“A Grassroots Conservative Case Against Turning Japan into a Nation of Immigrants – Ordinary Japanese Do Not Want 'Globalization’”
The piece, printed in three-column format from pages 64 to 71, was written by Professor Se Teruhisa of Kyushu University.
[Preface omitted]
Globalization Brings Hardship to the Common People
It is true that globalization has brought some degree of convenience to daily life in developed nations.
However, it has also generated a host of serious social problems: widening economic disparities, dysfunctional democracies, and divided national consciousness.
These problems were not incidental—they are the inevitable result of globalization.
As globalization advances, it excessively enhances the political influence of global investors and corporations who can freely move capital across borders.
As a result, the will of global investors and corporate actors comes to dominate national politics more than the will of ordinary citizens.
Why? Because global investors and corporations can now threaten governments: unless they create a more business-friendly environment, capital will flee elsewhere.
They can demand, for instance, “Reform labor laws to allow easier hiring of non-regular workers so we can lower labor costs. If not, we’ll relocate production—or you must cut corporate tax rates, or we’ll stop investing in your country.”
Since globalization, many such policies and systems have been implemented in response to the demands of these global actors, leading to economic and political injustice in many nations.
Economically, the rich benefited, while the common people were left behind, deepening inequality.
Politically, democracy faltered.
The voices of ordinary people became harder to reach their governments compared to those of global investors and corporate executives.
Tensions grew between those who benefit from globalization and the rest of the population.
This, in turn, fractured national unity.
The rise in large-scale immigration in developed countries also stems from the increased political clout of global investors and corporations.
They favor mass inflows of foreign labor and immigrants because it reduces labor costs and makes for a more business-friendly environment.
They don’t concern themselves with the burdens imposed on local citizens.
More immigrants mean worsening conditions for the public.
Wages stagnate, employment becomes unstable, and the social burdens on welfare and education systems grow heavier.
According to labor economist George Borjas, a 10% increase in immigration into a specific labor group leads to a 3% decline in wages.
Massive income transfers occur from workers to corporations and their owners (see The Political Economy of Immigration, Hakusuisha, 2017).
The ordinary population is pushed further into poverty.
To be continued.
The “Xenophobe” Label
Policies pushing globalization and mass immigration are fundamentally unjust and detrimental to the average citizen.
And yet, criticism of globalization and the transformation into immigration states rarely gains traction.
One major reason—at least in Japan—is that anyone critical of globalization or immigration is immediately labeled a “xenophobe,” “isolationist,” or “far-right.”
Ordinary people, fearing these labels, stay silent.
Recently, even U.S. President Joe Biden engaged in such labeling.
In early May of this year, he remarked that unlike the U.S., Japan doesn’t accept many immigrants, making it, like Russia and China, a “xenophobic country.”
Even criticizing the globalist route now risks such condemnation.
In fact, David Atkinson, a prominent advisor during the Suga administration, posted the following response on his personal X (formerly Twitter) account to critics of globalization:
“If you oppose globalization, then stop using beer, electricity, Western-style rooms, cars, TVs, PCs, subways, trains, democracy, beds, airplanes, Western medicine, etc.! These are all products of globalization. Think before you speak carelessly.” (October 3, 2023)
As this illustrates, anyone voicing skepticism about globalization or mass immigration is immediately branded a “xenophobe” or “far-right.”
This happens because people fail to recognize that there are alternative worldviews to globalization—alternative ways of structuring international relations.
Those who reject globalization are wrongly assumed to reject all interaction with foreigners and foreign countries.
They are treated like dangerous radicals.
But opposing globalization or mass immigration does not make one a xenophobe or right-wing extremist.
There are many ways to engage positively with other nations and peoples that do not require removing national borders.
For example: “Let’s maintain our borders, acknowledge and respect differences in systems and cultures, learn from each other’s strengths, and selectively adopt what benefits national development. Though each country may aim for different goals, we can strive to improve our own in our own ways.”
This form of engagement could be called “internationalization”—and should be clearly distinguished from globalization.
In recent years, I’ve come to strongly believe we should conceptually separate these two.
As noted earlier, globalization seeks to dismantle national borders and unify institutions, cultures, and customs in order to facilitate the global flow of people, goods, and capital.
By contrast, internationalization, as I use the term, does not consider the elimination of borders or national identity to be inherently good.
Rather, it recognizes and respects differences in institutions, cultures, and customs.
In other words, internationalization means maintaining national borders and identities while respectfully engaging with the traditions, cultures, and systems of other countries—and actively interacting while acknowledging mutual differences.
Isn’t it possible that what most Japanese people truly desire today is not “globalization,” but rather “internationalization”?
The Japanese Do Not Want Globalization
In my research lab, we created a questionnaire last December concerning the concepts of “globalization” and “internationalization.”
We commissioned a professional social research firm to conduct a nationwide survey of 300 Japanese men and women aged 18 to their 70s.
The gender and age distribution followed Japan’s national demographics.
Responses were also collected to avoid biases in occupation and education.
During the survey, we did not tell respondents which options corresponded to “globalization” or “internationalization” (though we explain this here for clarity).
Let me now share some of the survey questions and results.
The first question was: “Do you think active interaction with foreign countries and foreign people is important?”
87.7% (263 people) answered “I think so” or “I somewhat think so.”
Only 13.3% (37 people) answered “I don’t think so.”
This shows that a vast majority of Japanese people welcome interaction with foreign countries and foreigners.
The second question asked which type of interaction with foreigners they preferred:
① “Interaction that lowers the role of national borders, facilitates the active exchange of people and goods, and promotes the unification of systems, rules, cultures, and customs” (globalization-type)
② “Interaction that maintains national borders and acknowledges differences in systems, rules, cultures, and customs, while learning from each other’s strengths” (internationalization-type)
Only 16% (48 people) chose the first option, while 84% (252 people) chose the second.
Next, we asked about immigration and international aid.
“Which of the following do you think is a desirable form of international aid?”
① “Wealthy developed countries (Western nations and Japan) should help poor developing nations become more prosperous and stable through nation-building support” (internationalization-type)
② “Wealthy developed countries (Western nations and Japan) should accept people from poor developing countries to live and work in the developed world” (globalization-type)
The first choice assumes that people should ideally live in their own countries and emphasizes nation-building.
In this sense, it is internationalization-type aid.
The second choice promotes border opening and mobility, thus globalization-type.
The results: 76% (228 people) chose option ①, and 24% (72 people) chose option ②.
Again, the majority favored the internationalization model.
Incidentally, Italy’s female Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni implements an internationalization-type aid policy.
Though labeled “far-right” or “anti-globalist” by some, she takes a firm stance on immigration.
At the same time, she promotes the “Mattei Plan,” a large-scale aid initiative for North African countries.
She believes supporting nation-building in those countries is essential to prevent mass immigration.
Typically, opposing immigration invites accusations of being “inhumane” or “illiberal.”
But what is “humane” or “liberal” about exploiting the poor from developing nations and making them do low-wage labor that local citizens refuse?
Meloni’s policy—opposing mass immigration while proactively aiding migrant-sending countries—is far more humane and liberal.
National Borders Should Be Preserved
Let us return to the survey results.
We also asked about “multicultural coexistence.”
“As a realistic way of achieving cultural coexistence and mutual prosperity worldwide, which approach do you find more appropriate?”
① “A world where national borders and citizenship are maintained, and people enrich their own culture, traditions, and language while learning from others” (internationalization-type)
② “A world where national borders and citizenship distinctions are eliminated, and people of different cultures, traditions, languages, and religions live together in mixed communities” (globalization-type)
Results: 77% (232 people) chose option ①, and 23% (68 people) chose option ②.
Clearly, most people prefer a form of coexistence that preserves national borders.
We also asked about preferred economic policy:
“What basic direction should Japan’s economic policy take?”
Again, two options were presented:
① “Position Japan appropriately in the global market and make it attractive to investors and businesses” (globalization-type)
② “Prioritize the improvement and stability of Japanese citizens’ livelihoods, foster diverse domestic industries, and ensure various career options within the country” (internationalization-type)
Option ① aligns with Japan’s economic policy since the late 1990s.
Option ② focuses on enriching the national economy and the lives of ordinary citizens, even accepting the need for moderate tariffs if necessary.
Results: 27% (80 people) chose globalization-type ①, and 73% (220 people) chose internationalization-type ②.
We also asked about education:
“What kind of education do you believe is desirable today?”
The two choices and their results were:
① “Education that fosters individuals who think of themselves as ‘global citizens’ or ‘global human resources,’ contributing to the happiness of all humankind, without regard for national borders or identities” (globalization-type, 31%, 93 people)
② “Education that instills pride and responsibility in supporting one’s own country, while fostering affection for one’s culture and traditions, and respect for other countries’ cultures and traditions” (internationalization-type, 69%, 207 people)
Perhaps swayed by the fashionable appeal of terms like “global citizen” and “global talent,” more people chose the globalization model than in other questions.
Still, the internationalization model received more than double the support.
Aim for “Internationalization”
As previously discussed, since the mid-1990s, Japanese government policy has been rooted in neoliberalism and has pursued globalization.
These policies seek to eliminate borders wherever possible to facilitate the movement of people and capital.
However, what the majority of Japanese citizens truly desire is the “internationalization” model, which preserves national borders and emphasizes the role of the nation-state.
As the first survey question showed, most Japanese people value active engagement with foreign countries and people.
But those who have pushed for globalization have exploited this sentiment, using it to promote unjust “reforms” that most people do not actually support.
Ordinary Japanese people do wish for lively interaction with foreign countries and foreigners.
But they do not want the globalization model, which eliminates borders, creates excessive flows of people, goods, and capital, and seeks to unify rules, systems, cultures, and customs.
What they want is interaction based on internationalization—a model that recognizes the importance of nations, respects differences in rules, systems, cultures, and customs, and encourages mutual learning and engagement even if national development paths differ.
Let us summarize the argument.
An anti-immigration-state perspective, voiced by grassroots conservatives—ordinary Japanese people who wish to preserve culture and tradition—might go as follows:
The current globalization agenda based on neoliberalism is unjust.
It inevitably reflects the voices of global investors and corporations in politics more strongly than those of ordinary citizens.
This leads to the expansion of economic inequality, dividing people into “winners” and “losers.”
It is also anti-democratic, in that it disregards the voices of the people.
The push for large-scale immigration is likewise a result of the excessive influence that global investors and corporations wield in politics.
It does not benefit ordinary people—in fact, it often harms them.
To reverse the course of globalization and its manifestation in the form of immigration-state policies, we must fundamentally return to a pre-1980s international economic order—one that permits democratic national regulations on the cross-border movement of capital.
However, establishing such a system would require agreement among major powers, and it will take time.
In the meantime, what we can do now is to clearly distinguish between “globalization” and “internationalization,” and create a public discourse environment in which criticizing globalization or immigration policies is not immediately met with accusations of “xenophobia,” “far-right extremism,” or “isolationism.”
Only when we can say things like, “I oppose globalization but support internationalization,” or “I oppose mass immigration but fully support international exchange based on mutual cultural recognition,” can we begin to have realistic discussions about a desirable global order that reflects the values of ordinary people.
We must aim for a world in which not only the Japanese, but grassroots conservatives in all countries, can live with peace of mind.
