The following is from an article by Dr. Teruhisa Se, a professor at Kyushu University, which appeared in a three-page column from page 64 to 71 of WiLL, one of the world's leading monthly magazines, titled "Grassroots Conservatives Against Immigration, Ordinary Japanese Do Not Want 'Globalization'" on the 26th.
The following is an excerpt from pages 66 to 71.
This paper is also one of the most essential papers in the world today.
Preamble omitted.
Globalization Causing Suffering to the Common People
It is true that globalization has made life more convenient in some developed countries.
At the same time, however, it has also given rise to various social problems.
These include widening economic disparities, dysfunctional democracy, and fragmentation of national consciousness.
Globalization has inevitably caused these social problems.
The advance of globalization undoubtedly increases the political influence of global investors and corporations, which have the power to move capital across national borders.
It leads to a situation in which the will of global investors and corporate officials is reflected in the politics of each country more strongly than the will of the general public in each country.
It is because global investors and corporations are now able to pressure governments to prepare a business-friendly environment for them, or else they will move their capital elsewhere.
For example, they are told, "Make reforms to make it easier to hire non-regular workers so that labor costs can be lowered, or you will be forced to move production out of the country. Otherwise, they can demand that the production base be moved out of the country and that the tax system be reformed to lower corporate taxes, or they will no longer invest in your country.
Since globalization, many institutions and policies have been created in each country to meet the demands of global investors and corporations, resulting in economic and political injustice in each country's society.
Economically, the wealthy were advantaged while the ordinary people were disadvantaged, widening inequalities.
Politically, democracy became dysfunctional.
This is because governments are less likely to listen to the voices of the common people than those of global investors and business people.
The conflict between those who benefit from measures to promote globalization and those who do not has intensified.
It has also led to a division of national consciousness.
The influx of large-scale immigrants has been promoted in developed countries because the political influence of global investors and corporations has increased compared to that of the general public in each country.
Global investors and corporate officials desire a large influx of foreign workers and immigrants.
Foreign workers and immigrants lower labor costs and make it easier for global investors and corporations to do business.
They do not consider the cost to the ordinary people in their countries.
More immigration is not suitable for the commoner.
Wages will not rise, and employment will not be stable.
The social burden of welfare and education will also increase.
According to U.S. labor economist George Borjas, a 10% increase in immigrants in a given group of workers will cause wages to fall by about 3%.
Significant income transfers from workers to firms (investors and managers) would also occur (Hakusuisha, "The Political Economy of Immigration," 2017).
The general commoner will become poorer than before.
The "xenophobic" label
The measures to promote globalization and immigrant nations are unfair and cause many disadvantages to the general public in each country.
However, criticism of globalization and immigration has not gained much momentum.
One of the reasons for this may be that, at least in Japan, anyone who is critical of globalization and immigration is immediately labeled a "xenophobe," an "isolationist," or a "far-right" person.
Ordinary people are often reluctant to speak out to avoid the risk of being labeled as such.
Recently, even U.S. President Joe Biden has been subjected to such labeling.
In early May of this year, he said that Japan is a xenophobic nation like Russia and China because, unlike the United States, it does not accept large numbers of immigrants.
Criticism of Japan's globalization policy is also likely to be labeled as such.
In fact, David Atkinson, who became prominent as the brain behind the Yoshihide Kan administration, posted the following rebuttal on the white X (formerly Twitter) in response to those who criticized his globalization policy.
'If you are anti-globalism, don't use beer, electricity, Western rooms, cars, TVs, computers, subways, trains, democracy, beds, airplanes, Western medicine, etc., etc., etc.! All are the result of globalism. Refrain from making rash statements" (October 3, 2023).
Thus, when one expresses a negative view of globalization or large-scale immigration, they are immediately labeled as "xenophobic" or "far-right.
This is because the concept of a world order other than globalization, which seeks to eliminate national borders as much as possible, is not well recognized.
If one rejects globalization, one is misunderstood as rejecting all interaction with foreign countries and people.
They are treated as "bad guys."
It is not at all correct to say that those who reject globalization and large-scale immigration are "xenophobic" or "far-right.
There are many ways to actively interact with foreign countries and people, which is different from the globalization policy that seeks to eliminate borders as much as possible.
For example, "maintain borders as they are, while recognizing and respecting each other's institutional and cultural differences. At the same time, we should learn from each other's good points and, if necessary, incorporate them into the development of our own countries. The direction in which each country should aim for national development may differ. Still, each country will do its best to improve the other's." This type of exchange is called "internationalization."
This way of interaction should be called "internationalization" and clearly distinguished from "globalization.
In recent years, I have been thinking this way and argued that "globalization" and "internationalization" should be conceptually distinguished.
As mentioned above, globalization is an attempt to remove as many barriers as possible to national borders and standardize institutions, cultures, and customs to stimulate the cross-border movement of people, goods, and money.
On the other hand, "internationalization" means that removing national borders and nationalities is not considered a good thing but that differences in institutions, cultures, and customs should be mutually respected.
In other words, internationalization is "the phenomenon of maintaining national borders and nationalities while respecting each country's traditions, culture, and institutions, and actively interacting with each other while acknowledging mutual differences, and the idea that this should be done.
In fact, many Japanese people today may be more interested in "internationalization" than "globalization."
They do not want globalization.
Last December, my laboratory created a questionnaire on "globalization" and "internationalization.
We commissioned a social research company to survey 300 adult men and women in their 18s to 70s throughout Japan.
The composition of the Japanese population is determined by gender and age.
Occupations and educational backgrounds were also collected without bias.
During the survey, we did not indicate to respondents which option was the "globalization" type or the "internationalization" type, respectively (for the sake of clarity for readers, we will note this in this paper).
Here are some of the questions and answers.
The first question was, "Do you think having active exchanges with foreign countries and people is important?" 87.7% (263 respondents) answered "Yes" or "Somewhat agree.
Only 13.3% (37 respondents) answered "disagree.
Most Japanese people welcome interaction with foreign countries and people from other countries.
The second question asked which "ways of interacting with foreign countries and people" were closest to how they would prefer to interact.
The choices were as follows.
(1) "Exchange in which the role of national borders is reduced as much as possible, creating a state in which people and goods are actively exchanged, and various systems, rules, cultures, and customs are made common" (globalization type)
(2) "Exchanges that maintain national borders and learn from each other's good points while assuming various differences in systems, rules, cultures, and customs between one's own country and those of other countries" (internationalization type).
The results showed that only 16% (48 respondents) chose the former, while the remaining 84% (252 respondents) chose the latter.
Next, we asked about immigration and international aid.
［Which of the following describes your preferred form of international assistance?] The question was, "Which of the following is closer to your idea of what international aid should be? The choices were as follows.
(1) "Rich developed countries (Western countries and Japan) help poor developing countries build their countries so that people in poor developing countries can make their countries more prosperous and stable" (internationalization type)
(2) "Rich developed countries (Western countries and Japan) accept people from poor developing countries into their countries so that they can work and live there (developed countries)" (globalization type).
The former type emphasizes nation-building based on the premise that people are better off living in their own countries.
In this sense, it is an "internationalization" type of assistance.
The second type is "globalization" because it is quicker, opens borders, and encourages mobility.
The results show that 76% (228 respondents) chose (1) the "internationalization" type, and 24% (72 respondents) the "globalization" type.
As expected, many respondents chose the "internationalization" type.
Incidentally, Italy's female prime minister, Ms. Meloni, has been practicing the "internationalization" type of aid policy.
She is a politician who is called "far-right" and "anti-cloverist" by some and has an uncompromising attitude toward immigration.
On the other hand, she also promotes the "Matti Plan," a massive aid package for North African countries. She believes that nation-building assistance to these countries is necessary to prevent a huge influx of immigrants.
Generally speaking, opposition to immigration is often accused of being "inhumane" and "illiberal.
But how is it "humane" or "liberal" to take advantage of the weakness of poor people and force them to come to their own country to work in low-wage jobs that white people do not want to do?
The policy of Prime Minister Meloni, who opposes large-scale immigration while actively providing national development assistance to countries that send immigrants, can be said to be humane and liberal.
This article continues.
2024/6/26 in Osaka
