協力的な戦略的連携を促進できるか？といった課題について、経済の実務家を含めた活発な議論がなされた。私自身を含め、現在日本では一般的に、TPP（環太平洋戦略的経済連携協定）への注目が高いが、日本と EU の間でも様々な課題がありつつも既に FTA の締結に向けた協議が進められていることがわかった。また、日本の TPP の締
結は EU 側から見ると、日本との FTA の交渉を加速するよりも、むしろ交渉を複雑化する要因として受け止められている印象を受けた。さらに、EU の関心は日本単独というよりも、むしろ日本を含む東アジア地域全体との経済連携に向いており、東アジアにおける日本のリーダーシッ
プに対する期待が大きいように感じた。そのため、日本にとっては EU との連携のあり方を考える際には、TPP には参加せず新たな地域的な FTA の枠組みを模索する中国や先行して2011年にEU との FTA を締結・発効した韓国との関係を含めて、東アジアにおける日本のリーダーシッ
プのあり方について議論を整理することが重要なのではないかとの印象を受けた。

76

セッション２「年齢、ジェンダー、移民：人口動態の挑戦」では、人口の高齢化と男女格差の問題に日本と EU がどのように対応してきたか？男女の社会な一体性と労働の柔軟性を促進する日本と EU のこれまでの経験から何が学べるか？欧州及び日本にとっての移民の増加の利点と課題は何か？規制の是非は？といった人口動態に関わる社会・経済的な問題について日本と欧州の現状分析が報告され、議論が行われた。人口の高齢化と人口の減少、出生率の低下は、欧州と日本で共通する問題であることが確認できた。また、スキルの高い労働者の海外からの流入をいかに促進するかが政策的課題とされている点も両国の共通点である。日本でも外国人労働者が徐々に増えてきているが、全人口に占める移民の割合は依然として約1.6%であり、国際的に見れば、欧米の10%の水準と比較すると著しく低い状況にあることが示された。欧州では、移民の増加の負の側面にいかに対処するかが、社会的・政策的に関心を持たれている状況が議論されていたことも興味深いポイントであった。カナダやオーストラリアでの選択的な移民の受け入れ制度の是非についても議論された。イノベーションやビジネスの観点からは労働者の多様性の増大
は国の競争力の増強と経済発展に対して、効果を持つと考えられる。日本の国際競争力を維持・発展するためには、多様な背景を持った人々が快適に生活し、働きやすい環境をいかに整備できるかが一つの鍵になると感じた。また、これは個人や家族の生活と切り離せない問題であるため、グローバルな課題であると同時に、ローカルな課題でもある。日本においても、既に外国人労働者が局所的に集積している地域はいくつかあると聞いており、そのような地域の現状や地域の住民・コミュニティ・企業・政府の関係性を精緻に分析し、政策に活かしていくことも重要であると感じた。
セッション３は「エネルギーと環境：グリーンな未来を迎えられるか？」というテーマで、気候変動の問題における欧州と日本の政府の役割や日本の原子力発電所の再稼働の見通しと障害、
技術進歩の可能性について議論がなされた。日本政府の温室効果ガス排出量の削減目標に関する最近の動向が精緻に報告され、大きな技術革新がなければ現状では達成の見通しはかなり厳しいとの評価も出された。私自身、環境・エネルギー問題の分野はあまりフォローができていなかったため、大変良い勉強になった。また、欧州の排出権取引制度は当初期待されたような成果が出ていないとの専門家の評価も紹介された。グローバルな気候変動・環境・エネルギー問題は、純粋に経済的・技術的な問題であるのと同時に、競争ルールの国際標準という側面もあると感じた。
科学的な理論や客観的な観測結果をもとに問題を定義し、その解決に向けてルールの体系を構築していくという議論に耐えうる人材をいかに育成していくかも日本にとって重要な課題である
ように思われる。
セッション４では「地方自治体とアカウンタビリティーの新モデル」をテーマとして、日本において2011年の東日本大震災が中央政府と地方政府の役割に与えた影響や低成長を前提にしたモデルへのシフトの可能性、地方分権の利点などが議論された。日本と欧州では地方分権の程度に大きな差異があることが確認された。欧州では、ローカルな地域の自律性を前提として、国や欧州連合に代表される統治機構が構造化されているのに対し、日本ではより中央集権的に統治機構が運用されていることが認識できた。また、巨額の財政赤字や人口の高齢化、人口減少などの状況から、地方の公共サービスや生活水準を維持することが困難になりつつある見通しが示され、３つの解決策が提案された。１つ目は、これまでのように中央政府からの補助金に依存した地方

77

政府の運営を継続すること、２つ目は「里山資本主義」と呼ばれる低成長を前提とした持続可能なモデルに制度を切り替えていく方向性、3つ目は地域の自律性を高めて地方分権を進める方向
性、の３つである。このような議論を聞いて、感じたことは、日本も明治以前は地方分権型であり、地域の自律性が高い統治機構を持っていたことである。近代化にともない、中央集権化を進め、高い経済成長を実現したのは歴史的に見れば短い期間であったのかもしれない。今後の100年を考えた時に、改めて適切な国の統治の枠組みや制度設計を議論しながら、国民的な合意形成をはかっていくことは非常に有益であるように感じた。
会議に参加させていただいて、私が強く感じた点は大きく４点である。第1に、国際的な連携は多次元で考える必要があることを改めて強く認識した。例えば、経済に関わる FTA（自由貿易協定）や EPA（経済連携協定）も多元的な国際関係の中の１つの側面であり、安全保障や人権問題、法体系（rule of law）
、文化など他の側面と切り離して議論することが困難であるように感じた。特に、欧州は経済的パートナーシップのみならず戦略的連携という観点で、日本とEU の間の連携を捉えている傾向が強いと感じた。
第２に、欧州では想像以上に移民問題がホットイシューになっていることが発見であった。本会議のセッション２の議論を通じて、欧州の大都市では既に移民が多く入ってきており、失業の増加や所得格差など移民を受け入れる負の側面に対して、どのような政策を取るべきかという問題に直面していることが伺えた。一方、日本での移民の受け入れも次第に増加してきているものの、欧州に比べてまだ低い水準ことが会議の中で示された。欧州の経験に学びながら移民に関する制度設計を検討していくことが重要だと感じた。実際、私が現在住んでいる地域にもインドから移住された方が多く暮らしており、私自身にとっても非常に身近な問題であった。外国から来る移住者との生活スタイルや言語、宗教、文化の違いは地域の住民にとっては多少の混乱を生じさせる可能性がある。移民の問題は国家的な政策的な課題であるのと同時に、局所的でローカルな問題でもあり、自治体や共同体の間で経験や知識を共有する枠組みを構築することも有効であるように感じた。少なくとも既に移民が比較的多い日本の地域にとっては、欧州の先行する取り
組みから学ぶべきことは多くあるように思われる。今後、欧州の取り組みや日本における移民が集積している地域状況についてぜひ一度調べてみたいと感じた。
第３に、日本政府が掲げている温室効果ガス排出量の削減目標は技術的にも社会的にも難しい課題であることがわかった。再生可能エネルギーを含めた資源利用の効率性を飛躍的に高めるような新技術の開発が必要であり、それに加えて、技術開発のみならず、新技術がスムーズに社会実装される仕組みや仕掛けを適切に制度設計していくことが重要な課題になっていると感じた。
このような長期的かつ地球規模の課題に対して、日本が国際的なリーダーシップを取っていくことの重要性は言うまでもないが、経済成長と温室効果ガス排出量の削減を同時に実現するには、両者にとって補完的な制度設計が現在求められている。その点で、会議参加者より排出権取引制
度は必ずしも機能していないとの認識が示されたことも、私としては重要な発見であった。私自身が所属している「イノベーションの経済学」の分野では、このように技術開発のインセンティ
ブを高めると同時に新しい技術の利用を促進する制度設計は永遠の課題とも言える。今後、エネ
ルギー分野での制度的なイノベーションの動向にも注目していきたいと感じた。

78

第４に、国際的な交渉の複雑さ・難しさの一端を知ることができたことも大きな収穫の一つであった。セッション２の議論を通じて、例えば、TPP など二国間・多国間の経済連携の場合でも、相手国との交渉や利害調整に気を配るだけではなく、その経済連携が他の第３者国との関係性に与える影響についても十分に考慮することの重要性を感じた。これは国際政治の分野のみならず、現代のグローバル社会においては、より幅広い視野と想像力、また多様な背景を持つ人々との対話を通じた多様な生の知識・情報を持つことが、個人・組織の競争力や努力の成果を大きく規定してくるように思われる。私の現在の仕事の領域で言えば、多くの国際学会や専門領域を超えた多様な学会に参加して様々な研究者と議論することであったり、海外の研究者との共同研
究を積極的に行ったりすることが、視野を広げ、より社会的に価値の高い研究成果につながる可能性がある。
最後に、会議の前に、日下一正会長（国際経済交流財団）から日欧フォーラムの目標の一つは、参加者全員が会議を通して、それぞれ何か変化して、それが次のアクションにつながることである旨のお話しをいただいた。私自身そのような心掛けを持って参加させていただいたが、ぜひその成長が見せられるようこのプログラムに参加させていただいた経験を今後の研究活動に活かしていきたい。また、会議の間のみでなく、休憩時間やランチタイム、夕食会などで、ビジネス界や他の研究分野の第一線で国際的に活躍されている先輩方の貴重なお話しを伺える機会が得られたことも、個人的には大きな財産となった。本プログラムに参加させていただいた個人的に最大の収穫は、今回の貴重な経験を今後の成長に繋げ、先輩方に少しでも近づけるようこれまで以上の一層の努力の必要性を強く認識できたことかもしれない。

79

9．成果

今回の日欧フォーラムは、「The Political Economy of Japan and the EU: Challenges andStrategies（日本と EU の経済の政治的側面：課題と戦略）」をメインテーマに4つのセッションを設け、日欧が現在抱えている共通的な課題に関し議論された。
① セッション１「EU-Japan Trade and Economic Relationships（EU と日本の貿易・経済関係）」では、EU にとって、東アジア地域との貿易・経済関係は重要度を増しており、同域内の国々と積極的に FTA 締結を進めており、日本とは交渉中である。日本にとっても EUとの FTA/EPA は、工業製品への関税撤廃や在欧日系企業の活動規制の廃止などメリットがあり、日本政府はアベノミクスの政策の一環として取り組んでいる、などのコメントがあった。
② セッション２「Age, Gender and Migration: The Challenges of Demography（年齢、ジェ
ンダー、移民：人口動態の挑戦）」では、経済の持続的発展のための中長期的な課題である
人口の減少、高齢化、労働力不足に向けての対策について話し合われた。日本での女性や高齢者の活用の一方、EU では移民受け入れによる対応がなされている。移民による労働力の補給の方法については日本にとって参考にはなるが、期待される効果にはつながってはいないという難しさが紹介された。
③ セッション３「Energy and the Environment: Is a Green Future Possible?（エネルギーと環境：グリーンな未来を迎えられるか？）」では、パリで地球機構変動 COP21会合が予定されており（2015年11月末）、この分野での日本、EU の取り組み状況の報告があった。EU
側からは日本の取り組みが京都議定書の段階から後退しており、前向きな取り組みを期待するとのコメントがあった。
④ セッション４「Local Government and New Models of Accountability（地方自治体とアカウンタビリティーの新モデル）」では、英国が EU 離脱の是非を問う国民投票を実施することとしていることから中央政府と地方政府との関係、権限と責任のあり方について、EU 側
は EU 政府と加盟国政府との関係を、日本側は中央政府と地方自治体の関係をベースにしつつ報告が行われ、地方分権化の場合のメリット・デメリットなど話し合われた。
主な成果としては以下が挙げられる。
１）当日は、日本側スピーカー7名、EU 側スピーカー8名が4つのセッションの場で忌憚無く語
り合い、またスピーカーに加えてロンドン在住の学者、ビジネスマン、日本大使館関係者・
日系企業代表など、総計39名の参加を得て活発な意見交換が行われた結果、非常に質の高い議論が出来た。
80２）日本から参加していただいたスピーカーには、これらの場でアベノミクスや日本の立場や考え方を十分説明していただき、EU 側の理解を深めることが出来た。
３）日本のスピーカーの方々からは、当財団のアンケート（満足度4段階方式）に対して、5名から満足の回答（最上位4名、第2位のやや満足1名）を得た。また、事前の期待との関係でも、5名が期待に違わぬものであったとの回答を得た（期待通り3名、概ね期待通り2名）。具体
的なコメントとしては、「参加者のレベルが高く、多くの議論が有益なものだった」、「国際フォーラムにありがちな外交、安保に偏った構成でなく、政治と経済の重要な論点につき有意義な議論が出来た。また、会場は適正な規模で、参加メンバーの親近感が高まった」、「英
国を始め欧州と日本の第一線の研究者が、経済上の問題を安全保障や外交問題とも関係付けた総合的な視点で、しかもチャタムハウスルールの下で自由に話し合う機会は大変貴重である」があった。他方、「若い研究者の参加も進めるべき」や「会議を1.5日に伸ばせないか」とのコメントもあった。
４）若手の研究者にオブザーバーとして参加してもらい、日欧の thought leader による議論を体感していただいた。若手研究者からは、「国際的な連携は多次元で考えることを改めて強く意識した」など議論の中味が有益で多くを学んだことに加えて、「ビジネス界や研究分野の一線で国際的に活躍されている先輩方の貴重なお話し伺える機会が得られたことも、個人
的には大きな財産となった」とのコメントがあった。
これらの議論の詳細は、当財団のホームページに掲載されており、実際にフォーラムに参加した方々に加えて、今後多くの方に見ていただくことにより、波及効果が期待される。

81

10．共催団体紹介

Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)
The Japan Economic Foundation (JEF) was established in July 1981 todeepen understanding between Japan and other countries throughactivities aimed at promoting economic and technological exchange.
With this goal in mind, JEF engages in a broad range of activities such as providing
information about Japan and arranging venues for the exchange of ideas among opinion
leaders from many countries in such fields as industry, government, academia and politics inorder to build bridges for international communication and to break down the barriers thatmake mutual understanding difficult.
URL: www.jef.or.jp

The Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House)
Chatham House, home of the Royal Institute of International Affairs
since 1920, is a world-leading source of independent analysis, informed
debate and influential ideas on how to build a prosperous and secure world for all. Each year
Chatham House hosts around 350 events, including 20 one- or two-day conferences andnumerous private workshops and roundtable discussions. These bring together opinion
formers and decision-makers from public policy and business to present and debate new
approaches to global challenges.
URL: www.chathamhouse.org

82

11．事務局（日本側）
一般財団法人国際経済交流財団／Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)
住所： 〒104-0061 東京都中央区銀座 5-15-8 時事通信ビル 11 階TEL：

03-5565-4824

URL：

www.jef.or.jp

FAX：03-5565-4828

担当： 業務部長 土屋 隆
業務部

井上 真弓

［業務運営委託先］
株式会社イベントアンドコンベンションハウス／EVENT & CONVENTION HOUSE, INC.
住所： 〒110-0016 東京都台東区台東 4-27-5 秀和御徒町ビル 8 階
担当： 営業企画部 次長
営業企画部

吉岡 光晶
大木

和美

（英国側）
英国王立国際問題研究所（チャタムハウス）／The Royal Institute of International Affairs(Chatham House)
住所： 10 St James's Square, London SW1Y 4LE, UK
URL：

www.chathamhouse.org

担当： Joshua Webb, Coordinator, Asia Programme83平成 28 年 3 月
一般財団法人 国際経済交流財団
JAPAN ECONOMIC FOUNDATION（JEF）©JEF Printed in Japan 無断の複写転載はお断りします。