Japanese Journal of Sociology最新文献

The economic integration of immigrants is a salient social issue in Japan. Although the US immigration literature has stressed the importance of host-country-specific human capital over country-of-origin human capital for immigrants, previous studies in Japan have shown mixed results about the effects of these two types of human capital on the economic integration of immigrants. The mixed results might be because previous studies focused on only specific immigrant groups (with regard to nationalities, cities, and visa status), human capital variables, and dimensions of economic achievements in the Japanese labor market. The segmented nature of the Japanese labor market structure and immigration policies create different pathways to “economic achievements” of immigrants depending on the dimension of “economic achievements” studied. By conducting a nationally representative social survey of Japanese immigrants, we examined the association between the two types of human capital (i.e., country-of-origin and host-country-specific) and the three indicators of labor market success: employment status and firm size, occupational status, and income. Our results indicate that host-country-specific human capital in the form of higher education and language proficiency is important for all three indicators of economic achievement in Japan, while country-of-origin human capital in the form of higher education and vocational skills is transferable to some extent. Our results suggest that the significance of human capital in immigrants' economic success is determined not only by the structure of the labor market but also by immigration policies.

The 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake was a disaster that led to the greatest number of casualties related to any form of natural disaster seen in developed countries since World War II. Furthermore, this earthquake occurred in an area where tsunami countermeasures had been prioritized. This disaster, therefore, led to the question “Is it impossible to reduce the number of victims of huge catastrophes, even in cases in which advanced disaster prevention measures have been taken?” Part of the reason this particular earthquake caused the largest number of deaths was because the tsunami that followed—which exceeded the “design load” of the seawall—hit the urban area. In addition, the tsunami, which also exceeded the “estimated loads” of the established disaster prevention plan, caused many “evacuation failures.” Another factor that contributed to the deaths was that the disaster prevention measures, up to that point, had relied primarily on the recognition that disasters could be prevented by the development of “hard,” or tangible, disaster prevention facilities in addition to “soft,” or intangible, measures, such as issuing warnings, without imposing space restrictions. Another characteristic of the Great East Japan Earthquake was that the largest reconstruction budget associated with any disaster in postwar Japan was compiled for it. Although the reconstruction project was over-specified for the disaster-afflicted area in terms of scale, cost, and duration of reconstruction, many unused land areas were also created in the new urban areas created during the reconstruction project. Furthermore, the reconstruction projects undertaken with the huge reconstruction budget were not based on the “choice to rebuild the lives” of the disaster-afflicted areas and the victims, but were rather implemented while simultaneously “marginalizing” said victims and areas as a whole. The over-specified reconstruction projects and the associated marginalization of disaster victims tend to exist in a mutually regulated relationship. Therefore, there are concerns about the future sustainability of the noted disaster-afflicted areas, which are already suffering from a severe population decline. Based on the previously presented discussion, it is possible to highlight various issues associated with disaster measures implemented in developed countries. First, regardless of how advanced disaster measures are, a “surge in disaster damage” can occur, which can lead to a “black swan” event. Therefore, it is necessary to formulate disaster prevention measures based on the assumption that such crises will occur in the future. Second, it is necessary for developed countries to determine how best to formulate reconstruction policies to avoid marginalizing disaster victims as well as to prevent over-specified reconstruction. In examining these two issues, the common problem that arises is how to conduct “risk assessment and enable its acceptance” most calmly immediat

Since the Great East Japan Earthquake in March 2011 and the nuclear power plant accident, a number of movements have emerged in Japanese society, including the anti-nuclear power movement and others with a variety of agendas. The social movements of the 2010s in Japan have expanded along with the spread of social networking services and have brought together a new class of people who are different from those of the established movements. This article will compare and examine the social movements of the 2010s with those of the past, as well as the function they played in the social structure. In the early 2020s, a structural crisis in the political and economic foundations of postwar Japan has become apparent. The Japanese social movements of the 2010s were movements that pressed for the transformation of the old social system as well as the transformation of the old anti-system movements. Thus, this movement had the distinction of prefiguring a fundamental shift in the confrontational frame of reference between conservatism and progressivism that had shaped postwar Japan. This article will discuss the historical significance of the Japanese social movements of the 2010s in light of the structural factors behind the decline of the social base of both conservative and progressive forces.

This article revisits the concept of reconstruction in light of the Fukushima nuclear accident on March 11, 2011. It also offers an analysis of the reconstruction policy launched by the Japanese authorities in the context of the risk due to low-dose radiation. What does reconstruction mean after this nuclear disaster? What kind of reconstruction is considered possible in the contaminated territories by those affected by this disaster and confronted with this long-term health and environmental risk? To answer these questions, this article first examines the concept of reconstruction—very close to that of resilience in the Japanese context—which has sparked a controversy within the social sciences, at both national and international level. Second, based on more than 100 interviews conducted between 2013 and 2016 across the entire Nippon archipelago, this article analyzes the reconstruction policy's socio-cultural consequences on the victims of this disaster who leave, stay or return to the contaminated territories. Finally, it proposes a new approach to the reconstruction of Fukushima, one which would support the process of resilience at the individual and collective levels.