Evolution of ‘Legitimacy’ Discussion of International Development NGOs
and its Absence in Japan

Kaori Kuroda & Katsuji Imata
CSO Network Japan

Paper presented to ARNOVA Annual Conference,
November 20-22, 2003, Denver, United States©Copyright: Kaori Kuroda & Katsuji Imata: Do NOT reproduce or circulate without authors’permission. Do NOT cite without proper reference.

Introduction
The question of NGO legitimacy is a complex one. Along with accountability, legitimacy
has become a popular subject among NGO researchers and practitioners. Yet, it seems
that international NGOs as a sector have already become powerful players in global
governance before NGO legitimacy is fully analyzed and established. Some successfulinternational campaigners that are engaged in global policy or advocacy work seem to havealready claimed that they are legitimate players by actually succeeding in exerting
influence, rather than by thoroughly analyzing their work, their relationship with funders,
governments and constituents.
In Japan, however, the debate has just come to a starting point. As NGOs became
more visible, Japanese policymakers, mass media and general public have begun to ask,with dubious eyes, “who are these people in the first place?” Accountability andtransparency of NGOs and nonprofit organizations have been called into question as well.
This paper will attempt to situate the understanding of NGO legitimacy in Japan
within the larger context of international debate on this question. In essence, the authors
found that there is a very weak, if at all, understanding of NGO legitimacy debate inJapan, which might be a reflection of the lack of the debate itself in the international arena.
It also points to the fact that there is an entirely different set of criteria by which thelegitimacy could be formed.

2. Evolution of ‘legitimacy’ discussion of international development NGOs
Put simply, legitimacy of international development NGOs became a topic of serious
discussion when they started to play crucial roles in global governance by making a clear
political stance and working side-by-side with states and international organizations tocreate policies. Traditionally, the central role of NGOs in development was in carryingout development projects and delivering services in the field. In today’s complex global
system, things have become not so straightforward. Globalization, complex emergencies,
declining capacity of national governments and greater pressure for efficiency – allcontributed to the re-thinking and re-shaping the role of international NGOs (Lindenberg
and Bryant 2001). As a result, NGOs today are asked to transform themselves fromworking within the ‘development as delivery’ mode to ‘development as leverage’ mode.
(Edwards 2002)
When NGOs started to play roles other than the service-provider role, the questionof legitimacy came to the surface. Legitimacy is “generally understood as having the rightto be and do something in society – a sense that an organization is lawful, proper,
admissable and justified in doing what it does and saying what it says, and that it
continues to enjoy the support of an identifiable constituency.” (Edwards 1999b) What‘right’ do NGOs have in speaking on behalf of a constituency, receiving financial support
in analyzing global issues and exerting influence in policy matters?
Alan Hudson (2000:91) states that “legitimacy is central to the effectiveness ofNGO’s advocacy work” and that the persuasiveness of advocacy, which of course has adirect link with the effectiveness, increases when legitimacy increases. In doing advocacy,NGOs have been challenged by 1) governments, international organizations and multinational corporations, 2) institutional funders and 3) southern partners. In a sense,
therefore, it is a backlash to the fact that NGOs have become powerful actors in global
arena, but NGOs cannot take these questions lightly, since they go to the heart of the new
identity of NGOs, particularly those in the north, that are forming. In recent years, theimportance of maintaining the legitimacy that comes from direct contact in consultativeand participatory way with individual beneficiaries of the poor has been emphasized(Borden 2003).
David Brown (2001:64) lists four bases of legitimacy for NGOs concerned with
influencing policies and politics. They are 1) moral legitimacy, 2) technical or
performance legitimacy -- that NGOs have expertise, knowledge, information orcompetence that justifies their actions, 3) political legitimacy -- democratic
representativeness, participation, transparency and accountability to constituencies, and
4) legal legitimacy. In a similar vein, Edwards and Zadek (2003: 211-213) pose
representation, legal bases, competence, moral legitimacy and public benefit as thepossible criteria of legitimacy for non-state actors involved in global governance. Yet,
there have been no single set of criteria proposed to be the definitive understanding ofwhat constitutes NGO legitimacy. Furthermore, these authors do not claim that NGOs
are legitimate when they fulfill certain conditions.
Rather, these components are suggested as possible gauge for the legitimacy
question. Moreover, aside from the legal legitimacy where NGOs can generally state thatthey are lawful and in compliance with the legal framework, NGOs can only claim thatthey are moral, that they have the technical expertise, and that they represent people they
serve. These claims can be debated and discussed, but they would work as criteria only
in so far as people agree that there are some bodies or institutions that could validate theclaims. In the complex global system today, it is not certain who gets to decide, and it
adds more confusion to the already complex debate with regard to the NGO legitimacy.

3.

Japan’s international NGOs and the legitimacy question

Has legitimacy of NGOs become an issue in Japan?
In recent years, accountability has become a flavor-of-the-month topic for organizations
in general in Japan, including NGOs. The word has been imported to Japanese lexicon
and its translation has been introduced. Nonprofit organizations are making efforts to be
pro-active in this area and their leaders promote the concept – mostly with a focus on
financial accountability – and its practice. There have also been efforts of self-regulation.
For example, The Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation (JANIC), an umbrella
body of international NGOs (I-NGOs), has created a code of conducts that set standardsof accountability for I-NGOs (www.janic.org).
On the other hand, legitimacy has yet to become an issue even among members of the
NGO community or academia. The main reason is, although the NGO sector has grownsignificantly and their profiles have been heightened dramatically since the 1990s (Kuroda& Imata 2002), that NGOs are yet to become ‘major actors’ in Japanese society. To be
more precise, NGOs have raised their profiles as providers of service in welfare,education, health, medical care, and some other fields at local, national and international
levels for the past 10-15 years, but their involvement in policy formulation is still limited.
Why are Japanese NGOs yet to become legitimate policymaking actors in society?
Traditionally, there was very little room given to nonprofit organizations particularly inpolicymaking. Historically speaking, nonprofit organizations were initiated or assisted increating in a top-down manner by the governments as their societal partners to help
implement their policies. As a result, established nonprofits had little relevance to‘voluntary’ or ‘independent’ organizations (Kawashima 2000). The laws that regulate
non-profit organizations were designed to reflect such government policy towards
nonprofits. For example, the nonprofit public-interest corporation law enacted in the late
19th century, a central piece among the laws for nonprofits even today, requires approvaland ‘guidance’ be obtained from an authorizing agency for the establishment of a public
interest corporation (Silk 1999), service to the public interest to be defined -- often
arbitrarily -- by regulating agencies, and adequate financial assets. While most of legallyincorporated nonprofit organizations were integrated into the government’s welfare
system, people’s movements emerged to protest harmful by-products of Japan’s
economic growth, including pollution and environmental degradation in the 1960s(Wanner 1998; Kuroda 2000; Kuroda 2003). However, such activities were never fully
coalesced into a strong national-level movement (Reimann and Forest 2002) or those
activists failed to establish organizations to be professional. That is partly because their
movements became weak when momentum gained by movements was lost once a toughmeasure was taken by the governments (Reimann and Forrest 2002; Marimo 1995;
Kuroda 2003); partly because some movements were poorly organized and some becameadversaries of the government authorities and big businesses (Wanner 1998; Reimann and
Forrest; Kuroda 2000; Kuroda 2003) which resulted in keeping the general public at a
distance from their movements (Kuroda 2000). Moreover, such movements did not
qualify under the laws for nonprofits at that time despite the fact that freedom of
association was ensured under the constitution. Thus, emerging NGOs that were active
and independent of government including some advocacy groups had to remain
unincorporated in the legal system until the Law to Promote Nonprofit Activities, or socalled the new NPO law, was enacted in 1998.
Limitation of NGOs’ involvement in policy making
The youths these days have increasingly been conscious of global issues, such as negative
consequences of globalization, violation of human rights, sustainable development andpoverty reduction. Today’s anti-globalization movement that was born in November
1999 in Seattle was orchestrated largely through the internet (Clark 2003a; 2003b). In
fact, anti-globalization movement involves a massive number of young people,
specifically in the West. Membership of environmental and human rights groups isincreasing, especially among young people (Edwards 1999). However, young people
concerned about global issues are increasing only at a slow pace in Japan. A main reason
for this may be the ‘language divide’ or lack of competency of English language among
many Japanese. This makes sense when we consider that lots of information that goes
through the cyberspace regarding globalization is in English and that most of it is raw
information rather than processed, which requires skimming and digesting skills.
Consequently, most Japanese people, albeit they are computer literate, are not able toactively participate in recent global campaigns of ‘dot-causes’ (Clark 2003a; 2003b)
unless some individual or organization with high communication skills and a broad
network is involved to play a coordinating or facilitating role.
This in return manifests the fact that most of Japanese NGOs are not yet able to tap
into the potential of youth power. Similar to other Western nations today, Japaneseyouths show great interest in global issues, but they do not have enough sources of
information that can direct them to cultivating more interest that leads to action. Here,Japanese NGOs are still failing to mobilize what could be very powerful segment of the
population.
There are two notable corollaries to the fact that Japanese NGOs are not very activein policy formation. First, advocacy and campaigning do not attract either thegovernment funding or private funding since the role of NGOs in policymaking andconsultation is yet to be legitimized in public minds. In an upsurge of worldwide interestin the voluntary sector, the Japanese government became interested in including NGOs inpursuit of the public benefit (Kuroda & Imata 2002). The Japanese government, which
had formerly neglected NGOs in the Japanese Official Development Assistance, came torecognize their value in helping in distributing the ODA and has increased its funding
support to NGOs for the past 15 or so years (Kuroda & Imata 2002). The different
ODA dispersing agencies, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan International
Cooperation Agency which provide grants and technical assistance to developing
countries, Japan Bank for International Cooperation which provides loans, and theMinistry of Finance started a consultation meeting with representative NGOs
respectively in the late 1990s or afterwards to discuss ODA policy-related affairs on aregular basis. However, government funding tends to be channeled disproportionately tothe provision of services on a project basis (Kuroda & Imata 2002). It is also true thatNGOs tend not to seek the government’s money for advocacy and campaigning work forfear of generating conflict of interest. The private foundations and companies are notgood sources of funding, either. Because of the long sluggish economy, they have reduced
their financial support to NGOs (Kuroda & Imata 2002). Even if they have some money
for NGOs, they tend to follow the government’s footsteps and prefer to fund service
delivery. Thus, for their advocacy and policy work, some Japanese NGOs go after US
private foundations and some membership-based organizations use its revenue from theirmembership (Reimann 2002).
Second, NGOs’ policy work, advocacy and campaigning have not yet gained the
public support when it is the public that can and should support advocacy worl because
it is the very area where governmental or other insitutional funding is hard to come by.
This may be attributable to that Japanese NGOs, with the exception of few establishedones, do not make a considerable staff and resource investment to either develop
strategies and tools for campaigning and advocacy or to expand and maintain a strong
domestic support base (Kuroda & Imata 2002). Core advocacy NGOs active inenvironment and international development issues have much fewer members in Japan
than those of North America and Europe (Reimann 2002). For example, WWF Japan has
approximately 40,000 members (JANIC 2002) whereas WWF US enjoys more than 1
million (Ibid). Friends of the Earth Japan (now it is called FoE Japan) which is active inadvocacy has fewer than 1,000 members. Because NGOs do not have the public support
in doing advocacy, they cannot strenghthen advocacy work which could appeal to the
public and thus lead to gaining support, mostly from individuals – thus a vicious circle.
This has a lot to do with the fact that many NGOs have yet to gain the public trust,either. Foster Plan, a member of Plan International conducted a survey of the Japanesepublic ranging from the age group of teens to 50s to find out the level of their interest in
and recognition of international NGOs in 2000 and 2002. The results show that thepercentage of respondents who recognizes the term NGO went up to 90.6 % in the 2002

survey from 54.1 % in the 2000 survey. However, what is more revealing is that thosewho ‘trust NGOs’ went down to 27.8 % in 2002 from 33.3 % in 2000. In fact, negative
stories about nonprofit organizations are covered more in the mass media recently.
Because NGOs are still not very well known to the public, a scandal of an NGO seems toworsen the image of the whole sector (SPA, November 6, 2003).
NGOs and policy work, advocacy and campaign
Thus far, we have described Japanese NGOs as immature ‘policy entrepreneurs’.
Nonetheless, some NGOs and NGO networks have begun to be fairly active in policy
work, advocacy and campaigns. According to Reimann, there are at least three distinct
types of organizations of advocacy NGOs mainly engaged in global environmental issues
and sustainable development. A first type includes organizations that were founded prior
to the 1980s with a primary focus on domestic issues and that started to become more
active in global environmental issues in the 1990s (Reimann 2002:14). A second typeincludes professional advocacy groups, most of which were set up in the late 1980s and1990s, such as the Japan Tropical Forest Earth (CASA), Friends of the Earth Japan (FoE
Japan) and Greenpeace Japan (Ibid: 14). In fact, this second group is actively involved inpolicymaking and some campaigns and advocacy work have been quite effective andsuccessful. A third type consists mainly of international development NGOs that haveactively participated in advocacy campaigns in addition to their service delivery
functions(Ibid: 14). Below are two cases in which NGOs successfully worked as
professional advocacy groups. One was effectively involved in the creation ofenvironmental guidelines for an ODA agency and the other worked with a company todevelop an environmentally sound line of refrigerators.
Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) was established in October 1999
by combining the Japan Export Import Bank and the Overseas Economic Corporation
Fund. When the Bank was established, JBIC had two different guidelines, one for theInternational Finance Operations and the other for the Overseas Economic Corporation
Operations. JBIC, thus, made a plan to establish new and integrated environmental
guidelines to be applied to both operations. In the process, JBIC were careful aboutkeeping the procedure and discussions as open, inclusive and transparent as possible.
As soon as JBIC announced its plan to integrate the two guidelines to make newones, a study group on environmental guidelines for JBIC was formed in October 2000 to
discuss the contents of new and integrated guidelines based on which they would makerecommendations to JBIC. The study group was composed of NGO activists, aparliamentarian, government officials from the Ministries of Environment, Foreign Affairs
and Finance, and staff members of JBIC. After intensive discussions were held at 16

meetings between October 6, 2000 and July 25, 2001, the study group made its
recommendations which contributed to the making of the environmental guidelines for
JBIC (www.sg-egl-jbic.org/topE.htm). Representatives from FoE Japan with a few otherNGOs participated in the study group. FoE Japan in particular took the initiative toshare the study group discussions with wider civil society organizations by disseminating
information through internet, holding meetings and other means, and try to reflect viewsof a wider part of society into the guidelines (www.foejapan.org). Not only inparticipating in the study group, FoE Japan and some other NGOs were very active inbringing attentions of many people from different backgrounds to the guidelines to makethe whole procedure more open and transparent.
Taking these recommendations into account, JBIC also invited comments from thegeneral public for two months and held consultation forums six times from December
2001 to March 2002 to exchange views with participants who represented a broad
spectrum of civil society (www.jbic.go.jp). Finally, JBIC issued ‘Japan Bank forInternational Cooperation Guidelines for Confirmation of Environmental and Social
Considerations on April 1, 2002. It also issued the ‘Procedures to Submit Objections
Concerning Japan Bank for International Cooperation Guidelines for Confirmation ofEnvironmental and Social Consideration’ after receiving many inputs from the public,
NGOs, industry and academia (www.jbic.go.jp).
The main features of the new guidelines include ‘promotion of community participationand emphasis on dialogue,’ ‘environmental and social considerations,’ and ‘active
information disclosure.’ The guidelines are significant in that 1) its creation was carriedout in an open and transparent manner and thus reflected views of a wider public; 2) they
were made as a result of effective collaboration among NGOs, academia and government
officials; and 3) the objection procedures were drawn up a year later by the strong
recommendation of NGOs. The guidelines were implemented on October 1, 2003.
Another case is a successful ‘Greenfreeze’ campaign by Greenpeace Japan.
‘Greenfreeze’ are refrigerators with use of no chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) or CFC
alternatives. When natural fluid (HC) refrigerators were developed in Europe in 1992,
Greenpeace which wanted to make this technology available in Japan initiated a largescale promotion (Matsushita 2003).
HC refrigerators contain no CFC orhydrofluorocarbon (HFC) that damage the ozone layer and thus promote global warming.
In the campaign, Greenpeace organized a series of seminars for corporate members, andworking directly with parliamentarian to stop using CFC (www.greenpeace.or.jp).
In 1999, a leading manufacturer, Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. announced
that it developed HC refrigerators in Germany. It followed that Greenpeace Japanstrongly urged Matsushita to produce Greenfreeze in Japan. After having repeateddialogues with Greenpeace Japan, some of which are quite confrontational, andovercoming the technical and legal difficulties that had hampered the start of HC
refrigerators in Japan, Matsushita succeeded in developing them in Japan. Matsushita
then encouraged other manufacturers in the industry to follow. Going to an electric
appliance shop today, we will see HC refrigerators produced by leading manufacturers,
including Matsushita, which attract many consumers who are concerned about global
warming.
Advocacy and policy work of international development NGOs
We have other cases where Japanese international development NGOs that actively
participated in advocacy campaigns in addition to their service delivery functions. It isquite natural that NGOs begin to expand their activities to include policy work when theyreach a certain stage of their organizational development. Japan International Volunteer
Center (JVC) is one of the oldest international development NGOs in Japan that has longstressed its research and advocacy function. JVC’s president, together with some NGOs,
legal professionals and researchers, founded the People’s Forum on Cambodia, Japan(PEFOCJ) in 1993. PEFOCJ works closely with local NGOs and grassroots
organizations in Cambodia, conducts research and carries out advocacy for policy change
concerning issues faced by Cambodian people (Kuroda 2003). Their research ability ishighly valued by peer NGOs, researchers and donor community. World Vision Japan,
one of the biggest NGOs in Japan, established an advocacy division under the auspices of
the country director’s office a few years ago. JOICFP, another leading I-NGO in Japan,
advocates on the issues of population and sexual and reproductive health, and takes
extensive and various approaches to promote its advocacy activities to raise awareness on
population and SRH issues and mobilize resources for this line of work(www.joicfp.or.jp). It is linked with other like-minded international organizations’advocacy work to have greater impact. One of the sector-based networks formed inrecent years with the assistance of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan NGO Network
for Education (JNNE), is active in putting pressure on government offices andinternational organizations for a better education cooperation policy, specifically an
increase of ODA channeled to primacy education. Another network of NGOs working
on the issue of rehabilitation in the northeast region of Sri Lanka was launched this year.
As previously mentioned, there are other NGOs which have consultation meetings withrespective ODA agencies. These are only a few examples but shows that NGOs are
steadily expanding their activities to include policy and advocacy work.
The legitimacy question in Japan

It is a welcoming sign that NGOs acquire knowledge, expertise and skills to be involved inpolicy dialogue and formation. If they are successful, however, NGOs in Japan will soon
be faced with questions regarding their legitimacy. By trying to be influential andexercising their power over policy matters, NGOs inevitably will be scrutinized for theirrepresentation, expertise and support. Their accountability will be questioned not only
to their donors but also to the “downward” direction. Legitimacy needs to be established
as a pre-requisite for an NGO to make a difference in policy and laws. It will be achallenge for Japanese NGOs, especially those which will have a hard time securing
enough resources to be responsive to this set of questions.
We have mentioned at the outset that legitimacy of NGOs has not become an issue inJapan. Does it mean that hundreds of thousands of nonprofit organizations that exist inJapan today have not been challenged with the legitimacy question? Probably not, if weare asking the question from the standpoint of the recent discussion of NGO legitimacy in
the West. However, Japanese NGOs have been challenged with a different line ofquestioning with regard to their legitimacy – which has a lot to do with authority.
The Japanese word okami literally means ‘god,’ but in everyday usage it refers to thegovernment. As previously mentioned, the central government bureaucracy was thedecision-making authority that held jurisdiction over the public interest in Japan until
quite recently (Yoshida 1999). In addition, they were prime determinants of policies andthis was widely accepted by the general public (Takesada 1999). The people of Japan
entrusted okami or the state as supreme overlord in policy matters (Takesada 1999,
Kusumi 2002). When okami’s policy does not live up to the people’s expectation or
fulfill their needs, the people will lodge a protest against it but they will never negate theauthority of okami (Takesada 1999). After the 1990s, a series of scandals involving
bureaucrats have led many Japanese to conclude that Japan’s bureaucracy-centeredsociety had begun to malfunction (Kuroda 2000), okami still means much to many
people. There is a phrase, ‘okami no osumitsuki,’ meaning ‘guaranteed by the state assupreme overlord’. As mentioned, core laws to regulate nonprofits which existed before
1998 required approval and guidance from an authorizing agency for the establishment ofan organization. Thus, the authorizing agency was the one, and the only one, which can
put a legitimacy stamp to the nonprofit organization. Interestingly, such laws did nothave a clause that directs an organization to disclose information, unlike commercial laws.
In fact, the new ‘NPO law’ promulgated in 1998 was the first law which stipulated
information disclosure. It is as if saying that once the organization has the government
legitimacy stamp, it would be enough. Furthermore, there are still a lot of people who
feel that the organizations incorporated under the new NPO law have gained some‘approval’ from the state, although it is not the case with this new law, where theorganizations with proper paperwork can ‘register’ itself to become a nonprofit

corporation.
Another aspect of Japanese version of legitimacy is brand and history. An
organization with a long history have built certain ‘public trust’, ‘credibility’ and perhaps‘legitimacy’ as well, such as the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA), Rotary
Club, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, The Wild Bird Society of Japan, and Ashinaga which
provides orphans with scholarship support. Of course a brand name and history are apart of what counts in the legitimacy criteria proposed by Brown and Edwards & Zadek,
but they stand out as conspicuous characteristics that make Japanese organizations look‘legitimate.”

Conclusion
There is no question that NGOs, regardless of where they are located, need to take theissue of legitimacy seriously as it tries to influence policy and politics, and Japan is no
exception. There was a general election on November 9th, 2003 in Japan. One of thedebates that could tip the voters’mind between the ruling coalition parties and the
opposition parties was concerning the reform of Japan Highway Public Corporation. The
trend is to privatize quasi-governmental corporations that have been working as operatingarms of ministrial functions. Privatization of some of public corporations had been acontested issue for some time in Japan, including JHPC. Most public corporations also
known as ‘special corporations’ (tokushu hojin) are government-led corporations andhave a relatively long history of existence. They may have been given ‘legitimacy’ in theJapanese context described in the previous chapter. However, in recent years it has
become apparent that these corporations do not possess many of the characteristics
mentioned in the legitimacy criteria. For example, they lack transparency – they do nothave simple double-entry bookkeeping system and thus adequate financial statements.
To the surprise of many Japanese, most of local governments in Japan were notproducing a double-entry bookkeeping until quite recently due to the extraordinary
budgeting systems. Perhaps, it would be good for Japanese NGOs to take the lead andgive serious thoughts to the issue of legitimacy, as different models of legitimacy need to
be explored, replacing the old okami legitimacy mode.
A second point relates to the first one. The issue of legitimacy should be addressed
to not only international NGOs in Japan but to others. It should expand to include
hundreds of thousands of nonprofit corporations as well as others types of organizations
in different sectors. NGOs are in an adequate position to create a forum to bring together
representatives from NGOs, government offices, public-benefit corporations, universities,
and media to discuss the issue, which is important for the future of the society.

Third, NGOs should try harder to raise awareness among the general public of theissue of legitimacy. In order to hold organizations accountable and ask for legitimacy, thegeneral public should play a significant role. It is fair to say that lack of ‘noisy’ public
made hundreds of ‘fishy’ organizations intact in Japan. Highly-motivated and sociallyconscious public may ensure a good check and balance for the society. It is a challenge forNGOs to work with the wider public. However, NGOs need to strengthen their links
with the public as they try to work ‘in the mainstream.’ Or conversely, if they want to
upgrade themselves to become a mainstream actor, they ought to build greater
constituency in their own society. This is indeed a basis for representation, one of thecriteria for the legitimacy question.

References:
Borden, Jenny. 2003. Speech delivered at the Seminar series on Civil Society and Civil
Society Organization 1, “The Challenge for NGOs: Developing Connection Within
Their Community” on February 17, 2003, Tokyo (report by the CSO Network Japan
forthcoming)
Brown, L. David. 2001. ‘Civil Society Legitimacy: A Discussion Guide.’ In L.D. Brown(ed) Practice-Research Engagement and Civil Society in a Globalizing World.
Washington, D.C.: Civicus and the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations.
Clark, John. 2003a. Worlds Apart: Civil Society and the Battle for Ethical Globalization.
London: Earthscan. Chapter 8.
Clark, John. 2003b. “The age of protest: internet-based ‘dot-causes’ and the ‘antiglobalization’ movement” in J Clark (ed) Globalizing Civic Engagement: Civil Society
and Transnational Action. London: Earthscan.
Edwards, Michael. 1999a. Future Positive. London: Earthscan. Chapter 10.
Edwards, Michael. 1999b. ‘Legitimacy and values in NGOs and voluntary organizations:some sceptical thoughts’ in Lewis, David(ed), International Perspectives on Voluntary
Action: Reshaping the Third Sector. London: EARTHSCAN
Edwards, Michael. 2002. Keynote speech delivered at the Third US-Japan CSO Forum on
September 17,2002, Washington, D.C.
Edwards, Michael & Simon Zadek. 2003. Governing the provision of global public
Goods: The Role and Legitimacy of Nonstate Actors in I. Kaul, R. Conceicao. K.
Gloulven and R. Mendoza (eds), Providing Global Public Goods: Managing
Globalization. Oxford University Press USA.
Foster Plan. 2002. Press Release. July 18, 2002. The Survey of the public knowledge ofand interest in Japanese international NGOs conducted by Foster Plan.
Hudson, Alan. 2000. ‘Making the Connection: Legitimacy claims, legitimacy chains andnorthern NGOs’ international advocacy’ in D. Lewis & T.Wallace (eds), New Roles
and Relevance: Development NGOs and the Challenge of Change. Bloomfield:
Kumarian Press.
Institute of Social and Ethical AccountAbility. (2001). Accountability Quarterly 15 1st
Quarter 2001.
JANIC (Japan NGO Center for International Co-oepration) 2002. Kokusai Kyoryoku
Dairekutori 2002 (2002 Directory of Japanese NGOs Concerned with International

Co-operation), Tokyo: JANIC.
Japan Bank for International Cooperation (2002). Environmental Report 2002. Tokyo.
Kawashima, Nobuko (2000). ‘The emerging non-profit sector in Japan: recent change andprospects’, Global Economic Review (Seoul: The Institute of East and West Studies,
Yonsei University) 29 (4): 89-105.
Korten, David C. 1990. Getting to the 21st Century: Voluntary Action and the Global
Agenda. West Hartford: Kumarian Press.
Kuroda, Kaori. 2000. New roles of nonprofit organizations and partnership withgovernment and/or business’, Global Economic Review (Seoul: The Institute of Eastand West Studies, Yonsei University) 29 (4): 73-88.
Kuroda, Kaori. 2003. ‘Japan-based non-governmental organizations in pursuit of humansecurity’ in Japan’s Pursuit of a Human Security Agenda by Japan Forum Volume 15
No.2. for the British Association for Japanese Studies. Oxford: Routledge Journals,
Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Kuroda, Kaori & Katsuji Imata (2002). Shifting Paradigms for International NGOs andConstituency Building – Evolving Scene from Japan. Paper presented to ARNOVAAnnual Conference. November 14-16 2002, Montreal, Canada.
Lewis, David. 2001. ‘International development NGOs: Policy conflict and convergence’in M. Harris & C. Rochester (eds), Voluntary Organizations and Social Policy in
Britain: Perspectives on Change and Choice. New York: Palgrave.
Lindenberg, Marc and Coralie Bryant. 2001. Going Global - - Transforming Relief andDevelopment NGOs. Connecticut: Kumarian Press.
Marimo, Osami 1995. ‘Consumers of the world unite’, Look Japan March: 8-10.
Matsushita Electric Group. Sustainability Report 2003.
Orr, Jr. Robert M. 1993. ‘Coming of age as No. 1 donor.’ Japan Views Quarterly. Spring.
Reimann, Kim DoHyang. 2002. Global citizens in a borderless world? states,international politics, and the delayed appearance of environment advocacy NGOs in
Japan. Civil Society in the Asia-Pacific. Monograph Series. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University, Program on U.S. – Japan Relations.
Reimann, Kim with Richard Forrest. 2002. Connecting Global and Local Societal
Activism: International Politics, NGOs and the Environmental Movement in Japan.
Paper presented at the 43th Annual Conference of the International Studies
Association (ISA), March 24-27.
Silk, Thomas (ed.) 1999. Philanthropy and Law in Asia, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
SPA! Business, Culture and Entertainment Weekly. November 4, 2003???
Wanner, Barbara 1998. Japan’s Growing Nonprofit Sector Responds to Government
Shortfalls, New York:Japan Economic Institute, JEI Report 21 (5 June). See
HYPERLINK "http://www.jei.org/Archive/JEIR98/9821" www.jei.org/Archive/JEIR98/9821.
Newspapers and Wire Services:
Asahi Shimbun, August 6, 2002
Sankei Shimbun, February 8, 2002.
Websites
HYPERLINK "http://www.greenpeace.or.jp" www.greenpeace.or.jp
HYPERLINK "http://www.discovery.panasonic.co.jp" www.discovery.panasonic.co.jp
HYPERLINK "http://www.foejapan.org" www.foejapan.org
HYPERLINK "http://www.greepeace.or.jp" www.greepeace.or.jp
HYPERLINK "http://www.jbic.go.jp" www.jbic.go.jp
HYPERLINK "http://www.joicfp.or.jp" www.joicfp.or.jp
HYPERLINK "http://www.matsushita.co.jp" www.matsushita.co.jp
HYPERLINK "http://www.sg-egl.jbic.org" www.sg-egl.jbic.org

PAGE
PAGE 15