The Politics of Foreign Labor Policy in Korea and Japan

Notes from The Politics of Foreign Labor Policy in Korea and Japan by Yong Wook Lee and Hyemee Pari. Published in Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 35, 2005.

1. Sourth Korea (Korea) was traditionally a non-immigration country.

2. As Korea grew into a more developed economy, small and medium sized companies began to make more use of unskilled laborers from other countries. Rights abuses became widespread. In particular this was prevalent among illegal foreign workers.

3. Quote: "In this context, on July 31,2003, the National Assembly of Korea passed one of the fairly advanced pro-foreign workers legislation currently practiced in the world, the "Employment of Foreign Workers Act (EFWA)," which called for an introduction of a "work permit system." This made Korea the third country in Asia, after Singapore and Taiwan, that adopted the EFWA, in which foreign workers are entitled to bonus allowance, retirement pay and the three basic labor rights of unionizing, collective bargaining and collective action."

4. This is in stark contrast to Japan, in which discussion of the EFWA has never even been debated in the Diet.

5. Why was the bill successful in Korea, but not Japan?

6. Both Korea and Japan share many similarities. "Both countries have a tradition of the so-called "strong states" relatively independent from social pressures in determining policy outcomes. Self-understandings of nationhood of both countries have been historically ethno-cultural and differentialist as ethnically homogeneous countries, which are identified as important variables for state policies toward immigrants. In addition, both countries have identified social and cultural homogeneity embedded in their society as one of the elements that contributed to their postwar economic successes."

7. The article contends that limited state action is the reason the EFWA has not been successful. "we attribute the success to the more extensive, organized pro-foreign workers coalition of state actors and human rights activists over the course of actions. When this observation is applied to Japan, the absence of an active role of the state accounts for Japan's relative silence on the EFWA."

8. Although the EFWA as accepted in Korea gives many rights to foreign workers, it still only allows them into the country for a limited time. It does not grant them permission to bring in their families. However, it goes soft on illegal workers, granting some amnesty and others very soft penalties. However, it tries to insure that workers will not stay for prolonged periods.

9. Since the second half of the 1980s, Japan and Korea became a significant destination for immigrants from many developing countries in Asia and Latin America. Both governments were under pressure to solve the numerous infringements on human rights that these migrations brought about. "At the center of this problem was the increasing number of illegal foreign workers. They are not permissible legally to do unskilled works but are economically significant because of their willingness to do the kinds of jobs that few Japanese or Koreans are interested in doing." As they are not technically legal, they suffer from human rights violations. It is no longer just an issue of controlling immigration but solving the numerous problems that have come about by the already uncontrolled migrations.

10. Japan responded before Korea by passing a new set of immigrations procedures in 1989, that came into effect in 1990. These new procedures were defined in the revised Immigration Control Act. Supposedly this act gave rights to foreign workers, however, Japan still maintained a policy of attempting to keep out unskilled laborers which were desperately wanted by small and mid-sized businesses.

11. Quote: "However, in a situation where a demand for labor in Japan was great and a vast supply of labor in developing Asian countries existed, it was inevitable for unskilled foreign workers to come to Japan to find work. In order to curb employment of illegal foreign workers, the government made two channels available for de facto unskilled labor migration. One was the trainee system in the name of the Technical Internship Program; the other was the recruitment of Nikkeijin (descendants of Japanese emigrants), giving access to residential status with no restriction on employment. " [Here it is taken for granted that the Technical Internship Program was a means to allow unskilled labor into Japan.]

12. Japan revised the act again in 1997 and 1999, but still has not succeeded in stemming the tide of illegal immigrants.

13. Article notes that early on Korea's policy towards immigrants was very similar, even as far as trainee programs went: "Based on the Japanese model of the "Industrial and Technical Training Program for Foreigners," the Korean government introduced the "Industrial Technical Trainee Program (ITTP)" as a side door to bring in (unskilled) foreign workers." By 2001, the program eventually had 100,000 participants. The program was problematic in that workers were not granted many rights that Koreans would have had. It also did not alleviate the need for unskilled laborers or help the illegal immigration problem. Not only this but the program unintentionally encouraged illegal immigration as trainees often stayed on as workers (often at different companies).

14. Illegals were treated poorly by employers, who threatened them with deportation if they complained.

15. A very long portion of the journal deals with the politics behind getting the EFWA passed in Korea. (At a later date I might try to make notes of some of this, because a lot of it might offer useful lessons for those who wish to create similar change in Japan.)

16. Quote: "Although it is difficult in this article to convey the full-blown comparison between Japan and Korea, one striking difference between the two countries is found in state actors' responses to international migration flows. In contrast to Korea, Japanese state actors showed far less effort at pushing for rights and integration of foreign workers into Japanese society. Unlike its Korean counterpart, for example, Japan's Ministry of Labor (one of the two principal authorities in charge of immigration along with the Ministry of Justice that has taken the hardest anti-immigration line) was fundamentally suspicious of the integration of unskilled foreign workers. Despite the fact that foreign workers (both skilled and unskilled) have already been deeply embedded in the Japanese economy, the Ministry of Labor has argued that "the admission of unskilled immigrant workers could lead to an avalanche of foreigners, who, in turn, would undermine Japan's labor market and social cohesion." As such, from the Ministry of Labor's point of view, the integration of foreign workers in general and unskilled foreign workers in particular could not be seen either as a legitimate response or as a permanent solution to Japan's labor shortages."

17. Quote: "The role of Japanese state actors as a countervailing force is also observed in the differences between national and local governments' responses to foreigners in Japan. While local governments tend to make steady efforts in constructing a policy of accommodation in response to the realities of Japan's de facto emergence as a destination of international migration flows, Japan's national government continues to be strongly anti-immigrant. It warns against Japan's reliance on foreign workers for its labor shortages and encourages employers to offset labor shortages by improving efficiency and using labor-saving production techniques to the fullest."

Comment: I have to review the article more closely, but I'm not convinced of their conclusions. After all who influences the state in these matters? I do think a lot of the background information presented in this article is useful though.