© 2016 Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies
Vol. 8, February 2016, pp. 109–124
Master’s and Doctoral Program in International and Advanced
Japanese Studies
Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences,
University of Tsukuba

Research Note

Identifying the “Fukushima Effect”:
Assessing Japanese Mass Media Coverage of International Nuclear Power Decisions
Manuela HARTWIG, Freie Universität Berlin,
Graduate School of East Asian Studies, Research Associate
Sae OKURA, University of Tsukuba, Master’s and Doctoral Programin International and Advanced Japanese Studies, Ph.D. Student

Leslie TKACH-KAWASAKI, University of Tsukuba, Master’s and Doctoral Programin International and Advanced Japanese Studies, Associate Professor

Yohei KOBASHI, Waseda University, Institute for Research inContemporary Political and Economic Affairs, Assistant Professor
In the aftermath of the nuclear crisis involving the Fukushima Dai’ichi nuclear power plant on March
11, 2011, nuclear power generation in Japan and other countries has come under close public scrutiny.
Immediately following the nuclear crisis, countries such as Switzerland and Germany that have relied
historically on nuclear power utilization started to seriously reconsider safety measures surrounding
nuclear power generation. Such considerations led to the June 2011 decision in the German Bundestag thatwent into force on August 6, 2011.
In the process of determining its own domestic nuclear energy policy, assessments and evaluations ofother countries’ responses in the aftermath of “3.11” have appeared frequently in Japan’s domestic mass
media. Yet have the nuclear energy policies in certain other countries such as Germany been singled out
for comparison with Japan’s own energy strategies and priorities? Furthermore, has such coverage tended
to focus on the positive or negative aspects of nuclear energy?
In this paper, we assess the characteristics of Japanese mass media coverage of public opinion concerning
nuclear energy policy in other countries. From a methodological perspective, our research draws on a
combination of content analysis and sentiment analysis and investigates how the German case appeared innews articles concerning nuclear power in Japan in the six-months period from March 11 to September 11,
2011, identiﬁes the main policy actors involved, and assesses if the coverage was positive or negative.
Keywords: Nuclear energy policy, Content analysis, International policy comparisons, Japanese journalism,
Grounded theory, Framing theory, Narrative theory───────────────────
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by JSPS Contract Research Grant (AAD26048) “Comparative Energy Policy andDiscourse in Japan and Germany.”

Introduction
In the aftermath of the nuclear crisis involving the Fukushima Dai’ichi nuclear power plant on March 11,
2011, nuclear power generation in Japan and other countries has come under close public scrutiny. Immediately
109

Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

University of Tsukuba

Volume 8 / February 2016

following the nuclear crisis, countries such as Switzerland and Germany that have relied historically on nuclear
power utilization started to seriously reconsider safety measures surrounding nuclear power generation. Suchconsiderations led to the June 2011 decision in the German Bundestag that went into force on August 6, 2011.
Germany is internationally known to be at the forefront in tackling environment and energy policy issues on anational scale under wide political and social consensus.
Germany’s coalition government of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Green Party (Bündnis 90/Die
Grünen) between 1998 and 2009 already pursued nuclear phase-out and formulated its legislative framework
into their political agenda. Only a few months before the Great East Japan Earthquake, which damaged thenuclear reactor of the Fukushima Dai’ichi power plant run by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) andcaused the most serious nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl accident in 1986, the new government coalition
formed after the 2009 general elections of the Christian/Social-Democratic Union Party (CDU/CSU) and FreeLiberal Party (FDP) postponed nuclear phase-out under major pressure from nuclear-energy-generating
electricity companies in Germany. But the crisis involving the nuclear power plant on March 11, 2011
immediately spurred the reintroduction of a nuclear phase-out platform which was eventually labeled as the“phase-out of the phase-out” (Schreurs, 2012).
In the process of determining its own domestic nuclear energy policy, assessments and evaluations of othercountries’ responses in the aftermath of “3.11”1 have appeared frequently in Japan’s domestic mass media. Yet
have the nuclear energy policies in other countries been singled out for comparison with Japan’s own energy
strategies and priorities? Furthermore, has such coverage tended to focus on the positive or negative aspects ofnuclear energy? Arlt and Wolling (2015: 3) have identiﬁed the “Fukushima Effect,” using this phrase to describe“international ﬁndings on attitude changes towards nuclear power as a result of the Fukushima accident.”
However, their results show only a moderate impact of this incident in terms of attitudes towards nuclear
energy based on an analysis of German mass media coverage and survey data. In consideration of Germany’s
reaction on a wide political scale, we assess the characteristics of Japanese mass media coverage of public
opinion concerning nuclear energy policy in Germany. We are speciﬁcally interested in assessing how
Germany’s sudden energy shift as a reaction to the Fukushima incident was perceived through four major
Japanese newspapers (the Asahi, the Mainichi, the Nikkei, and the Yomiuri). From a methodological perspective,
our research draws on a combination of content analysis and sentiment analysis, and investigates the discourse
involving Germany, drawing on news articles concerning nuclear power in Japan in the six-months period fromMarch 11 to September 11, 2011, identiﬁes the main policy actors involved, and assesses if the coverage waspositive or negative.
The ﬁrst section provides an overview of Japan’s legal framework regarding nuclear energy policy and thehistorical background of nuclear energy in Japan, followed by a review of the literature covering the aspects ofnuclear energy determinants in Japan and characteristics of the Fukushima news coverage. Then, we discuss
brieﬂy the theoretical framework and methodology that we draw on to explain our results. As our research
involves qualitative content analysis, framing theory, with its focus on analyzing in-depth issues or events,
serves our aim to combine content analysis and sentiment analysis of text data. We combine this theoretical
approach with constructivist grounded theory to reveal crucial issues in the research questions by coding thedata interactively instead of using predetermined parameters. We suggest that this combination of framing as a
traditional approach and grounded theory with a new approach in computer-assisted text analysis can allow us
to uncover new patterns in investigating news coverage and provides a potential solution to the critical role theresearcher takes within his/her own research in grounded theory. In section ﬁve, we discuss our main results,

1 The phrase “3.11” (pronounced “three-eleven”) is frequently used by the Japanese people to refer to the triple disasters
that occurred on March 11, 2011 involving the Great East Japan Earthquake, the resulting tsunami, and the nuclear
accident at the Fukushima Dai’ichi nuclear power plant.

110

HARTWIG, OKURA, TKACH-KAWASAKI, & KOBASHI, Identifying the “Fukushima Effect”

wherein we examine the articles in each newspaper individually, and close with a brief comparison of thecharacteristics in the news coverage of the German case in the four newspapers, where we summarize our mainﬁndings and evaluate our methodology for further research.
1. Nuclear energy discourses in Germany and Japan
Since the 1960s, anti-nuclear energy issues have been part of the political agenda in Germany. The
establishment of the Green Party (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen) in 1980 and its election to the German Bundestag in
1983 deﬁned the path for strong environmental/anti-nuclear energy policy discourse. Different than in Japan
where the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) is in charge of nuclear-energy regulations,
Germany’s nuclear-energy policy is regulated by the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature
Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), established in 1986 (Schreurs 2002). The red-green coalition between
the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Union 90/The Greens (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen) under former
chancellor Gerhard Schröder (SPD) between 1998 and 2005 set the foundation for nuclear phase-out. With the13th change of the Atomic Act (January 1, 1960) on July 31, 2011, as a direct response to the Fukushima
accident, the governmental coalition of the CDU/CSU and the FDP returned to a policy of phasing out nuclear
energy by 2022. Even though the effect on domestic energy policy decisions after Fukushima eventually led toconsensus between the ruling and the opposition parties, the Chernobyl catastrophe in 1986 in the Ukraine, aclose neighbor, had a lasting inﬂuence on Germany’s anti-nuclear policy path. This background of politicalattention to nuclear issues made the characteristic reaction on the Fukushima disaster on public and policy
discourses in Germany possible (Seiffert & Fähnrich 2014).
The origins of Japan’s anti-nuclear movement dates back to the 1950s. The ﬁrst incident involved the Lucky
Dragon No. 5 (Daigo fukuryū maru), wherein a Japanese ﬁshing boat was exposed to and contaminated by
nuclear fallout from the U.S. Army’s hydrogen bomb testing in March 1954. This incident was the initialcatalyst for future anti-nuclear movements in Japan. During the 1970s and 1980s, other incidents occurred suchas the Mutsu radiation leak accident in 1974, which drew limited attention to the nuclear power debate. Fromthe late 1970s and into the early 1980s, as a result of political and social factors, administrative reforms related
to nuclear energy were carried out, and the building of new nuclear power plants was not permitted during thisperiod (Honda, 2005).
However, anti-nuclear social movements faced a difﬁcult situation after the 1980s. Labor unions that had
supported these movements were shrinking as a result of reorganization of the labor market. The Cold War
ended and the prestige of Marxism was gradually decreasing. As a result of these global and political changes,
social movements gradually lost material resources and ideological status. In the summer of 1994, the Social
Democratic Party of Japan (SDP) changed its nuclear energy strategy and accepted the use of nuclear power
plants in order to join the coalition government with the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan (LDP) and the New
Party Sakigake. At the same time, information regarding many nuclear accidents and scandals surfaced, andsocial movements were activated especially at the local level. Isolated nuclear incidents continued to occur, forexample, the Tokaimura nuclear accident at a JCO2 plant in September 1999, which was estimated to havereached “level four” on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) (Kawana, 2013: 276). In response, the Act
on Special Measures Concerning Nuclear Emergency Preparedness was enacted in the same year.
After the Fukushima accident in March 2011, Japan’s nuclear energy policies entered a complicated phase,
however it seems that the disaster did not engender fundamental policy changes. In September 2012, Noda

2 Formerly the Japan Nuclear Fuel Conversion Co., which is now defunct. Source: World Nuclear Association (2013)
Tokaimura Critical ity Accident 1999 (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-ofPlants/Tokaimura-Criticality-Accident/) (Access date: September 20, 2015).

111

Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

University of Tsukuba

Volume 8 / February 2016

Yoshihiko, a DPJ (Democratic Party of Japan) politician and the former prime minister from September 2011 to
December 2012, devised new energy and environmental strategies that included halting the operation of all
nuclear power plants by the 2030s. Also, new regulatory standards were formulated in 2013, and nuclear safety
regulations were strengthened substantially (Yamaguchi, 2013: 1, 8-9). However, Noda decided to restart thenuclear power plants which were sitting idly after the Fukushima Disaster in order to meet energy demand, andthe Ōi nuclear power plant located in Fukui prefecture was restarted in July 2012. Also, the Sendai nuclear
power plant located in Kagoshima prefecture was restarted in August 2015, based on a decision made by prime
minister Abe Shinzo.
Japan and Germany have been part of international environmental and anti-nuclear movements since theearly post-war era and political responses towards environmental issues have prominently ﬁgured in news
coverage. Even though Japan experienced nuclear accidents prior to Fukushima, even afterwards, anti-nuclear
movements have struggled to encourage public discourse which could inﬂuence political decisions. Yet strong
ties between the LDP-led government and economic ministries with industry contacts have dominated thediscourse (Hartwig et al. 2014). In contrast, the energy industry in Germany has been active in promoting
renewable/clean energies and favors nuclear phase-out, which, in turn, has been reﬂected in environmental/antinuclear public opinion in the mass media.
2. Literature Review(1) Determinants of Japan’s nuclear policies
There are numerous studies that focus on both domestic and international factors that determine nuclear
policy in Japan. First, we focus on studies that point to domestic factors. Honda Hiroshi (2005, 2014) analyzed
the political process of Japan’s nuclear energy policy from the perspective of social movement theory. Morespeciﬁcally, he focused on not only the dominant political actors such as the bureaucracy, the ruling party andindustrial associations, but also opposition parties, civic movements, labor unions and local governments that
potentially have opportunities to change nuclear policy. The major results from his studies have been that (a)opposition parties and labor unions that have supported movements were split in half and this led to weakening
the anti-nuclear movements by the 1980s; (b) pro-nuclear political actors that were supported by economic
groups seized power after 1990s; and (c) many nuclear accidents garnered publicity and social movements wereactivated especially at the local level (Honda, 2005). The Fukushima Dai’ichi incident promoted reactivation of
pro-nuclear groups as well as anti-nuclear groups (Honda, 2014). The restart of the Ōi and Sendai nuclear power
plants suggests that Japan’s nuclear policies have been determined by the attitudes of political elites3.
On the other hand, there is also the question as to whether international factors, for example, theinternational system or international policy changes, have played a role in determining Japan’s nuclear policies.
Shibata and Tomokiyo (1999) argued that Japan’s public opinion has tended to be more cautious about nuclear
energy after major nuclear accidents such as the 1979 Three Mile Island accident and the 1986 Chernobyl
disaster4. Sagara (2009) suggested that international policy changes and discussions have some impact on
Japan’s political decision-making regarding nuclear energy. Suzuki (2014) focused on import and export policies
of nuclear technology and analyzed historical changes in the international system that promote the use of
nuclear energy. As a result of her analysis, she claimed that there has been a major impact in decision-making
processes by the U.S. government and its nuclear power industries, but the impact of the Soviet Union under the

3 At the same time, we cannot argue that Japan’s anti-nuclear movements have been necessarily weak. As Honda
Hiroshi noted, anti-nuclear movements have some impact especially at the local level (2005, 2014).

4 At the same time, when we focus on the policy level, the Chernobyl disaster has not lead to fundamental politicalchange to Japan’s nuclear policies (Wakao & Honda, 2012, Introduction).

112

HARTWIG, OKURA, TKACH-KAWASAKI, & KOBASHI, Identifying the “Fukushima Effect”

Cold War and China in the 21st century cannot be ignored as well. After the Fukushima Dai’ichi incident, there
have been numerous publications that focus on nuclear and energy policy or energy security strategies invarious countries from both pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear groups (Kawaguchi-Mahn, 2013; Kawaguchi, 2015).
International factors are frequently speciﬁed through international organizations, treaties or international
accidents, and may have had some impact on Japan’s decision-making regarding nuclear policy.
(2) Characteristics of news coverage of 3.11 in Japan and Germany
Numerous studies about media, communication and journalism have pointed to the vital role that the mass
media plays in shaping political discourse and public opinion in modern democratic countries such as Germany
and Japan. Whereas the media landscape in Japan is considered to have a characteristically high inﬂuence on
determining public opinion and political discourse (Takeshita & Takeuchi 1996), studies analyzing
characteristics of Japanese and German mass media in the aftermath of the Fukushima incident provide a solid
basis for our research. To address the question whether the effect of Fukushima on international energy andnuclear policy shows evidence of pressure through a reverse effect in changing its own domestic nuclear energy
policies, it is necessary to summarize the most important ﬁndings about Fukushima news coverage in Japan
and Germany.
Considering Germany to be a special case in regards to its domestic responses to Fukushima in terms ofchanging its nuclear-policy decisions, how did the German media report about Fukushima? In comparison to
the Chernobyl news coverage, using a quantitative historical approach, Nienierza (2014) found that the generalframes of both events in German news coverage are almost the same, yet a positive frame of nuclear energy
existed after Chernobyl, whereas after Fukushima, no positive frame could be found. Wolling and Arlt (2014)
explained that because the accident in 1986 happened in a technologically less-developed country, the effect ofFukushima was much more drastic, as Japan is a technologically advanced country and known for its safetymeasures. Similar to Nienierza, Seiffert and Fähnrich (2014) identiﬁed the same anti-nuclear energy frame after
Chernobyl and Fukushima, and argued that the pre-existence of that negative frame was responsible in part for
the “Fukushima effect,” using a qualitative approach in analyzing German newspaper.
Hayashi (2013) showed that while Germany’s main television broadcasts featured extensive news coverage
about the Fukushima disaster, its emphasis was on Japan’s political and social responses along with the effects
on Germany itself. Moreover, about 40% of the Fukushima disaster news coverage was strongly connected toGermany’s domestic political responses, which focused on opposition party and governmental opinion from the
beginning, increasing from comprising approximately one-third to more than half of the main texts of major
news broadcasts, suggesting that the Fukushima incident was being closely tied to domestic politics inGermany. Judging from those ﬁndings, Germany appears to be an anti-nuclear dominated society and its antinuclear political stance affects public opinion. Arlt and Wolling (2015: 3) identiﬁed the “Fukushima Effect,”using this phrase to describe “international ﬁndings on attitude changes towards nuclear power as a result of
the Fukushima accident” focusing on political and social responses, yet showed only a moderate impact ofFukushima in terms of attitudes towards nuclear energy based on an analysis of German mass media coveragein combination with survey data.
Drawing from quantitative and qualitative content analyses as a common tool for media studies, Abe (2015)
identiﬁed the general debate over nuclear energy after Fukushima in Japan as ﬁlling the void between simple
anti- or pro-nuclear energy debates with more nuanced content by identifying in-depth debates about nuclear
energy in newspaper editorials. Whereas the Asahi and Mainichi advocated denuclearization appealing todemocratic values and criticizing undemocratic administration of nuclear energy, the Sankei and Yomiuri
opposed it with technological nationalistic values arguing Japan needs nuclear energy to keep its economictechnological leading position in the international society. Abe identiﬁed that news attention in the context of
nuclear energy in the aftermath of 3.11 in the Yomiuri, for example, focused on technological-nationalistic
113

Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

University of Tsukuba

Volume 8 / February 2016

attitudes against nuclear phase-out, arguing that Japan’s advanced technology was vital to ensure the safety ofinternational nuclear management (Abe 2015: 100). In news items about the weekly anti-nuclear movements infront of the Prime Minister’s residence in 2012, and movements against restarting the Ōi and Sendai nuclear
power plants, by using anti-nuclear keywords (datsugenpatsu or hangenpatsu), Yoshino (2013: 97) identiﬁed
major differences between the Asahi, which covered ﬁve to ten times more news articles in a short one-month
period, and the Yomiuri, which appeared to take a stance closer to that of the cabinet ofﬁce and the ruling party
DPJ in covering these issues.
While studies are focused around the implications of analyzing how the mass media in each country reacted
in their respective social contexts through international comparison, there is a research gap in studies analyzing
international news in Japan concerning Germany’s energy policy shift after Fukushima. Our analysis showsthat the news coverage about Germany’s anti-nuclear energy policy in Japanese mass media reﬂects thesegeneral ﬁndings, but reveals certain characteristics.
3. Framing the narrative of the Fukushima effect
While catastrophic events such as earthquakes and tsunamis are not constructed, the extent to which thenuclear accident was man-made is not addressed here; rather, in order to understand how a natural disaster
affecting societies is narratively constructed and framed in a media context to make it perceivable and how thisinﬂuences society and politics, is a crucial aspect that needs to be addressed.
Nisbert and Newman (2015) deﬁne frames as “interpretive storylines” and suggest that deﬁning themes
inﬂuences the amount of attention an issue receives. Members of the public rely on frames to make sense ofcomplex issues, and frames found in media coverage inﬂuence public opinion as they rely on what they refer toas mental models about a certain issue, which in turn deﬁne what frames people look at when reading throughnewspapers. Identiﬁcation of frames by news covering nuclear energy policies and the reaction of nuclearenergy-generating countries is crucial when trying to ﬁnd evidence whether nuclear energy policy decisions ofother countries in the aftermath of Fukushima could shape Japan’s public opinion on nuclear energy andeventually channel international pressure towards political decision-making processes.
Nuclear energy, environmental and climate issues are image-loaded topics and the meaning of suchcatastrophic events is constructed by societies and the “process of assigning meaning to an event essentiallyrequires the discursive ‘work’ of claims-makers” (Hansen 2010). As natural disasters, earthquakes and tsunamis
cannot be controlled thus cannot be avoided, but it is possible that nuclear power and energy policy can be
determined to mitigate the effects of natural disasters in the future.
Based on Hansen (2010), considering the “constructed” nature of public communication we ﬁnd in mass
media, framing and narrative theory provides fundamentals to analyze and understand why certain issues arebeing recognized over others (2010: 34). Social problems are always subjective and become recognized as suchonly through communication which constructs them as being a problem for public and political concern (2010:14). Analyzing the characteristics of information coverage by mass media over a speciﬁc issue and ﬁnding
differences between newspapers, can be analyzed while drawing from the narrative theory approach, where theinformation regarding social relevant issues are put together into a frame according to framing theory andbuild a narrative (story) intended for a certain audience. As each newspaper has its main readership, thepredeﬁned opinion, in other words mental model as explained by Nisbert and Newman (2015), people haveabout a public issue, inﬂuence their choice which information provided by different newspaper to follow.
After the Fukushima incident, Germany turned back to its recently abolished anti-nuclear energy policy. In
the following section we investigate how the inﬂuence of this event on Germany’s cause of action appeared inJapanese mass media and whether Germany’s political changes show the potential to inﬂuence Japan’s decision
making regarding its nuclear energy policy, an effect we would label the “reverse Fukushima Effect”.
114HARTWIG, OKURA, TKACH-KAWASAKI, & KOBASHI, Identifying the “Fukushima Effect”

4. Utilizing a mixed methods approach to analyze news coverage of German nuclear energy
policy in Japanese mass media in the aftermath of 3.11
(1) Sampling the text data
Since the environmental movements of the 1960s, mass media has become a crucial actor in inﬂuencing
political decision-making processes in environment-related topics based on how the environment andenvironment-related issues are presented to and perceived by the public (Hansen, 2010). Mass media can beconsidered as a central channel through which information about other countries reach society and, in thecontext of this research, whether the “Fukushima Effect” eventually had a reverse impact. In this paper, we
assess how Germany’s sudden shift in its energy policy to become nuclear free by 2022 as a reaction to the
Fukushima incident was perceived through four major Japanese newspapers: The Asahi (circulation of 6.8
million for the morning edition and 2.2 million for the evening edition) and Mainichi (circulation of 3.2 million
for the morning edition and 939,000 for the evening edition), known to take an anti-nuclear energy/prodenuclearization stand, and the Nikkei (circulation of 2.7 million for the morning edition and 1.4 million for theevening edition) and Yomiuri (circulation of 9.1 million for the morning edition and 2.9 million for the evening
edition) 5, known to be in favor of upholding nuclear energy technologies in order to ensure Japan’s international
leading economic-technological role (cf. e.g. Abe 2015, Yoshino 2013). From a methodological perspective, ourresearch draws on a combination of content analysis and sentiment analysis, and investigates on the one hand
how often news articles concerning nuclear power in Japan referred to the German case in the six-months
period from March 11 to September 11, 2011, and, on the other hand, identiﬁes the main policy actors involved
and assesses if the coverage was positive or negative.
As preparation for the content analysis, we investigated the databases of the four newspapers with a set of
keywords consisting of “nuclear energy” (genshiryoku) and “political measures” (seisaku) together with country
names based on the list of nuclear energy generating countries provided by the World Nuclear Association6 to
get an overview how international nuclear energy policies appear in Japanese mass media. Our main interest
was to investigate how Germany’s energy policy in the aftermath of 3.11 was perceived through Japanese mass
media, and thus, we narrowed our results down and focused our attention for the content analysis on articles
where Germany was mentioned. We chose the time period of March 11 to September 11, 2011 as it covers theimmediate aftermath of the Fukushima Dai’ichi nuclear plant accident as well as the time frame leading up to
the June 2011 legislation to phase-out nuclear power in Germany.
(2) Qualitative analysis of text data
Methodological advice from Charmaz’s (2012) Constructing Grounded Theory, drawing from methods basedon the grounded theory approach of constructivists on how to analyze a great amount of text data, provides us
with a heuristically appropriate tool to handle our sampled data in a short period of time. It is important to notethat we are not building on a theoretical construct and applying it to the data. Rather, we draw from
communication studies’ framing and narrative theory to explain the results from our coded data, which will be
explained in the following section.
Coding text data in fragments, certain words, lines or segments, to identify the sentiment laying in news
coverage of the “Fukushima Effect” on an international scale allows us to focus our attention on certain issues
emerging from the data, identifying the frame and narrative constructed by the newspaper and providing uswith the possibilities of raising analytical questions. Furthermore, we also considered the possibility of ﬁnding

5 Reference for newspaper circulation numbers: http://www.kokusyo.jp/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/MDK151006b.pdf(access date: 2015/11/30)

6 http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Facts-and-Figures/Nuclear-generation-by-country/ (access date: 2015/09/17)
115

Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

University of Tsukuba

Volume 8 / February 2016evidence of international pressure (gaiatsu), which we later call the “reverse Fukushima Effect” channeledthrough mass media. The critically assessed subjectivity regarding this method and the problems ofassumption-generation on text-data in order to identify latent traits and evaluate their “usefulness” inmeasuring their “real quantities”, our method is validated through the ﬁndings by Lowe and Benoit (2013), who
validated human judgment as a benchmark for qualitative content analysis of political text-data, in terms of“semantic validity” and that the quantity being scaled from qualitative and sentiment text analyses reﬂects thequantity that was intended to be measured. While using tools within the analytical program NVivo 10, designed
for qualitative research, we performed a sentiment analysis through an attribute value matrix query based on
our coded content. For this, it was necessary to deﬁne attribute values to the data. These attribute values
basically consist of elements of a coding sheet for newspaper content analysis.
5. Results: Evidence of a “reverse Fukushima Effect”?
(1) General ﬁndings
Table 1 shows the results of performing newspaper article database searches using the methodology
described in the previous section. In terms of the number of articles overall, three out of the four newspapers
published over 1,000 articles each during the six-months time period that was reviewed. Among the three, theﬁgures for the Asahi and the Yomiuri newspapers are the highest. In all four newspapers, the percentage ofarticles covering Germany in the context of nuclear energy policy was less than 10%, with the Asahi having thehighest percentage of 8.3% (n=1124) and the Yomiuri having the lowest percentage of 4.6% (n=1116), while theYomiuri has the fewest number of articles (n=941) followed by the Nikkei (n=1005). Among all four newspapers,
there were few articles that focused on Germany in the context of nuclear energy policy. The next four sections
describe the article contents, which focused on nuclear energy policy in Germany in more detail for each of thefour newspapers. Considering the prescribed standpoints towards nuclear energy for these major newspapers,
the leading role of the Asahi in comparison with the Yomiuri at the bottom, represents the general ﬁndings ofprevious studies. The analysis will show, that the nuclear energy technology favoring Nikkei with a higher rateof 7.3% (n=73) in comparison with the pro-denuclearization favoring Mainichi with a rate of 4.9% (n=46),
draws from the institutionalized anti-nuclear policy of the Green Party in Germany negatively to promote its
pro-nuclear energy technology path for Japan, what afﬁrms Abe’s ﬁndings (2014) about the Nikkei to promote
positive aspects of nuclear energy for the wealth and stability of Japan.
Table 1 Number of articles in the context of nuclear energy policy and Germany between
March 11 and September 11, 2011

(2) Asahi: Reluctantly positive
Germany, along with France and the U.S. ﬁgured prominently in political reactions to the Fukushima disasteras a matter of interest in the Asahi’s news coverage when it assessed changes in international nuclear energy
policies (or the lack thereof) in the aftermath of 3.11. During the six-month period, we found a total of 1,124
116

HARTWIG, OKURA, TKACH-KAWASAKI, & KOBASHI, Identifying the “Fukushima Effect”

articles in the Kikuzo II Visual database (the Asahi newspaper company’s database) referring to the issue of
nuclear energy and political measures. Slightly less than one-quarter (241 articles out of 1,124) referred tonuclear energy in the context of political measures and nuclear energy generating countries. In 93 articles,
Germany’s situation was mentioned, while 22 articles referred to Germany in the context of nuclear energy
policy as their main theme. The highest numbers of articles compared to the other three newspapers as shownin the following sections.
Table 2 Attitude towards nuclear phase-out in the context of Germany’s nuclear energy policy
shift: Asahi

Table 2 summarizes the attitudes towards nuclear phase-out in the context of Germany’s shift in nuclear
energy policy and how the general view on that topic differs in the Asahi newspaper in comparison to eachnewspaper’s section. In terms of comparability, we labeled the sections for all four newspapers with these terms,
as the section titles between the newspapers differ. Showing only a small rate of positive agreement towards
Germany’s political decision to abandon nuclear energy completely as an electricity-supplying source of energy
by 2022, it is still the highest rate among the four newspapers. The standpoints between negative and neutral
towards Germany’s political change after Fukushima is somewhat balanced in the major sections. This is also
evident where the Asahi has a rather balanced coverage between the German ruling party (CDU/CSU) and the
major opposition party (SPD).
While the Asahi implemented expressions describing the legal implementation of the nuclear phase-out citing
German media, which reﬂects a rather positive attitude, the narrative of describing the “Fukushima Effect” onGermany is reluctantly positive on the one hand, but presenting a rather critical view on the question as towhether Japan should pursue a similar path. Major themes such as changes in energy policy and the narrativeof Germany’s uniqueness in terms of legal fundamentals provided by both the European Union as well as
domestic politics with the emergence of the Green party in 1980 and the effect of the Chernobyl incident of 1986
on political and social attitudes towards nuclear energy are prominent. These are experiences that pertain only
to the German situation as explained in section 1. The question arose whether these fundamental differences,and the attention by the international society towards Japan during the Fukushima crisis can eventuallychannel pressure to promote political and social change.
Social responsibility and a strong civil society, a long history of persuasive environmental movements in
Europe7 in contrast to Japan’s weak civil society as assessed by the Asahi are emphasized when discussing theexisting fundamentals for successful political change in Germany. Technological capabilities to increase theelectricity imports as a substitute for electricity supplied by nuclear energy reactors from its neighboring
countries are seen as a further advantage8. Thus, even though Japan’s responsibility to consider the same path
7 E.g. Asahi, March 16, 2011
8 E.g. Asahi, June 7, 2011117

Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

University of Tsukuba

Volume 8 / February 2016as Germany is part of the discussion, the cognitive distance put between them prevents direct pressure on
politics and society in Japan to supersede Germany in the role of forerunner in energy policy matters, noting
Fukushima as a chance for change. With 54 nuclear reactors, Japan faces a greater challenge of being able toprovide substitutes for nuclear energy as its main energy source compared to Germany, which is considered tobe more likely capable of succeed with its energy shift, having only 17 nuclear reactors to substitute with otherenergy sources and a strong legal framework for renewable energy sources along with consensus between the
public and the government. In this context, the wide gap between public opinion and the government in Japanas a key aspect was supported by a survey conducted by the Asahi among seven major nuclear countries(Japan, US, France, Russia, Korea, Germany and China) aiming at assessing attitudes towards nuclear energy
and its further use after Fukushima9. According to this poll, 73% of the Japanese public was against the further
use of nuclear power. However, consideration of Germany’s historically deep anti-nuclear “green” ideology interms of environment and energy policies, as well as the major role of the German government under Chancellor
Merkel (CDU) in strong cooperation with the BMUB during the respective time period, provides the ground forsuccessful implementation of a new legal framework, which led ultimately to nuclear phase-out. The actual“reverse Fukushima Effect” by Germany’s sudden shift in energy policy, is limited to longitudinal economic
effects, which was hardly mentioned in the Asahi but plays a much greater role in the Mainichi newspaper.
(3) Mainichi: A hollow frame
For the investigation of the Mainichi, we used the Maisaku Mainichi database provided by the Mainichi
newspaper company. In a total of 941 articles in the context of nuclear energy policy measures, there were 178
articles focusing on international news coverage of nuclear-energy-generating countries and nuclear-energy
policy measures in the context of 3.11. Roughly one-quarter (46 of 178 articles) mentioned Germany, but only 7
articles featured Germany as a main theme. The possibility of a “reverse Fukushima Effect” can considerednegligible assessing the quantity of the news coverage regarding Germany’s energy policy decisions. However,in regards to how previous study positioned the Mainichi in the overall nuclear energy debate in Japan together
with the Asahi as pro-denuclearization, the results were unanticipated.
Table 3 Attitude towards nuclear phase-out in the context of Germany’s nuclear energy policy
shift: Mainichi

The articles in the Mainichi appear to have taken a political economic standpoint regarding international anddomestic political measures on energy policies under the “Fukushima Effect”. Table 3 demonstrates this clearly,
as the attitudes that arose in the context of Germany’s nuclear phase-out appear to be strongly negative.
Concern with the economic repercussions for Japan due to Germany’s energy shift, along with environmentally
9 Published on May 27, 2011.
118

HARTWIG, OKURA, TKACH-KAWASAKI, & KOBASHI, Identifying the “Fukushima Effect”

strong European institutions on a broad scale, prevent forming conclusions as to a direct “reverse Fukushima
Effect” in terms of promoting a more robust anti-nuclear energy policy in Japan. Moreover, the news coverage ofinternational inﬂuence in the Mainichi newspaper is almost non-existent.
While former Prime Minister Kan Naoto assessed the possibility of implementing a new energy policy
framework in early April 201110, the Mainichi emphasized the necessity of fulﬁlling international responsibility
towards climate change and decreasing CO2 emissions, noting that Japan depends on nuclear-energy electricitygenerating reactors. Moreover, Japan would have to increase its efforts to fulﬁll the 2020 target set by theinternational society in order to tackle climate change.
The Mainichi is similar to the Asahi in referring to the lack of a strong anti-nuclear movement in Japan. A
few anti-nuclear sentiments in Japanese society can be found, but in general, the articles suggest that there is nostrong anti-nuclear movement in Japan present to catalyze change, because society does not raise its voice11.
Nuclear power is discussed in regards to energy policy being strongly connected to the economy and isinstitutionally distant from environmental institutions. This is a major difference compared to Germany where
nuclear energy regulation has been located in the environmental ministry since 1986. The energy ministry’s
anti-nuclear policy as deﬁned by the SDP and any capabilities for political change in Japan regarding energy
policy are topics that were not addressed in the Mainichi articles. However, to pose the hypothesis of whether todetect an attitude to change governmental institutions in Japan, the analysis provides evidence that theMainichi promotes the status quo, as its articles appear to favor the economy.
As the German government under Chancellor Merkel (CDU) decided to postpone its nuclear phase-out policy
after successful lobbying by nuclear-energy-generating industries a few months prior to the Fukushima
accident, which was already deﬁned by the 1998-2005 government of Germany’s SPD/Green Party coalition, thenature of the Mainichi’s “Fukushima Effect” regarding Germany may be referencing how Germany came clear
with its antagonistic policy regarding its postponed nuclear phase-out. While indicating the required increase ofelectricity import from its neighboring countries to compensate for the lost energy source of nuclear reactors,
the Mainichi shows a general skepticism towards Germany’s anti-nuclear energy policy. Putting pro-nuclear
countries in a more dominant position in the context of issuing Germany’s energy policy supports a weak
image of the German government. This aspect is focused on more closely by the Nikkei.
(4) Nikkei: Strong frame of Germany’s anti-nuclear green party to promote a pro-nuclear
path in JapanThe number of articles appearing in the Nikkei is similar to that of the Asahi. We found a total of 1005
articles using the Nikkei Telecom 21 database. In 73 articles, Germany appeared in the context of nuclear
energy and political measures, while 18 had Germany as the main theme. Table 4 shows that the Nikkei is morereluctant to show a strong attitude towards Germany’s decisions regarding its energy policy under the inﬂuenceof the Fukushima disaster, as the attribute values of the coded content is focused around the “neutral”
characterized sentiment. Where in comparison the Asahi shows more evidence to be positive and the Mainichi
to be negative opted. An interesting result is the Nikkei’s attitude in the section “Politics”, where the newspaper
is divided between positive (17.4%), negative (48.6%) and neutral (34%).
In general, the Nikkei shows a strong sentiment towards the major anti-nuclear party in Germany, Bündnis
90/Die Grüne, referring on various occasions to one of its founders Jürgen Trittin12 and constructing news
coverage of nuclear energy policy measures regarding Germany around this image. However, in assessing the

10 Issued on April 5, 2011.
11 E.g. Mainichi, August 7, 201112 Since the 1980s, Jürgen Trittin has been one of the main political actors of the Green Party and was a Diet member
until 2013.

119

Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

University of Tsukuba

Volume 8 / February 2016question whether a fundamental political change would be possible for the high technological Japan13, theChernobyl-experienced Germany with its strong environmental lobby could be compared to Japan’s economic
lobby in relation to political decision-making processes regarding energy issues. This may suggest that similar
measures in Japan would require social and institutional changes.
Table 4 Attitude towards nuclear phase-out in the context of Germany’s nuclear energy policy
shift: Nikkei

While assessing the possibility for the European Union to strengthen its position regarding environmental
and energy policies towards its member states through Germany’s inﬂuential power, strengthening
environmental anti-nuclear power movements in European politics, the Nikkei emphasizes the effect that
Fukushima had on anti-nuclear sentiment in supporting parties among European member states, particularly
in Germany but also in France. Where the Nikkei emphasizes the need to increase electricity imports from
France and Russia by Germany to compensate for shutting down nuclear reactors and putting the burden ofincreased costs to proceed with its anti-nuclear policy on its neighboring and economically smaller countries
such as the Czech Republic throughout its news coverage, constructs a negative frame around Germany’s
energy policy decisions. In addition, the argument of a total nuclear phase-out in Germany would be only alabel, because a complete phase-out is not possible considering its increased import rate from its neighboring
countries, supporting our ﬁndings shown in table 4. Thus, the positively shaped image through the focus on the
major anti-nuclear party of Germany must be evaluated with caution.
The issue of high costs for political change is a strong frame in the Nikkei, considering the intense ﬁnancial
burden for the country due to the Fukushima disaster. Quantitatively similar to the Asahi, the Nikkei places
more attention towards Germany’s situation under the Fukushima effect but is far more critical in assessing its
nuclear phase-out. While emphasizing Germany’s cause of action to be no option for Japan due to high costs interms of energy sources and questioning the actual validity of Germany’s political shift, the main frame of the
Fukushima effect focuses on Germany’s critical economic situation for both society and industry due to thepolitical decision of the nuclear phase-out. However, the framework for a successful implementation of its newenergy policy ﬁts into Germany, but would not be applicable in Japan.
(5) Yomiuri: Renewable-Nuclear-Energy mix
Through the Yomidasu Rekishikan database of the Yomiuri, of a total of 1,116 articles, 164 articles appearedin the context of nuclear energy policy measures taken in nuclear-energy-generating countries. Germany
appeared in that context in 51 articles, where only 5 had Germany as a main theme, but ﬁgured a rather
neutral/positive attitude towards Germany’s political decisions and is less negative in general than ﬁndings ofprevious researches expected.

13 E.g. Nikkei, June 2, 2011.
120

HARTWIG, OKURA, TKACH-KAWASAKI, & KOBASHI, Identifying the “Fukushima Effect”

Table 5 Attitude towards nuclear phase-out in the context of Germany’s nuclear energy policy
shift: Yomiuri

The results in Table 5 suggest that Germany was not a major issue in the Yomiuri in the respective timeframe we investigated after the Fukushima disaster occurred and shortly after Germany set its legal frameworkof an anti-nuclear energy policy. In the newspaper articles, mentions of Germany were quite few. Thus, theanalysis shows attitudes towards Germany’s nuclear phase-out as being generally neutral, if mentioned at all,and the role of the “Fukushima Effect” in the discussion is negligible.
While the issues of ﬁnancial burden on the nation to implement its energy policy measures and Germany’s
anti-nuclear policy-driven inﬂuential power on European institutions appeared in the Yomiuri (similar to the
Nikkei), the Yomiuri put a stronger focus on the topic of renewable energies compared to the other three
newspapers and emphasized expectations of changes in attitudes towards nuclear energy in Japan as well asinternationally. Even though the Yomiuri sees validity in pursuing the discussion to eventually promoterenewable energy in Japan, due to Fukushima’s impact on reconsidering renewable energy possibilities on a
global scale, it will not become a nuclear free country, considering nuclear disaster experienced nations such as
the U.S. (referring to the Three-Mile Island accident in 1979) and European nations (Chernobyl in 1986)
developed nuclear energy technologies as their main energy source14.
In general, the issue of nuclear energy safety and pressure from focused international attention towards
Japan are put in the center of the frame, where international responsibility in terms of measures against climatechange dominates the discussion. The strong negative amplitude shown in Table 5 in the politics section isrooted in a frame where information regarding an anti-nuclear phase-out movement in Germany consisting of
the nuclear-energy industry (RWE, E.On), diet members within the ruling party (CDU) and social movements.
But because of the actual strong consensus among politics, society and eventually industry in Germany
regarding anti-nuclear energy policy decisions, this frame did not appear repetitively. The questionable
journalistic value of the Yomiuri regarding news coverage in the aftermath of 3.11 previous studies assessed,
cannot entirely be afﬁrmed, if we compare the framing of the news coverage about Germany’s nuclear energy
decisions in the aftermath of 3.11 by Yomiuri with the Nikkei or the Mainichi, but the little number of articles
covering Germany, may present a false image and must be addressed with caution, when assessing Yomiuri’s
journalistic value.
Germany is put into the narrative of renewable energies while pointing out difﬁculties to implement a similar
framework in Japan as high costs are involved. Where the Nikkei saw the issue regarding Germany’s measures
to increase the import rate of electricity from its neighboring countries very critically, the Yomiuri saw thisoption as an advantage to implement a new political framework. Considering the result of Fukushima to lead to
a complete abolishment of nuclear energy, this would have a great impact on climate change15. Implementing
higher safety measures for nuclear energy is considered to be a more realistic solution.
14 E.g. Yomiuri, March 25, 201115 E.g. Yomiuri, March 24, 2011121

Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

University of Tsukuba

Volume 8 / February 2016

6. Conclusion
Ultimately, the instrumentalized Fukushima Dai’ichi nuclear plant crisis propelled the issue of nuclear energy
policy, including safety, from being a national policy concern to an international topic. During the six-months
period following the Fukushima accident, Germany became a forerunner in abolishing nuclear energy andbecame an international ideal with its Energiewende. However, in comparison, Japan has not taken a similar
step. Our ﬁndings do not clearly indicate if news coverage of international nuclear power decisions exertedpressure on the DPJ’s attempt to abolish nuclear energy or, in the larger picture, canalize international pressure
on Japan to change its nuclear policy. However, our comparative analysis of the coverage in the four Japanesenewspapers with regards to Germany and nuclear energy policy show diversity in attitudes and opinions in the
coverage of Germany’s experience, as well as diversity in the policy dimensions in which the topic of nuclear
energy policy is discussed.
While framing theory suggests a way of constructing a frame of how one event inﬂuences how a topic is
perceived by the audience and eventually affects political decision-making processes, in this case, it might bemore appropriate to categorize what the frames do not include. When assessing the quantitative news coverageof international nuclear energy policies and their inﬂuence on attitude change, the level of interest among thenewspaper readership is a major factor. The research reported within does not address that element, and thismay be considered a weakness. However, this also suggests a further line of inquiry as research progresses inthis area. In addition, in terms of assessing the “Fukushima Effect,” the few number of articles in eachnewspaper suggests that the German case was quantitatively not represented strongly enough to have aqualitative impact. In fact, if we look at the aggregate number of articles covering the issue of nuclear energy
policy in general during the six-months period, as well as including those covering nuclear energy policy inrelation to nuclear-energy-generating countries, the impact rate of news articles covering the case of Germany
must be considered negligible. This in itself poses a possible future direction in this research trend to assess if
nuclear power policy is considered to be solely a domestic issue or an international issue.
In terms of differences among the newspapers in general, while the articles in the Yomiuri and the Mainichi
did not appear to emphasize news coverage of Germany’s sudden energy transition as a reaction to the
Fukushima Dai’ichi nuclear disaster, Germany’s situation was a common thread among the articles in the
Asahi. Whether this difference could be explained in terms of each newspaper’s ideological background (theAsahi is considered to be the most liberal of the four newspapers) is also an avenue for further investigation.
The critical voice of the Nikkei towards Germany’s shift in abolishing nuclear energy to sustain itself throughrenewable energies, while putting its neighboring countries in a weaker position and forcing more burden onthem to sustain Germany’s energy demands in the transition phase until it can sustain itself with renewableenergy technologies, reﬂects Japan’s cultural and geographical background as an island state and its immediateneed for self-sustainability. The anti-denuclearization Yomiuri showed a more neutral/positive attitude towards
Germany’s Energiewende than previous researches suggested. However, the negative frame of Germany’s antinuclear policies were closely tied to Japan and its lacking capabilities to pursue a similar path, while theneutral/positive majored narrative in the Yomiuri emphasized the individual position Germany is having, inregards to the different conditions in Japan.
In conclusion, our assessment of the frames and attitudes concerning nuclear energy policy in Germany asreported in Japanese newspaper articles revealed major differences in the coverage of international energy
policy and its possible inﬂuence on future policy directions in Japan.
References
Abe, Yuki (2015). The nuclear power debate after Fukushima: a text-mining analysis of Japanese newspapers,
122

HARTWIG, OKURA, TKACH-KAWASAKI, & KOBASHI, Identifying the “Fukushima Effect”

in: Contemporary Japan, 27(2), pp. 89-110, DOI 101515/cj-2015-0006.
Arlt, Dorothee & Wolling, Jens (2015). Fukushima effects in Germany? Changes in media coverage andpublic opinion on nuclear power, in: Public Understanding of Science, June 9, 2015 pp. 1–16, DOI: 10.1177/
0963662515589276.
Charmaz, Kathy (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory, London: Sage Pubications Ltd.
Hansen, Anders (2010). Environment, Media and Communication, London & New York: Routledge.
Hartwig, Manuela, Kobashi, Yohei, Okura, Sae & Tkach-Kawasaki, Leslie (2014). Energy policy participation
through networks transcending cleavage: An analysis of Japanese and German renewable energy
promotion policies. Quality and Quantity, 49(4), pp. 1485–1512.
Hayashi, Kaori (2013). Highlighting Germany’s nuclear accident news reporting: From an international
comparative study on news reporting about the Fukushima accident (Special issue on the veriﬁcation ofsocial information environment covering the 3.11 Fukushima Dai’ichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident:
Characteristics and challenges of TV journalism and social media) (Kiwadatsu doitsu no genpatsujikohōdō:
fukushimagenpatsujiko no kokusaihikakukenkyū yori: Tokushū 3.11 fukushima dai’ichi genshiryokuhatsudenshojiko no meguru shakaijōhō no kenshō: terebi jōnarizumu, sōsharu media no tokusei to kadai),in: Academic Trends (Gakujutsu dōkō): SCJ Forum, 18(1), pp. 50–55.
Honda, Hiroshi (2005). Anti-nuclear Power Movement and Politics: Japan’s Energy Policy Shift (Datsu
genshiryoku no undō to seiji: Nihon no enerugii seisaku no tenkan ha kan¯ō ka). Hokkaido University Press.
Honda, Hiroshi (2014). “Political Structure (Seiji no kōzō)” In Honda, Hiroshi & Horie, Takashi (Eds.).
Comparative Politics of Nuclear Power (Datsu genpatsu no hikaku seijigaku). Hosei University Press, pp.
71–89.
Honda, Hiroshi & Horie, Takashi (Eds.) (2014). Comparative Politics of Nuclear Power (Datsu genpatsu nohikaku seijigaku). Hosei University Press.
Kawaguchi-Mahn, Emi (2015). Understanding German Denuclearization: Why Japan Should not Imitate?
(Doitsu no datsu genpatsu ga yoku wakaru hon: Nihon ga minaratteha ikenai riyū). Soshisha Publishing.
Kawana, Hideyuki (2013). Why Germany Decided to Phase Out Nuclear Power (Naze doitsu wa datsu genpatsu
wo erandanoka: Kyodai jiko, shimin undō, kokka). Godo Publishing.
Lowe, Will & Benoit, Kenneth (2013). Validating Estimates of Latent Traits from Textual Data Using Human
Judgment as a Benchmark. Political Analaysis, 21, pp. 298-313, DOI: 10.1093/pan/mpt002.
Nienierza, Angela (2014). The biggest possible Re-Evaluation? A frame analysis of German news coverage about
nuclear energy after the nuclear accidents of Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011) (Die größte
anzunehmende Umbewertung? Eine Frame-Analyse der deutschen Presseberichterstattung überKernenergie nach den Reaktorunfällen von Tschernobyl (1986) und Fukushima (2011), in Wolling, Jens &Arlt, Dorothee (Eds.). Fukushima and its consequences: Media coverage, public opinion, politicalconsequences (Fukushima und die Folgen: Medienberichterstattung, öffentliche Meinung, politische
Konsequenzen), Ilmenau: Universitätsverlag Ilmenau, pp. 31–54.
Nisbet, Matthew C. & Newman, Todd P. (2015). Framing, The Media, And Environmental Communication, inHansen, Anders & Cox, Robert (Eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication,
London & New York: Routledge.
Sagara, Nozomi (2009). Changes in Japan’s Atomic Energy Policy and Historical Considerations of International
Policy Cooperation: Implications for the introduction of nuclear power generation in the East Asian region(Nihon no genshiryoku seisaku no hensen to kokusai seisaku kyōchō ni kansuru rekishiteki kōsatsu: Higashi
ajia chiiki no genshiryoku hatsuden dōnyū heno inpurikeshon). The Research Institute of Economy, Tradeand Industry (http://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/pdp/09p002.pdf). Access date: September 20, 2015.
Seiffert, Jens & Fähnrich, Birte (2014). Lost trust in nuclear energy: A historical framing analysis(Vertrauensverlust in die Kernenergie: Eine historische Frameanalyse), in Wolling, Jens & Arlt, Dorothee
123Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies

University of Tsukuba

Volume 8 / February 2016

(Eds.) Fukushima and its consequences: Media coverage, public opinion, political consequences (Fukushima
und die Folgen: Medienberichterstattung, öffentliche Meinung, politische Konsequenzen), Ilmenau:
Universitätsverlag Ilmenau, pp. 55–74.
Schreurs, Miranda A. (2002). Environmental Politics in Japan, Germany and the United States, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Schreurs, Miranda A. (2012). The politics of phase-out, in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 68(6), pp. 30–41.
Shibata, Tetsuji & Tomokiyo, Hiroaki (1999). The Public Opinion for the Nuclear Energy: Shift in Consciousness
about Nuclear Energy based on the Opinion Poll (Genpatsu kokumin yoron: Yoron chōsa ni miru
genshiryoku ishiki no hensen). ERC Publishing.
Suzuki, Manami (2014). “International System”, in Honda, Hiroshi & Horie, Takashi (Eds.). Comparative Politics
of Nuclear Power (Datsu genpatsu no hikaku seijigaku) (pp. 35–53). Hosei University Press.
Takeshita, Toshio, & Takeuchi, Ikuo (1996). Media Agenda Setting in a Local Election: The Japanese Case.” In
Susan J. Pharr & Ellis S. Krauss (Eds.), Media and politics in Japan. Hawai’i: University of Hawai’i Press,
pp. 339–351.
Wakao, Yuji & Honda, Hiroshi (Eds.) (2015). From Anti-nuclear to Denuclearization: Decisions of Germany andEuropean Countries (Hankaku kara datsugenpatsu he: Doitsu to yōroppa shokoku no sentaku) Showado.
Wolling, Jens & Arlt, Dorothee (Eds.) (2014). An earthquake and its (political) consequences (Ein Erdbeben undseine politischen Folgen), in Fukushima and its consequences: Media coverage, public opinion, politicalconsequences (Fukushima und die Folgen: Medienberichterstattung, öffentliche Meinung, politische
Konsequenzen), Ilmenau: Universitätsverlag Ilmenau, pp. 9–27.
Yamaguchi, Satoshi (2013). “Energy Policy and the Problems Related to Restarting the Nuclear Power Plants:
The Comparison between Nuclear Power Generation and Thermal Power Generation (Enerug~ıseisaku to
genpatsu saikadō wo meguru mondai: Genshiryoku hatsuden to karyoku hatsuden no hikaku).” Researchand information (Chōsa to jōhō) 787, pp. 1–12, (http://dl.ndl.go.jp/view/download/digidepo_8201577_po_
0787.pdf?contentNo=1). Access date: September 20, 2015.
Yoshino, Yoshitaka (2013). The Differences between Newspaper Articles on the Anti-Nuclear Power Movement.
Asahi Shinbun and Yomiuri Shinbun (Datsugenpatsu, hangenpatsukōdō ni kansuru shinbunkiji no sōi:
Asahi shinbun to yomiuri shinbun), in Chikushi Jogakuen University, 8, 89–100.

124

From the Editorial Committee
With this year’s Journal of International and Advanced Japanese Studies (Volume 8), we are very pleased
to offer a broad range of research articles and research notes that demonstrate the extensive academic
research in the area of International and Advanced Japanese Studies. In addition to our print edition,
similar to last year, we also offer a wide selection of research articles and research notes in our online
edition, which can be found at http://japan.tsukuba.ac.jp/research/.
Both editions of this year’s Journal feature studies that address important historical and current issues
facing Japan, in-depth analysis of Japanese language functions, and comparative viewpoints concerning
Japan. We received a large number of manuscripts and conducted a careful and thorough review process.
Given the diverse nature of International and Advanced Japanese Studies, we also sought diversity andbalance in the range of research articles and research notes included in this year’s editions.
We would like to express our gratitude to the following people who contributed to our journal editions
this year. First, we would like to thank our authors for considering our journal as a venue for theirresearch and who also worked very hard on their contributions. We would also like to thank our Program
Chair, Dr. Koetsu Sato, for his leadership and encouragement throughout the process of creating botheditions of the Journal. Finally, we would also like to thank our administrative staff at the Master’s andDoctoral Program in International and Advanced Japanese Studies, as well as our printing company,
Inamoto Printing, for their contributions in creating the Journal.

編集委員会より本年度の『国際日本研究』第８号により、国際的で先進的な日本研究の領域における幅広く学
問的な研究を体現する、広範な分野に及ぶ研究論文と研究ノートとをここに提供できることは、私たちにとって大きな喜びです。本年度は従来からの印刷版に加えて、http://japan.tsukuba.
ac.jp/research/ で公開されるオンライン版においても、幅広く選ばれた研究論文と研究ノートが提供されます。
本年度紀要は、印刷版・オンライン版いずれについても、日本が直面している重要な歴史的・今日的問題や、日本語の機能に関する詳細な分析や、日本に関する比較の視点を扱う研究を集めたという特色があります。私たちは多くの原稿を受理し、注意深く徹底的な査読のプロセスを実行しました。国際的で先進的な日本研究の多様な展開をふまえて、本年度の２つの版のいずれにおいても、研究論文と研究ノートの扱う領域が多様でバランスのとれたものとなるようにも努めました。
本年度紀要の編集に貢献された以下の方々に謝意を表したいと思います。まず、自らの研究を発表する場として私たちの紀要を選び、掲載に向けてご尽力くださった本号の著者のみなさまに感謝いたします。また、当紀要の印刷版・オンライン版双方の作成過程を通じてリーダーシップを発揮し、激励をくださった、専攻長の佐藤貢悦先生にも感謝いたします。最後に、当紀要の発刊のためにご協力いただいた、国際日本研究専攻博士後期課程の運営実務を担当するスタッフのみなさまと、印刷製本を担当していただいた株式会社いなもと印刷のみなさまにも感謝いたします。

壱