The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia, Vol.7, pp.77-95, 2018

Reconstruction of Participation:
Some implications to Social Studies Education from a
Comparative Study on Youth Participation of Sweden and Japan
Tatsuhei Morozumi
Bunkyo University, JAPAN

Abstract
This research attempts to reconstruct youth participation in postmodern context and tries toextract some implications from the comparative study of Sweden and Japan to social studies education.
The beginning of paper provides a brief summary of the definition of youth participation and theories ofyouth participation such as Roger Hart’s ladder of participation with a critical view with the poststructuralist viewpoint. The second part of the paper will showcase findings of an empirical study
conducted by Morozumi (2017) that examined how youth participation policy and practice had evolvedin the historical development of youth policy in Sweden and Japan. With these findings, the conclusionpart drew insights to social studies education in regard to youth participation.
Setting influence as a purpose of participation, introducing resource perspective for youth
participation and acknowledging fluidity and diversity of participation are suggested as an implication of
the study concluded from overall research.

Keywords: youth, participation, post-structuralist, Sweden, Japan

Growing Concern about Youth Participation
Generations of young people have repeatedly been lamented over their recklessness throughout
time. Dr. Pumpian-Mindlin (1965) had quoted the phrase by Greek poet, Hesiod from the eighth century B.C.,
as a typical example of the lamentations of the older generation about the youth which take place repeatedly
throughout the history.
I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent upon the frivolous youthof today, for certainly, all youth are reckless beyond words.... When I was a boy, we were
taught to be discreet and respectful of our elders, but the present youth are exceedingly
wise and impatient of restraint. (PUMPIAN-MINDLIN, 1965, p. 1).:Though the necessity of children and young people's participation was claimed in different contexts

77Tatsuhei Morozumi

in different countries beforehand, it is fair to say that a universal consensus on children's participation wasachieved when the United Nations Conventions of the Rights of the Child (from here and after referred to as
UNCRC) was ratified in 1989 (United Nations, 1989). The consensus by the international institution vitalized
civil initiatives as well as children and youth organization globally. Among other principles such as provisionand protection, participation is regarded as one of the most fundamentals principle of the convention as
supported by the following statements:
States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views
the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of thechild being given due weight (United Nations, 1989, p. 4).
UNCRC was adopted in 196 countries including Sweden and Japan, which had a tremendous impact
on many aspects of child and youth policy in local policy and practice. It is worth mentioning that awareness ofchildren's participation arose in the context of education for sustainable development (ESD). In 1992, the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) put emphasis on the participation of children
in the context of education for sustainable development (ESD) as Harber (2014) claimed:

Education is critical for promoting sustainable development and improving the capacityof people to address environment and development issues ... It is critical for archiving
environmental and ethical awareness, values and attitudes, skills and behavior consistent
with sustainable development and for effective participation in decision-making( Manteaw, 2012, p. 373).
The resolution to implement ESD was adopted at The World Summit on Sustainable Development
2002, which took place in Johannesburg, South Africa (United Nations, 2002). At the same year's United
Nations General Assembly, The Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) 2005-2014(proposed by Japan and Sweden) submit proposal – was adopted, citing education as an indispensable part ofsustainable development. The reason why ESD requires participation is that ESD cannot be accomplishedwithout the "holistic approach", where humanity is seen as not separated from nature but rather in the context
that all life on the planet are interconnected and interdependent (Harber, 2014, p. 134).
Yet, participation is an ongoing subject of youth policy that the most of countries have to prioritize
as Ban Ki-moon -- the UN Secretary General – demanded: “all governments to help young people participate
more fully in civic and public life, and in making decisions that will build a better world” (Ban Ki-moon, 2014).
This means that the idea of youth participation still has room to develop and needs to be contextualized to suitin a modern time.

Aims and Organization of the Paper
Based on the research concerns discussed above, this research will attempt to redesign youth
participation in postmodern context and try to extract some implications from empirical study of social studies

78

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

education. The beginning of the paper provides a brief exegesis of the definition of youth participation, and someof the rigid theory of youth participation such as Roger Hart’s ladder of participation. This section will also
attempt to provide a critical view of Hart’s ladder of participation and develop it using the post-structuralist view
point, which later will be referenced to consolidate the basis of a theory of youth participation. The second partof the paper will showcase findings of an empirical study conducted by Morozumi (2017) that examined how
youth participation policy and practice evolved in the historical development of youth policy in Sweden andJapan. With these findings, the last sections will try to get some insight into social studies education with regards
to youth participation.

Concept of Youth Participation
Despite an enormous amount of inconclusive debate about the definition of youth participation, one
can trace back its original meaning by dating back to the Latin language as Loncle and Muniglia (2008)
advocated that the word “participation” meant to take part in and take part of something, being involved andsharing something. The concept of participation had been discussed in different arenas such as international
development studies as well as in educational contexts such as rights of children, youth work, and education forsustainable development. In relation to the child and youth participation, it is worth quoting the United Nations’
Conventions of the Rights of the Child (hereinafter: UNCRC), which was adopted in 1989, known as one of themost fundamental provisions in the field of child and youth participation (United Nations, 1989). Children’s
Provision, Protection, and Participation (what are called the “3Ps”) are regarded as one of the most important
aspects of the conventions, which stems from the statements following stipulations in the UNCRC aboutchildren’s rights to express their own views in all matters affecting children (United Nations, 1989, p. 4).
Similar to the UNCRC’s statements, Chawla defines children’s participation as “a process in whichchildren and youth engage with other people around issues that concern their individual and collective life
conditions” (Chawla, 2001). Participation Works Network (Participation Works Network, 2014) pronounced its
definition with the emphasis on the influences with the citation of Treseder and Smith (1997): “Participation isa process where someone influences decisions about their lives and this leads to change.” Comparing to above
definition, Hart (1992) added the role of participation in relation to democracy as he defined it as follows.

Process of sharing decisions which affect one’s life and the life of the community in which
one lives. It is the means by which a democracy is built, and it is a standard against which
democracies should be measured (Hart, 1992, p. 5).
Though definitions differ slightly by each scholar, one can summarize that youth participation is the democratic
process of young people taking part in and sharing in the decision-making in all matters affecting them, whichleads to change and influences their lives.

Criticism on Ladder of Participation
Without mention, one can regard that Roger Hart’s Ladder of Children’s Participation as one of the79Tatsuhei Morozumi

most influential frameworks when discussing how to involve children and young people in a decision-making
process (Barn & Franklin, 1996). It is because the framework – originally adapted from Arnstein’s ladder ofparticipation (1969) – named after “Degree of Children's Participation” (Table 1) had contributed to
distinguishing levels of participation of children such as non-participation and “real” participation (Hart, 1992).
The ladder consists of eight levels: the higher, the level of participation of actor is high, and vice-versa. The
higher the number, the “better” children's participation takes place. At the lower rungs (from one to three)children's participation is categorized as "non-participation", where children tend to be manipulated by adults incommunity practice or are just being there wearing T-shirts as decoration for the movement without consulting
them. From rung 4, children are given more information and, roles and opportunities to express their views, yet
are limited. At the top rung, children have the full power to exercise their right to influence over the mattersconcerning them.
Though Malone and Hartung (2010) indicated the framework played a significant role inconsolidating the foundation of studies and practice surrounding child and youth participation, critical views on
Hart’s model were directed to the concept of the ladder. For instance, Reddy and Ratna (2002) put moreemphasis on changing adult’s roles in relation to children rather than letting children step up the level ofparticipation: hence, the term “ladder” is regarded as a misnomer. The “ladder” might have a risk of children
getting paralyzing action in the project as they might feel the fear of not reaching the higher level of participationaccording to Roberts (Roberts, 2003). Different forms of participation in different levels (Treseder & Smith,1997) and “child initiated or directed” as the highest level of rung (Ackermann, Feeny, Hart, & Newman, 2003;
Karen & Catherine, 2010) were also claimed by other researchers. As it is hard to explore the fundamental valueof youth participation just referencing criticisms against Hart’s model, the following section will invite
discussion on participation in a realm of international development studies to see what is necessary in order toachieve “good” participation.

8

Table 1: Degree of Children's Participation
Phenomenon
Level of Participation
Degree of Participation
Child-initiated shared decision with adults

7Child-initiated and directed

Rung

6
5
4
3
2
1

Adult initiated shared decision withchildrenConsulted and informed
Assigned but informed
TokenismNon-participation
Decoration
Manipulation
Source: Roger Hart (Hart, 1992, p. 8)

What is the Issue of Participation? From the Scope of Participation Development
Participatory Development (hereinafter PD) is a form of approach that had been shaped in the fieldof international development and took root is during the 1970s as Paulo Freire championed that local inhabitants

80

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

should express their needs to achieve development (Giles, 2014). The definition of PD sounds similar to what
has been discussed above.
Participatory development is a process through which stakeholders can influence andshare control over development initiatives, and over the decisions and resources that
affect themselves. (Asian Development Bank, 1996).
In this definition, agents or actors are described as “stakeholders” and participation is deemed as toinfluence and share control over the decision that concerns actors. As Giles wrote, PD was insisted upon tobalance out the relationships between Western communities and local inhabitants as development project
typically tends to be conducted without the involvement of local experts (Giles, 2014), which sometimes iscalled “basic needs approach”(Jennifer A. Elliott, 2014). This approach, consequently, helps to soften the ideaof Euro-centrism, positivism, and topdownism and “improve efficiency and effectiveness of formal
development program"(Giles, 2014), that ultimately leads to promote mutual learning. Should local people be
only invited by development agents to projects, it is deemed as an “invited space”, while if locals are able toinitiate in a development projects, it is regarded as “claimed space” (Giles, 2014, p.206). The classification of
two spaces is somewhat identical to the purpose of Hart’s ladder which distinguishes real participation and nonparticipation. Despite the existence of different types of forms of participation, Giles remarked that PD
fundamentally is about power (Giles, 2014).

What is Power? Youth Participation in Postmodern Contexts
In order to know the reason why power matters for good participation, one can get insight fromthe post-structuralist’s point of view on power. To begin with, a poststructuralist sees power as “everywhere”
and participation as an effect of power (Greg, 2010, p. 336). The former view stems from the poststructuralist attitude toward discourse about power as they assert “Power is everywhere.” The latter viewthat participation is as an effect of power, is laid on the concept that power is something to be exercisedand not possessed, which, in other words, is neither a disposition or capacity nor a resource or a commodity(Foucault & Ewald, 2003, p. 13). This idea allows blooming diversity and fluidity of form children's
participation in the context of power. The complexity of the children's participation stems from the ideathat power is not to be possessed by children or adults but rather it is "fluid, dynamic, negotiated, andcontextual" (Malone & Hartung, 2010, p.26). From a practitioner’s perspective, the transformation of
power in the nature of the relationship between children and adults is essential. To promote participationof children, Reddy and Ratna (2002, p. 338) indicated that transformation should happen from “one ofeither independence or independence to one of interdependence”.
Along similar lines, Greg (Greg, 2010, p. 338) developed claims about the necessity ofreframing children and adult participation into relational and spatial practice. Greg's part of the argument
reconsidered the foundation of a participatory process with the concept of “power with” by Hanna Arendt(Kesby, 2007, p. 337). This view does not see the individual agent as autonomous or empowered, it rather
acknowledges social production of “relational agency” within intergenerational contexts, where partier’s
relationship process becomes more reciprocal, lateral, and associational(Greg, 2010, p. 337). Foregoing81

Tatsuhei Morozumi

discussion implies that alteration of power relationship lies at the heart of the discussion on children's
participation.

Place and Area of Youth Participation
Another perspective raised by post-structuralists on children's participation is: "Power iseverywhere"(Greg, 2010, p. 336). Children's participation happens everywhere as UNCRC depicts that children
have “rights to participate all matters that may affect themselves”(United Nations, 1989). But where exactly canthey exercise their rights to participate? Where does children's participation take place? In which part of thesocieties can children take part in? There has been a numerous amount of studies that tried to categorize whereparticipation happens. In order to answer the questions, Morozumi’s work (2017) had tried to classify areas ofyouth participation. He gathered three classifications of youth participation from Loncle & Muniglia (2008),
European youth policy document (COUNCIL OF EUROPE & COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS, 1998), and aframework jointly developed by the UK’s National Council for Voluntary Organizations (NCVO) and Institutefor Volunteering Research (IVR) (Ellie Brodie et al., 2009, p. 42). Combining these typologies into a spreadsheet
and mapping them out by similarities, consequently, he concluded there are mainly three kinds of participation:
political participation, social and civic participation, and participation in education and employment (Morozumi,
2017, p. 18). He argued that this by no means signifies that young people's participation takes place in each place
nor that activities are separate without any overlaps.

What Accelerates Youth Participation?
Criticism on Hart’s ladder of participation and post-structuralists discussion on power gives someinsights to rethink factors that are needed to achieve good participation of youth. Participation as a right is thefirst factor that one can take into account, for children and young people’s participation was initially stressed in
the context of a human right-based approach as it was proclaimed as the right to express views on whatever
matters to children in UNCRC. This perspective can be analyzed as to whether the policy and practice declarethe significance of children and young people's view are taken into consideration.
The resource for participation comes as the second factor. Just declaring the assurance of children's
views does not always mean it brings actual “good” participation in reality. Hart's ladder contributed to making
it possible for practitioners to differentiate non-participation and real participation. Still, “Child-initiated shareddecision with adults” – which Hart suggested as the top of the degree of participation – cannot be sufficientmeasurement to identify true participation as some scholars proposed "child initiated or directed" as the highest
level of participation (Karen & Catherine, 2010, p. 28). In order to achieve this high level of participation at
global, country and community level, providing necessary resource and a supportive environment are essential
as UNICEF advocates (UNICEF, 2001). What is more, to tell the highest level of participation, it is highly
important to investigate what had happened after the results of “good” participation of children and young people
because it is often the case in local practices without any change.
Last but not the least factor that is also related to post-structuralists’ view point is a transformationof power. From their point of view, it is fair to say that one of the factors that can affect young people's
participation is to transform the power structure between adults and youths. It is because this view does not see
individual agents as autonomous agents, but as reciprocal, lateral and associational agents (Greg, 2010, p. 337).

82

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

One can easily imagine that in order for children and young people to completely devote themselves to an
activity, it is better for adults to back off as much as they can. However, this does not mean that power should
always be in the hands of children and young people because power flows between children and adults
differently in time and contexts. Sometimes, adults need to hold power, whereas it would be transferred
immediately to children without specific efforts. Given overall discussion, one can draw a theory of youth
participation in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Theory of Youth Participation
Young people's participation is a phenomenon where young people exert influence on the process
in everything that concerns them, which typically can be categorized in political participation, social and civic
participation, and participation in education and employment. Good participation happens when young people
themselves initiates decision-making process and bad participation happens when they are less informed andgiven less power over the decision by actors and the societal context surrounding them. PD and poststructuralists’ views on power gave hints on what is necessary to overcome bad participation and achieve goodparticipation. One asserts that, as participation is a phenomenon that is defined by the relational and reciprocal
process that power, a transformation of power and making sure the fluidity of power is one of the essential
elements of youth participation. Based on the above discussion that clarified core theory of youth participation,
the following section will aim to discuss the applicability of this theory to empirical study on youth participation.
The research question here is, how the theory of youth participation discussed above is applicable to the actual
practice and reality of youth participation?

Comparative Studies of Youth Participation Policy in Sweden and JapanAn empirical study conducted by Morozumi (Morozumi, 2017), compared youth policy in Sweden
and Japan in terms of youth participation. The study investigated historical development of youth policy in eachcountry and gave analysis on modern youth policies in regard to youth participation. Highlighting the difference83

Tatsuhei Morozumi

of societal and cultural background between Sweden and Japan at the beginning of the paper, the study had
found some commonalities and dissimilarities in youth policies between Sweden and Japan. The following
section will depict findings of a comparative study.

Comparing Youth Policy History between Sweden and Japan
History wise, youth policy in Sweden and Japan had developed in many different ways anddifferent contexts as showcased in Table 2. The first common factor between Sweden and Japan is that theestablishment of youth policy was founded in the modern nation-state in the urbanization process. The Swedish
modern welfare system preceded Japan with the modern education system that also covers youth population.
As urbanization processed, young people who are not covered by welfare policy went out in the street andbecame “Gang Boys” which called for the establishment of youth policy outside education with state
responsibility in 1898 (Forkby, 2014). Whereas Japan’s modern nation system was established in 1868 after the
Meiji Restoration followed by the introduction of the first education system, which replaced the role of the
traditional-organic youth group in the rural community. Nevertheless, self-organized youth groups witheducational purposes had expanded mainly in the urban areas, which raised recognition of youth organizations
formed by the government. What is informative at this point between the two countries is that youth policy
perceives young people outside school, that is to say, both countries recognize the distinction of education andyouth policy in formal and non-formal education.
Table 2: Historical development of Swedish and Japanese youth policy

84

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

However, each countries’ youth policy took different paths afterward. Despite that Swedish youth
policy recognized young people as a social problem, the Youth Care Committee succeeded to promote
discussion on young people's participation in the 1940s (Forkby, 2014). The discussion pondered the power
relationship between young people and adults and put emphasis on user participation. In this sense, one canargue that ideological-based discussion on how to promote youth participation took place in the relatively earlystage of Swedish youth policy history. On the other hand, Japan was caught by waves of World War � that
accelerated militarization of youth organizations, which was far apart from an ideological sense of youth
participation. Though youth organization was expanded with the help the government's credit and support, it
was because of the fact that the government utilized youth organization as a means of military training, an idea
is inspired by the Boy Scout movement. In the process of democratization of the Japanese government afterWorld War II, any kind of government relationship with youth organizations became a sensitive issue
considering what had happened during the war. Without mention, it became one of the characteristics ofJapanese youth policy which is somewhat different from Swedish youth policy.
In contrast, one of the unique backgrounds of Swedish youth policy that was barely seen in Japan
was an emergence of immigrant policy. After the World War, Sweden welcomed labor immigrants due to theshortage of the labor force within the country. Based on the agreement, Sweden accepted immigrants from Italy,
Yugoslavia, and Greece during the 1940s and 1950s. Later the number of immigrants including voluntary
immigration skyrocketed unexpectedly in late the 1960s. By the 1970s, the major portion of immigrant was
replaced by refugees and relatives of former immigrants (Tomas, 2008). Along with the increase of immigrants,
the Swedish government launched a project called Million Program in 1965, which was a housing policy toincrease the number of residences in many suburbs of a large cities all over Sweden. One can assume that youth
centers were beginning to be build and became an important community space for integration of diversified
society in this process. This was preceded by EU's youth policy giving recognition to youth work as a means ofintegration of society in the 1990s.
Another dissimilarity between Sweden and Japan in the historical development of youth policy isthe depoliticization of education. The 1960s is characterized by student movements all around the globe, which
took place even in Sweden and Japan. The occupation of the student building by Stockholm University student
took place in 1968 in Stockholm, which was inspired by the protests of May 1968 in France. This occurred inTokyo in 1969 at University of Tokyo. The backlash of the student movement was tremendous in Japan. The
government of Japan banned high school students’ political activities in 1969. A scholar argues that thisprohibition hinders the political education in school, resulting in political apathy of young people today(ISOZAKI Ikuo, 2011). Sweden also struggles to cope with rough young people's situations, e.g. some young
people were visiting youth centers with drug and alcohol use during the 1960s.
In and after the 1980s, Swedish and Japanese youth policy began to show clear differences gradually.
The number of pupils declining to attend school increased in Japan, which triggered calling for the diversificationof means of education such as providing alternative ways of learning for children. While in Sweden, national
youth policy switched direction to provide subsidies to youth organizations as a means to promote youth
participation to tackle the wave of consumptive society. This policy shift seems to be similar to that of Japan on
the surface as Japanese government gave credits to volunteer activities in 1979 as an alternative solution for the
declining number of memberships in youth organizations. The year was 1995 when Great Hanshin earthquake

85

Tatsuhei Morozumi

took place and boosted volunteering, which thereupon was recognized as one of the main means for young
people's social participation in youth policy of Japan later.
Nevertheless, active participation of volunteering was not reflected on voting turnout in the generalelection. Particularly, the voting turnout of young people had dropped. The voting turnout of young people aged
20 to 29 years old was 57.76% in 1990, which dropped to 47.46% in 1993 and 36.42% in 1996 (Association for
Promoting Fair Election, 2014). Active involvement in volunteering but without political engagement is a
symptom of lack of active citizenship among young people according to Kodama (Kodama, 2011). Kodama(2011), citing Bernard Crick's idea, stressed the importance of cultivating political literacy of young people
among other strands of citizenship education: social and moral responsibility, and community involvement(Crick, 1998). According to Crick (1998), participation without political literacy would entail the risk that young
people are being manipulatively utilized by community or government with a special intention. For instance,
one can associate this utilization with the militarization of youth organizations during the war in Japan. In thispoint of view, only encouraging participation of volunteering without political literacy would not only limit
young people's area of participation but also raise citizen without a critical view on politics.

Comparing Modern Youth Policy between Sweden and Japan
Another analysis that he gave was on modern legislated youth policy based on the above
comparison of the historical development of youth policy in Sweden and Japan. With the self-organizedframework, he sorted youth policy established during 1993 to 2015 Sweden and Japan in and their mainefforts for youth participation, which is summarized in Table 3. Each countries’ national youth policy partly
includes some of the essence in its own context and is implemented on different levels according to thesituation of young people. Some of the elements are shared between the two countries and some are not.
Based on Table 3, characteristics and commonalities between the two countries' youth policy from 1993 to2015 are described in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Differences and Commonalities of Swedish and Japanese modern youth policy

Differences and Commonalities of Swedish and Japanese Youth Participation Policy
A clear difference can be observed between the two-nations’ youth policies from the empirical pointof view. For example, the purpose of Swedish youth policy for participation clearly proclaims extending young

86The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

people's influence to society, while Japanese youth policy remains to educate young people as an independent
members of society who actively engage in society with appropriate exercise of right and taking responsibility(Headquoter of development and support for children and youth, 2016). Swedish youth policy not only assuresthat young people actually feel that they can have an influence in society but also rearranges the political system
to involve young people in policy-making processes with many different measures. For instance, investigations
on the age discrimination in 2009 and review of age composition of municipal decision-making bodies in 2004
were conducted as efforts of Swedish youth policy. One of the deviant policies of Sweden is subsidies to theyouth organization, which was initiated in 1993's youth policy. In 2017, 212 million Swedish kronor fromgovernment subsidies were allocated to 110 children and youth organizations (MUCF, 2017). One can analyze
that this initiative is conducted, for Swedish youth policy regard providing a resource to youth organization as
an important essence of youth participation. In contrast, Japanese youth policy emphasizes volunteering rather
than giving a financial resource to youth organizations.
Considering area and place of the youth participation described in the former chapter, theoveremphasis on volunteering would limit the diversity of youth participation. Plus, as Tanaka (1988) pointed
out there might be a chance that volunteer activity without actual change in society, contradicts the fundamental
aim of youth participation.
Table 3: Comparing modern youth policy in Sweden and Japan

87

Tatsuhei Morozumi

Young people's participation in policy decision making is covered in both youth policies in Sweden
and Japan. However, its methodology differs significantly. In Sweden, the Swedish Youth Organization Council;
LSU, is regarded as an official representative body of all youth organization in Sweden. It is comprised ofrepresentatives of the national youth organization, which normally have regional chapters at municipal levels.
As such, the voice of young people is reflected through youth organization to the national government byoffering dialogue opportunities with Youth Ministers. There exists an obligatory system that the government
needs to get feedback from stakeholders of youth organizations when the new bill is drafted, which is called theReferral System. What is remarkable here is that the list of youth organizations regarded as stakeholders is
selected by Swedish Youth Organization Council; LSU.
On the other hand, in Japan, initiatives of young people's participation in policy-making process are
realized by the Youth Special Mission Committee, of which methodology is limited in its number of participants
as well as the representation of young people's opinions. Since there is no official youth representative body thatworks like LSU in Japan, it is highly recommended to diversify means of young people's participation in thepolicy-making process. However, given the past experience of Japanese youth organizations being integrated
and militarized by the national government, it is understandable how hard it is to establish an integrated youth
representative body.

Some Implications from Comparative Studies on Swedish and Japanese Youth Policy
In Japan, the participation of young people had been strongly emphasized and many practices werevitalized in and after the 1990s when United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of a Child was ratified, and
Education for Sustainable Development came onto the scene. Still, low voting turnout among Japanese youth
had become common and less young people felt that they could change society. The aftermath of the Tōhoku
earthquake in 2011 had brought a huge impact on Japanese society. The year 1999 (when the Great Hanshin
earthquake occurred) is called “the year of NPO” as many non-profit organizations were organized to help out
people in the devastated area. Likewise, people’s minds begun to change after Tohoku earthquake in 2011. In
fact, the number of people who took part in volunteering skyrocketed during this time. Just before the State
Secrecy Law was established in October 2013, the youth political organization called SEALDs was organized
and got into a spot as they were protesting against the law with their own “youthful” term. As voting age was
finally lowered to 18 years old in 2016, a recommendation by Minister of Education that prohibited student’s
political activity in upper secondary high school was banished. Thereupon, more attention is paid to how togrow political literacy and involve children and young people than ever before.
Without mention, one of the core principles of citizenship education is participation, which
Bearnard Crick calls community involvement among other strands: political literacy, social and moral
responsibility (Crick, 1998). Then, how can we promote children and young people’s participation? What is thefactor or issue that triggers or hinders participation of children and youth? This paper was drafted with suchresearch questions in mind. Based on the discussion on the theory of youth participation and findings from acomparative study on youth participation policy in Sweden and Japan in the former chapter, the following
section will demonstrate some implications that can be applicable to the realm of social studies education.

88

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

Influence as Purpose of Participation
First of all, what is the purpose of promoting participation of young people? Social studies
educationalist may simply answer “to grow active citizenship” but is it truly sufficient? As Morozumi (2017)
found out that the Japanese youth policy set “promoting youth participation” as one of the components of youth
policy. Old-fashioned discourse among Japanese children’s rights activists have been claiming the significanceof children’s participation just because it is the rights of the child. As showcased, however, Swedish youth policy
barely stipulates the term “participation” but “influence” as a purpose of youth policy. Swedish youth policy
tried to look outcomes of participation of designated actors rather than simply putting emphasis on youth
participation. Participation is an act of subject, while influence is a product of the action of participation. Thisview coincides with what post-structuralists advocate: the exercise of power rather than just possessing it. Setting
participation just as a goal might fail to exercise it. In order, not to let this happen, more importance should be
put on the outcome of young people’s participation, that is to say, wo what extent acts of participation haveinfluence on actual society. Participation without influence cannot be regarded as “good participation” in lightof the definition of participation by Tresder and Harts. This sounds cliché yet, it can never be overemphasized.
Upgrading purpose of participation is the first stepping stone to better participation.

Resource and Transformation of Power Structure
Second of all, what is the factor that triggers participation with actual social influence? Nowadays,
more and more people are interested in gaining skill and techniques for facilitating active engagement in meeting.
However, less attentions are paid to the fundamental issue when promoting participation of people such as
children and young people. The above framed theory of youth participation revealed that it consists of threestrands: participation as rights, the resource for participation, and transformation of power. Especially, the lattertwo strands cannot be overemphasized. In terms of resources for participation, one tends to regard the relevancy
in giving information and competence or knowledge of individual young people. However, what we haveobserved from the empirical study of the Swedish case is that resources should be focused on allocating
governmental finance to youth organizations so that youth organizations are able to exercise their power insociety. Meanwhile, in Japan, a financial resource for youth organizations was limited because of themilitarization of youth organizations during the war period. Even so, one cannot overlook the rise of the youth
organizations in Japan. Limiting young people’s participation to volunteering – which normally is individual
based rather than organized activity, not only narrows down realm of participation of young people but also
deprives opportunity to exercise rights of participation as well as to learn how democracy in real society actuallyworks. Now is time to upscaling Japanese youth democracy by investing actual resource and support to youth
organizations to grow active citizenship.
Another perspective to be underlined that accelerates youth participation is the transformation of
power as Participatory Development and how post-structuralists had strongly championed the importance ofpower balance between agents. We have seen this fundamental viewpoint that had come under scrutiny when
the Swedish Youth Care Committee pondered a question: “How and by what means do we want to influence
youth in its choice of leisure activity?” (Governmental report, 1945). The question triggered a critical discussion
on traditional authoritarian and paternalistic view on young people (Forkby, 2014). What is surprising here isthat committee decided to give young people more space to challenge their own strength as well as the power89

Tatsuhei Morozumi

to influence their own activities (Open Activity) in response to the question. It is fair to say that Swedish youth
policy has “balanced out” the power relationship between youth and adult at this point. On the other hand, one
the Japanese education scene, power balance is seen as teacher and student or master and pupil relationship.
Excessive power of teacher and adult over pupils is the default position and is barely criticized in the name ofeducation. However, in order to facilitate the participation of pupils to grow into active citizenship, one needs to
pay attention to maintaining power balance between each actor as what Greg claimed is the necessity ofreframing children and adult participation into a relational and spatial practice (Greg, 2010, p. 338).

Fluidity and Diversity of Participation
The last implication to be underlined here is the nature of participation, which might be suggestiveof relational and spatial practice of participation. As Hart’s ladder was criticized, youth participation does notnecessarily occur like climbing a ladder. It is true that differentiation between good participation and bad
participation is needed but paralyzing action because of paying too much attention to “good participation” is likeputting the cart before the horse (Roberts, 2003). Participation goes up and down depending on power
relationships and resources they have gained from people surrounding young people such as teachers, youth
workers, and adults. Sometimes, they don’t need any power but sometimes they do need power from adult or
teachers. In addition, respecting the diversity of youth participation is inevitable. Participation should not only
be limited to political decision-making nor participation in the labor market. Morozumi’s (2017) work hadconcluded that the realm of youth participation can be separated into three categories: political participation,social and civic participation, and participation in education and employment. However, to break down the three
categories, one can see other types of participation, which shed lights on the diverse place and area of youth
participation. It is because participation is a process of decision-making on everything that concerns the actor.
The three-prong typology of youth participation helps to check if the youth participation in practice or policy is
inclined to one limited sphere. For instance, if one analyzes the Act on Youth Policy suggested by current
government of Japan with these 3 typologies of youth participation, one can easily see the policy is inclined topromote political participation of young people apart from other realms of youth participation. In Sweden, youth
policy is divided into 5 categories which includes politics as one of the priority subjects. Swedish youth
participation is not limited to political participation but including participation of cultural activity by giving
actual financial resource for example. The inclination has a potential risk to narrow down the aim of youth policy.
In this sense, it is significant to keep the diversity of youth participation in mind.

Suggestions for Social Studies Education in Japan
In light with suggested three points of participation; 1) Influence as purpose of participation, 2)
Resource and transformation of power structure and 3) Fluidity and diversity of participation, following section
will explore implication and solution to the issue that social studies in Asia recently face. Though it specifies
social studies in Asia, Japanese citizenship education will be considered as primary subject.
Japanese educational systems conduct “Social Studies” in primary and lower secondary school as well as“Geography and History” and “Civics” in upper secondary school. According to the Fundamental laws of
Education that replaces the version of 1945 under the revision in 2006, the goal of education is:90

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

Article 1. Education aims to complete the character of people and resolves that it mustraise citizens having the necessary qualities to make up a peaceful and democratic
country and society, healthy in mind and body.
Along with this, the purpose of Social Studies and Civics is also to cultivate “competence of civics”,
that is to say, citizenship (MEXT, 2006a). Occupation by the U.S after the World War 2, the Japanese
government set the Social Studies as a subject by implanting the American version of it. Article 14 of thefundamental law of education states the purpose of the political education as: “To cultivate citizens of good
judgment, necessary political education shall be deeply respected in education”. (MEXT, 2006b). Since the 1990,
citizenship education had been highly prioritized in European countries, which later came in spot in Japanese
educational arena as an instrument to cast a doubt on the methods of pre-existing Social Studies and Civics. In
2002, England had made the decision on installing Citizenship Education into the National Curriculum as acompulsory subject for students aged from 11 to 16. This trend brought an enormous impact on Japanese social
studies education. In 2006, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) published a report named“Report - Research Group on Citizenship Education and People’s Success in Economic Society” which is
known as one of the impetus to raise attention to citizenship education in Japan.(METI, 2006). The incorporationof citizenship education is hindered by the new standards of learning such as “Zest for living” which is close to
the competence that is required for citizenship education to some extent. Hashimoto (2013) raised a point that
decentralization also helped the installation of Citizenship Education.
Despite the “declaration of the Citizenship Education” by METI, they have only taken initiatives in
implementing Career Education as a basic education for adults. Multiple ministries incorporated Career
Education in 2003, which is more oriented to vocational education and the student’s own career by deploying
Career Education Coordinator whose main task is helping young peoples’ transition from school to employment.
While Ministry of Education (MEXT) cooperated with METI to promote installation of Career Education into
local schools, the only a few selected schools adopted its implementation. Only two elementary school in Tokyoand Kyoto that have introduced it from 2008 to 2010 (MEXT, 2012).
Jiro Hasumi (2012) states that today’s Citizenship Education in Japan faces confusion of its definitionand of its lack of relevance with existing Japanese education for Civics. The purpose of Japanese Social Studies
and Civics is to cultivate “ko-u-mi-n-teki-shi-shi-tsu,” which literally means “competence to be civic” that nearlyholds the same meaning to “citizenship.” Nitta (2006) cast questions on how “competence to be civic” is definedin the curriculum with analysis of its development of discourse over the civic and citizenship education in Japan.
Yet, there is no clear integration between “competence to be civic” and “citizenship.”Isozaki (2011, p. 260) has argued that lack of efficiency and relevancy of Social Studies in lower
secondary school and Civics in upper secondary by pointing out its cramming approach. He also mentioned thelack of educated teacher in the fields and systems regarding focus studies, that is to say, study methods are
inclined towards only social components of the system but with less emphasis on practice. Another reason,
which is well known in Japanese educational world, is that the Article 14 – 2 of fundamental law of education,prohibits school to either support or oppose particular political party, which might hinder teachers to teachpolitical education in school.
In addition to these pre-existing critics on Japanese social studies education, here are some91

Tatsuhei Morozumi

implications and suggestions with an axis of participation in postmodern contexts that had been argued above.
Today’s social studies education tends to overly emphasize the necessity to promote pupils’ participation during
the class. Sometimes it is called, participatory learning or active learning, where students are expected to learn
the subject actively. However, in light of the suggested first point – influence of participation –, one can noticethat learning with active attitude is not sufficient for the sake of accomplish “true” participation. Because there
is a possibility that these students might not have enough influence over society surrounding them. They might
have some influence over the classroom by stating opinions or giving sophisticated presentation in front ofaudience. Along with the children’s rights in 3Ps (Provision, Protection and Participation) in UNCRC, rights toexpress children’s view are certainly important. Yet, as the post structuralist championed, power does notencompass power by just possessing it. The power gets real power when they are actually exercised. Students
need not only to get quick response from audience during the class but also to make a decision with actual
influence in where they belong such as club activity, local community, home, leisure time, part-time job, career
steps etc. What we need to see is what was the outcome of impact that participation had brought. If theyexperience this level of participation, there certainly is an element of learning.

Fluidity and diversity of participation enlighten how much the space and place of participation
in social studies education is limited despite its purpose to grow citizenship. The fact that citizens are theones who live in community not only in schools denotes that the social studies education should not limit
its implementation to class room. Besides, in postmodern world of today, it is even getting harder to say
there is a “correct” substance of social studies that one can teach to students as sociologist , Ulrich Beck
advocated “Cheer up, your skills and knowledge are obsolete, and no one can say what you must learn inorder to be needed in the future” (Beck, 2000). In other words, distinction between teacher and students
are becoming obsolete in other face of the postmodern world. Thus, transformation of power structure
between teacher and student is being reconstructed by the societal changes, which is associated with theelements of Diversity and Fluidity of participation. If anything, even above-mentioned place and space ofparticipation would be outdated sooner or later in this society filled with fluidity. In order to be acceptableto new and unpredictable innovation or ideas appear, I hope these suggested frameworks would work as
reminder on how we can be prepared when conducting social studies education and pave the way towards
unforeseen future of our society.

Reference List
Ackermann, L., Feeny, T., Hart, J., & Newman, J. (2003). Understanding and evaluating children’s participation:
A review of contemporary literature. Plan International (R.-U.), Londres, 16.
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4),
216–224.
Association for Promoting Fair Election. (2014). Historical changes of voter turnout by age groups. Retrieved
October 13, 2014, from http://www.akaruisenkyo.or.jp/070various/071syugi/693/
Barn, G., & Franklin, A. (1996). Article 12 - issues in developing children’s participation rights. In MonitoringChildren’s Rights.
Beck, U. (2000). The Brave New World of Work (1st edition). Cambridge, Malden and Mass: Polity.
Chawla, L. (2001). Evaluating children’s participation: Aeeking areas of consensus. PLA Notes, 42, 9–13.

92

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

Council of Europe & Committee of ministers (1998). RECOMMENDATION No. R (98) 8. Retrieved fromhttps://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetIma
ge=532375&SecMode=1&DocId=486272&Usage=2
Crick, B. (1998). Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools. Final report, 22 September
1998. Retrieved January 3, 2015, from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/4385/1/crickreport1998.pdf
Brodie, E., Cowling, E., Nissen, N. & Paine, A. E., Jochum, V. & Warburton, D. (2009). Understanding
participation: A literature review — Pathways through Participation. Retrieved fromhttps://www.bl.uk/collection-items/understanding-participation-a-literature-review
Forkby, T. (2014). Youth Policy and Participation in Sweden – a historical perspective |. In The history of youth
work in Europe, Volume 4 - Relevance for today’s youth work policy (Vols. 1–4). Strasbourg, FRA:
Council of Europe Publishing. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.
action?docID=10703131
Foucault, M., & Ewald, F. (2003). “ Society Must Be Defended”: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975-1976(Vol. 1). Macmillan.
Giles, M. (2014). Participatory development. In V. Desai & R. B. Potter (Eds.), The companion to development
studies (Third edition). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Governmental report. (1945). Ungdomen och nöjeslivet. Ungdomsvårdskommitténs betänkande. (Youth andentertainment. Youth Health Committee's report) SOU 1945:22. Del III. Swedish Government.
Retrieved from http://weburn.kb.se/metadata/727/SOU_911727.htm
Greg, M. (2010). After participation - The socio-spatial performance of intergenerational becoming. In B. PercySmith & N. Thomas (Eds.), A handbook of children and young people’s participation: perspectives
from theory and practice (Vol. After participation The socio-spatial performance of intergenerational
becoming). London and New York: Routledge.
Harber, C. (2014). Education and Green or Sustainable Development, Chapter 8. In Education and international
development: theory, practice and issues. Didcot, Oxford, United Kingdom: Symposium Books.
Hart, R. A. (1992). Children’s Participation: From tokenism to citizenship (Innocenti Essay No. inness92/6).
UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ucf/inness/inness926.html
Hashimoto, M. (2013). The Whereabouts of Citizenship Education in Japan. Retrieved fromhttp://dspace.wul.waseda.ac.jp/dspace/handle/2065/39571
Headquoter of development and support for children and youth. (2016, February). Visions for development andsupport for child and youth. Retrieved from http://www8.cao.go.jp/youth/suisin/pdf/taikou.pdf
Isozaki, I. (2011). Minshu syakai to seiji kyoiku (Democratic Society and Political Education). Bulletin of theFaculty of Education, Chiba University, 59, 259-265.
Jennifer A. Elliott. (2014). Development and social welfare/human rights. In D. Vandana & P. Robert B. (Eds.),
The Companion to Development Studies. Routledge.
Karen, M. & Catherine, H. (2010). Challenges of participatory practice with children. In B. Percy-Smith & N.
Thomas (Eds.), A handbook of children and young people’s participation: perspectives from theory
and practice. London ; New York: Routledge.
Kesby, M. (2007). Spatialising participatory approaches: the contribution of geography to a mature debate.

93

Tatsuhei Morozumi

Environment and Planning A, 39(12), 2813.
Kodama, S. (2011). Citizenship and political literacy. In Citizenship Education. The Association for Promoting
Fair Elections.
Loncle, P., & Muniglia, V. (2008). Introduction: Youth Participation in Europe - between social and politicalchallenges and youth practice. UP2YOUTH - Thematic Final Report - Youth Participation, (21).
Retrievedfrom

http://www.most.ie/webreports/civic%20engagement/Youth%20Particiaption%20in%20Ireland%20
and%20a%20couple%20of%20other%20states.pdf
Malone, K., & Hartung, C. (2010). Challenges of participatory practice with children. Faculty of Education Papers (Archive), 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.03.030
Manteaw, O. O. (2012). Education for sustainable development in Africa: The search for pedagogical logic.
International Journal of Educational Development, 32(3), 376–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijedudev.2011.08.005
MEXT. (2006a). Curriculum Guideline in Upper Secondary School for Civics.
MEXT. Fundamental Law of Education (2006). Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/english/lawandplan/
1303462.htm
MEXT. (2012). Heisei 22 nendo jissi hokokusyo (Report on 2010). Retrieved January 3, 2015, fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/kenkyu/htm/02_resch/0203_tbl/1328890.htm
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). (2006). Report - Research Group on Citizenship Education
and People’s Success in Economic Society.
Morozumi, T. (2017). Reinterpretation of Youth Participation : Longitudinal and International Comparative
Study on Youth Policy in Sweden and Japan. Retrieved from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.
jsf?pid=diva2:1143901
MUCF. (2017). Organisationsbidrag barn- & ungdomsorganisationer | MUCF. Retrieved May 3, 2017, fromhttps://www.mucf.se/bidrag-till-barn-och-ungdomsorganisationer
Nitta, T. (2006). Gakushu Shidoyoryo ni okeru kominteki shishitsu wo do toraeruka? (How is “Citizenship”
Caught in the Current Curriculum?). kyoiku kenkyu, 50, 79–91.
Participation Works Network. (2014). Participation Works Network. Retrieved October 14, 2014, fromhttp://www.participationworks.org.uk/about-us
Pumpian-Mindlin, E. (1965). Omnipotentiality, youth, and commitment. Journal of the American Academy ofChild Psychiatry, 4(1), 1–18.
Reddy, N., & Ratna, K. (2002). A journey in children’s participation. Bangalore: The Concerned for Working
Children Www. Workingchild. Org. Retrieved from http://www.pronats.de/assets/Uploads/reddyratna-a-journey-in-childrens-participation.pdf
Roberts, H. (2003). Children’s participation in policy matters. Hearing the Voices of Children: Social Policy fora New Century, 26–37.
Tanaka, H. (1988). Gakkogai kyoiku ron (Theory of outside of school education). Tokyo: Gakuyo Shobo.
Tomas, H. (2008). Immigration into the Swedish Welfare State. In A. Kondo (Ed.), Migration and Globalization- Comparing Immigration Policy in Develiped Countries. Akashi Shoten.
Treseder, P. & Smith, P. G. (1997). Empowering Children & Young People: Training Manual : Promoting

94

The Journal of Social Studies Education in Asia

Involvement in Decision-making. Save the Children.
UNICEF. (2001). The Participation Rights of Adolescents: A strategic approach The Participation Rights ofAdolescents: UNICEF Programme Division. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/Participation_
Rights_of_Adolescents_Rajani_2001.pdf
United Nations. (1989, November 20). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ohchr.org/documents/professionalinterest/crc.pdf
Hasumi, J. (2012). Citizenship Education as Society Building. Hosei kenkyu or Journal of law and politics,
79(3), 684–706.

95