This chapter first describes the functioning of the long-standing Technical Intern Training Programme, the only migration channel through which employers could hire migrants from abroad for low to medium skills trades jobs until 2019. The chapter then analyses the rollout of the Specified Skilled Worker Programme, the first labour migration channel designed to hire migrants of varying skill levels in specific industries. The chapter studies the links between the two channels as well as their current limitations. It then suggests a potential path forward in low to medium skill labour migration to Japan.
Recruiting Immigrant Workers: Japan 2024
Recruiting Immigrant Workers
6. Transforming and linking the training and skills based labour migration streams
Abstract
Jobs which do not require advanced degrees or years of specialist training and which are not highly remunerated are often treated by OECD countries with caution when considering labour migration. Concerns over competition with residents, productivity, and vulnerability of workers mean that such programmes are more tightly regulated than those for highly skilled, highly educated and highly remunerated workers. Historically, Japan has tightly regulated migration for employment in these jobs, and firms have gradually made use of the Technical Intern Training Programme. This rotational programme satisfied immediate labour needs but was difficult to reconcile with the Japanese employment model for employment in jobs not requiring tertiary education. Within blue‑collar work in Japan in general, there has traditionally been an opportunity for competent workers to rise to lower-level managerial positions and even higher within the firm, and workers are seen as potential long-term assets. However, TITP, with its limited duration, did not allow participants or firms to see this as a path. Firms had no reason to perceive foreign trainees as potential long-term staff.
The introduction of the SSWP in 2019 created a longer-term programme specifically designed for employment of foreigners in non-professional employment. The initial introduction of SSWP did not provide a clear pathway to long-term professional development, since the five‑year limit on SSW(i) discouraged firms from considering the programme as a means to secure long-term workforce. In 2023, when prospects for transition to SSW(ii) became clearer, firms could begin to think of foreign workers as potentially long-term members of their staff.
The interaction of the TITP with the SSWP has been essential for the launch and expansion of the latter. Japan now faces the question of how to ensure that the programmes for non-professional and lower skilled employment interact successfully and coherently, to meet both immediate and short-term labour needs and to provide a possible pathway to longer stay and professional development. This chapter presents and analyses the current programmes and identifies elements and approaches which can serve to support a coherent system in the future.
The Technical Intern Training Programme evolved into a large scheme
The TITP began as a typical industrial trainee programme
As noted in Chapter 4, the TITP has a long history. Japan started inviting trainees from developing countries in 1954 through the Japan International Co‑operation Agency (JICA), an affiliated organisation under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) (MOFA, 1994[1]), which provided training to government officials in developing countries. Japanese enterprises could also conduct co‑operation activities related to their activities, with trainees drawn from subsidiaries in developing countries. SMEs had less access to this system, as they did not have subsidiaries abroad. Since only firms with an overseas presence were allowed to bring trainees, numbers were small through the 1980s.
Since 1990, repeated TITP reform has providing more rights and protection for trainees, while expanding the scope of the programme and facilitating its use
The Immigration Control Act (ICA) was amended in 1990 to establish a residence status of “trainee” (Murakami, 2007[2]). Up until this point, trainees were only employed on a traineeship contract of an “individual enterprise type”, so only firms with a presence abroad through subsidiaries could use this mechanism. The change introduced the possibility to be employed through a “supervising organisation” even if the firm had no presence or activity abroad. This amendment vastly expanded use of the programme by making it simpler for firms to include trainees. Japanese firms which had labour shortages realised that the trainee programme could supply staff to fill positions. The number of trainees rose sharply. Since then, almost all trainees have been employed through supervisory organisations. At the end of 2016, only 3.6% of acceptances were of the individual enterprise type while the remainder (96.4%) were supervising organisation type.1 In 2022 about 3.5% of acceptances were individual enterprise type.
The Japan International Training Co‑operation Organisation (JITCO), an intermediary agency established in 1991, became the main intermediary during the 1990s. JITCO could supervise trainees from countries with which agreements were concluded. By 2000, these included China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Mongolia, Peru, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Uzbekistan and Viet Nam. The agreements covered exchange of information on trainees and on sending organisations. JITCO dominated the TITP, although some trainees continued to arrive outside of JITCO.
Initially, trainees who passed specific skill tests after a one‑year period of training became Technical Intern Trainees, a “designated activities” category and covered by labour law (minimum wage and other standards). In principle, Technical Intern Trainees could also supervise other trainees. The scale of TITP was expanded in 1997 when the maximum stay was extended from two to three years and the number of eligible occupations increased from 17 to 71, allowing far more firms to participate and workers to stay longer. Starting in 2009, all years of a trainee’s activity have been covered by labour law, ensuring that minimum wage is applied along with other standard labour rights.
The next major shift occurred in the mid‑2010s, with the creation of a public body responsible for overseeing training plans and implementing organisations. The Organization for Technical Intern Training (OTIT) meant that JITCO saw its role diminish to become a supervising organisation among the others. OTIT became active from 2017. At the same time, a two‑year extension of TITP was introduced, TIT(iii), allowing trainees in certain occupations to remain for a total of five years.
The only limits on trainees are a firm-level ceiling and an occupation list
Since the TITP is based on training rather than employment, firms did not have to satisfy any of the usual criteria for authorisation of recruitment from abroad: a labour market test, a shortage list or a numerical cap (Box 6.1). TITP did not include any assessment of the availability of local workers to perform these jobs (“labour market test”); indeed, there is no labour market testing for any employment-based status of residence. There are two forms of restriction on the use of foreign trainees. The first is the 5% ceiling on the number of trainees in firms relative to total full-time employment. In 2017, the ceiling was raised to 10% for implementing organisations considered “excellent”, depending on size, or even higher for certain enterprises. The higher ceiling also contributed to the increase in trainees just prior to the pandemic.
The second restriction is on the occupations which can be performed by trainees. Trainees are allowed to work in specific occupations and sectors. The list has grown over the years from the original 17 and now includes 165 jobs in 90 sectors.
Employers meeting the firm-level quota and the occupation requirements of TITP can be sure to recruit trainees, as long as the supervising organisation follows the proper administrative procedures. The visa application for TITP workers is complex and processing is long – between three and seven months – but visa applications are rarely refused.
Box 6.1. Mechanisms to safeguard the domestic labour market in the OECD and Japan
Labour market tests
In most countries, admission and authorisation of employment, especially for lower-skilled occupations is subject to one or more forms of review of the demand to ensure that there are no negative effects on the labour market for residents. The employer must either demonstrate that the position cannot be filled (labour market test, or LMT), or a decision is taken at the government level that certain occupations are allowed to be offered for recruitment of workers from abroad (shortage occupation list, or SOL). Japan has no LMT for any employment-based status of residence, and salary requirements are set at the prevailing wage.
Occupational skill thresholds
Most OECD countries have an occupation-tiered labour migration system, taking into account the skill level of the foreign worker or the occupation they are expected to perform. Higher-skill occupations are governed by more favourable admission regulations, while those requiring less training or fewer competences subject to stricter review, numerical limits, or other controls. Unskilled occupations are sometimes excluded altogether (e.g. in Australia, the United Kingdom, Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium or France), with the exception of seasonal agricultural work, or subject to extremely restrictive labour market testing requirements. Other countries rely on labour market tests rather than occupation or skill (such as Italy and Spain). Salary thresholds may apply, which make hiring foreign workers less attractive. The Japan approach has been to offer different types of Statuses of Residence according to occupation category. For lower-skill occupations, the TITP was long the only option.
Caps, quotas and ceilings
OECD countries with large programmes for less skilled foreign workers often set ceilings or caps on annual admission or total numbers in order to limit the effect on labour markets. This is the case of the United States H‑2B programme, for example. Italy sets annual limits on admission, as does Korea’s EPS and Israel’s programme for construction and agricultural workers. Japan has set limits for several programmes – the EPA status for nurses and care workers, for example – but most statuses are uncapped and essentially demand driven, limited only by the capacity to process applications and the placements available. The SSWP was introduced with indicative targets or expectations, rather than hard ceilings.
Firm-level limits
A further possible restriction in employment of foreign workers – especially lower skilled foreign workers – is the firm-level restriction, capping the share of employees who can be foreign workers, to prevent reliance on foreign workers and foster efforts to recruit locally and maintain an attractive workplace for residents. This is used in programmes such as Korea’s EPS and in Canada’s Temporary Foreign Workers programme, but also applies broadly in Ireland (“50/50 rule”). The training scope in TITP limits the share of trainees among total employees in firms in Japan – not to protect the local labour market, but to ensure that the firm is capable of providing the training component on which the programme is based.
As a result of these programme changes as well as the tight labour market, the number of TITP workers grew quickly in the late 2010s, rising from 193 000 in 2015 to 411 000 in 2019 (Table 6.1). A notable decline due to COVID‑19 pandemic restrictions and the consequent collapse in employment demand occurred in 2020 but the numbers have since rebounded and in 2022 there were about 165 000 first-year TITP participants, similar to the pre‑pandemic figure, indicating that the programme has resumed its upward trend.
Table 6.1. TITP expanded quickly in the late 2010s
Number of entries and number of mid to long-term residents with the status of residence of “Technical Intern Training”, 2015‑22
Note: The status of residence of “Technical Intern Training (iii)” was established on 1 November 2017. TIT (i) refers to the first year in the programme; TIT (ii) refers to years 2 and 3 in the programme; TIT (iii) refers to years 4 and 5 in the programme.
Source: Ministry of Justice; OTIT (inflows 2022).
Training and testing are central in the TITP
TITP is based on on-the‑job training
There are several notable aspects of TITP relative to the prevailing employment model of non-professional workers in OECD countries. The first is the strong role played by training. On the one hand, this reflects the great importance of on-the‑job training (OTJT) in Japan. OTJT is indeed the main form of training provided by firms and during lifelong learning programmes. Skills development culture within firms is largely learn-by-watching; modular training is less important than on-the‑job experience. TITP is built around this practice. Training is also essential for TITP to maintain its stated objective of contributing to development impact. Most of the job roles in TITP are not client-facing and many involve – at least at the beginning – repetitive tasks. OTIT has clear expectations for the tasks and tools to be used in training plans for the different jobs; many of the tasks are repetitive and simple. Learning to operate machinery is included in training plans, even if this is not traditionally at the centre of training in Japan. Soft skills (cleanliness, discipline) often feature prominently in the objectives of training plans. Workplace safety and language learning are the main training needs within TITP which cannot be provided exclusively through OTJT. Reliance on OTJT cannot, however, fully prepare trainees for jobs with complex demands and regulated service standards, such as care work (see Chapter 5). Some skills are difficult to learn while working full time and which require classroom education. In these cases, pre‑placement or supplementary classroom education may be necessary.2
Testing is a key part of TITP
A large part of the administration in the TITP comprises the development and approval of training plans. As most supervising organisations focus on specific sectors, and TITP has been in place for decades, training plans largely follow a standard format. They are usually several pages and identify tasks and associated competence development. It is very rare for OTIT to reject training plans submitted by supervising organisations. OTIT reported rejecting fewer than 1% of training plans in 2019‑21, suggesting that these are administrative procedures with which the supervising organisations are quite familiar and which are simple to satisfy.
Trainees may be unaware of the training plan associated with their activity. Trainees often seek to participate in TITP primarily as an employment opportunity rather than a skills development activity, so the training plan is not always given much attention by trainees themselves. Despite the name of the programme and the ample information about the training component, the perception of the TITP as an opportunity to work and earn in Japan remains. Firms use TITP to meet labour needs, so they may also deviate from the stated plan and assign tasks which are not included. The disconnect between the official training component of TITP and the daily activities also means that trainees are not always able to meet test requirements.
The testing under the TITP, however, is important to all actors – firms, supervising organisations and trainees – since it allows trainees to remain in Japan. The pass rate for tests are, overall, relatively high. According to OTIT, in 2021, pass rates from TIT(i) to TIT(ii) were 99.0% for the written test and 99.2% for the practical test. From (ii) to (iii), which involves a subset of occupations, the pass rate for the practical test was 93.1%. Pass rates in industrial jobs are lower. The pass rate upon concluding TIT(iii) was much lower, at 59.9%.3
These overall pass rates conceal some difficulties in the tests in certain sectors. For example, welding tests for TIT(iii) have a pass rate of about one‑third. The sectors with difficult tests attract fewer trainees and indeed the difficulty of tests discourages firms from bringing trainees for these jobs. Some trainees have to take days or even weeks off from their regular tasks in order to prepare for the tests, particularly the test to pass from TIT(i) to TIT(ii). While firms rarely contract externally for vocational training for trainees, they may do so to help trainees prepare, especially since most receiving organisations do not have the capacity, space or time to prepare students specifically for tests.
Exams are usually held at sites designated by the competent testing body. The TITP tests to pass between levels can also be costly, especially in the manufacturing sector if there is a practical component. Seat sewing exams in the automotive sector, for example, can cost JPY 70 000 (USD 470); welding, JPY 55 000 (USD 370). Costs are borne by employers through the supervising organisation.
Another issue is that some tests do not reflect the tasks in the firm. The language used in written tests may be far from the vocabulary used on a shop floor or in the workplace. Not all tests have been updated in recent years, and some still include manual practical testing for tasks that have been fully automated in most firms. For example, the soldering test includes a practical exam on manual accuracy when almost all soldering is now done by machine. The original tests for TITP were developed by public bodies but have since become the responsibility of the relevant industrial association. Some tests are being updated to reflect the changes in workplace practices and the official training plans, although the daily tasks of most trainees remain simple labour. Where tests are obsolete, not only are the tests irrelevant to the job performed, but the skills measured are of little use for trainees when they return home.
TITP is a process with multiple actors
The process of TITP involves a number of actors (Figure 6.1. ). Aspirant trainees in the origin country are identified by a sending organisation. Sending organisations are regulated by the origin country. Japan has Memoranda of Co‑operation for the governance of TITP with 15 origin countries.4 There are approximately 2 000 sending agencies across these countries.
The sending organisations are subject to different regulations depending on the origin country, although some general rules apply across origins. Since 2010, sending organisations are required to provide applicants with classroom training prior to their departure to Japan, although this training is not part of the training plan which governs training following arrival. Public bodies such as the public employment or vocational training service may be involved in sending, although most recruiters are private and for-profit. Sending agencies will often have agents in Japan to promote business; the agents may be former programme participants or other migrants from the same country. Some sending organisations even have offices in Japan or are integrated with supervising organisations.
In most cases, however, a sending agency forwards its candidate to a supervising organisation in Japan. Supervising organisations may visit origin countries and conduct interviews or selection. The number of supervising organisations has grown since 2017, albeit at a slower pace than the total number of trainees. From 2051 organisations at the time of transition in 2017 the number rose to over 3 500 by 2022. The supervising organisations are accredited and supervised by OTIT.
The amount of pre‑placement training varies. Some sending organisations offer language and other training in the origin country, to reach a basic level of Japanese. Costs may be charged to the supervising organisation once candidates are selected, or candidates may cover the costs of training in origin in the hope of being chosen for placement by the sending agency. Once the trainee arrives in Japan, a month of orientation training is provided by the supervising organisation in Japan prior to assignment.
Supervising Organisations develop a training plan – with varying degrees of collaboration with the implementing organisation or employer – for each trainee. The employer submits the plan to OTIT, which reviews and approves the plan. At this point the trainee can begin work. The supervising organisation provides pre‑placement orientation and support to the trainee, including arranging the tests which are necessary to pass through the different levels of TITP. The receiving organisation (the employer) is responsible for providing the training – almost always directly on the job. The employer is also responsible for providing housing for trainees, although this may be in co‑ordination with the supervising organisation. The supervising organisation is also responsible for paying the sending organisation throughout employment in TIT(i) and (ii). OTIT is responsible for reporting violations to the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare – notably, cases of trainees disappearing from their workplaces or irregularities in the employment of trainees.
Figure 6.1. Actors and processes in the Technical Intern Training Programme
Steps for the Technical Internship Programme, in Japan
Note: Excludes the role of the Sending Organisation in the origin country.
Source: Adapted from OTIT, 2022.
The relationship between the trainee and the employer is mediated
In addition to the importance of testing, the second notable aspect of the TITP is the deep involvement of intermediary bodies, rather than direct employment. While a number of temporary labour migration programmes in the OECD have strong public involvement in the pre‑admission approval process, almost all step back from the employer-employee relationship once the migrant has arrived and received necessary documents to start work. In Japan, there are a number of additional bodies. The employer (or receiving or implementing organisation) and the trainee are in contact with the supervising organisation, which is in contact with both the sending organisation and OTIT. The sending organisation has traditional responsibilities in the initial phase of placement: it is responsible for identifying appropriate candidates (in principle, those who work in a field related to that in which they will be trained and who plan to work in that field upon return). Unusually, it is also responsible for remaining in contact with workers and, in principle, assisting their reintegration upon return to the origin country. The sending organisation is also responsible for contacting trainees in the event they leave their training programme – including following up with the trainees “families and friends” to limit unauthorised disappearance from the workplace and programme.5
Supervising Organisations work on behalf of the employer
In 2021, there were almost 3 500 supervisory organisations registered with OTIT, although only about 2 700 of them were active (OTIT, 2023[3]). The others had no experience with supervision and implementation of a training plan. Others had been approved but had no activity. This indicates that the threshold for becoming a supervising organisation is low and that many are pre‑existing bodies with other activities who also apply for this task. Recent years have seen an expansion in the number of supervisory organisations; more than half started supervising trainees after 2009, while almost one in five began since 2020.
Supervising organisations take many forms: they may be co‑operatives working to serve their members by facilitating the receiving of trainees, or skills or language training institutions which have expanded into this area. The great majority (more than 90%) are business co‑operatives. Most are therefore specialised in specific occupations (and nationalities) of trainees. Fewer than 3% are Chambers of Commerce.
Some handle a small volume of trainees while others have thousands. According to OTIT, in 2021, two‑thirds supervised fewer than 100 trainees. A survey by JILPT for ISA in April 2023 found that 18% had fewer than 10 trainees, and 20% had between 10 and 29. Twenty percent had more than 150 trainees. The median number of trainees supervised was 50.
Many of the Supervising Organisations had a relatively limited number of implementing organisations (firms or employers) where their trainees were employed. The JILPT survey found that one in four had fewer than 5 employers under supervision, 31% had 5‑14. Some, however, cover a number of firms: one in four had more than 50.
Since Supervising Organisations are not supposed to make a profit on supervision, it is not surprising that many are closely linked to the firms they supervise. However, supervisory activity can also be conducted by firms which earn fees for services connected to placement of trainees. The Supervising Organisation may be linked with a sending organisation – either through ownership or subsidiary relationships, where this is allowed by the origin country – or may work with multiple partners in origin countries. Almost two‑thirds of Supervising Organisations also hold a licence for employment placement. More than two‑thirds are Recognised Support Organisations under the SSWP in addition to supervising trainees.
The additional actors all come at a cost to the employer
The third notable aspect relative to most labour migration channels is consequent to the previous points: TITP adds supervision and training services which come at a cost. Employers pay the supervising organisation not just for initial placement but throughout the entire training period. In exchange, they receive administrative support as well as mediation. A single supervising organisation can place trainees with different employers, and a single employer can take trainees from multiple supervising organisations, creating a degree of competition in price and level of service. Firms may also choose supervising organisations based on their availability of trainees and their track record in bringing them to Japan.
The fees charged by supervising organisations can be broken down into initial expenses, monthly recurrent expenses, and one‑off expenses occurring during the trainee period. In 2021, OTIT conducted a survey of the fee structure of supervising organisations. The results indicate that initial fees to the implementing organisation averaged about JPY 340 000 (about USD 3 070 at the time of survey) (Table 6.2). Average monthly fees were about JPY 30 000 or USD 270 through TIT(i) and (ii) and declined to JPY 24 000 or USD 220 for TITP(iii). The largest part of the monthly fee – about half on average – is charged for support in meeting TITP requirements, while about one‑third is the placement fee. These bar other one‑off fees charged to the implementing organisation.
Sending organisations may charge fees to place candidates. For example, sending organisations sending trainees from Myanmar may charge up to USD 2 800 per trainee for initial placement, USD 1 600 for transition to a new employer or supervising organisation when passing from TIT(ii) to TIT(iii), and USD 1 500 for SSW(i) workers. Organisations received USD 1 500 per year on average for placed workers.6
Part of this monthly fee is passed on to the sending organisation – about USD 60/month on average. After the initial training, training provided by the supervisory organisation accounts for a relatively small part of the monthly fee, since training is conducted by the receiving firms themselves.
Table 6.2. Supervisory organisations incur continuous costs
Average amount of supervision fees by type (JPY) per trainee
Note: 631 out of 1972 Supervising Organisations responded to the survey. JPY/USD exchange rate at the time of survey was 0.009.
Source: OTIT Survey, 2021.
There is, however, a large range in the fees charged by supervising organisations. For example, about one‑third of survey respondents reported charging initial fees above JPY 300 000; a similar share charged less than JPY 25 000 a month.
Fees raise the cost of employing trainees
The total fees paid by employers to supervising organisations account for a non-negligible part of the cost of employing TITP participants. Korekawa (2023[4]) estimates these represent an additional cost representing between 11 to 25% of the total labour cost. In fact, the average hourly wage of a TITP participant is approximately JPY 1 050 (USD 7). Most TITP participants stay in Japan for the first three years.7 If employers are to recoup the costs paid to supervisory organisations within three years, the additional hourly cost of a TITP worker is on average approximately JPY 233, or approximately 20% of the hourly wage rate. Even if TITP participants transition to TITP(iii) and remain with the employer for 5 years, the additional average cost is estimated at 18% (including all types of fees). Annex 6.A presents an analysis of the wages of TITP participants relative to the Japanese.
The Specified Skilled Worker programme was built on top of the TITP
After decades of the TITP and significant reforms and expansion of the programme, the limits of the “trainee” approach became clear. Trainees are not an appropriate response for filling structural demand for positions requiring a higher skill level and a higher level of language proficiency, and the firm-level and occupation restrictions limited their potential to meet critical skills demand. The Specified Skilled Worker programme was developed to provide a more long-term response. It builds on and links to the TITP, but also operates independently. Together, the two programmes create a variety of pathways for employment in less skilled occupations.
The current system grants longer stay to migrants in lower skill jobs as they acquire new skills
The pathway includes sequential and parallel programmes
The path for labour migration in Japan in less skilled occupations is formally linked with skills acquisition, in the TITP, and with skills demonstration, in the SSWP (Figure 6.2). The former has no initial skills requirements and no initial skills test, although some participants choose to study the Japanese language prior to participating. The SSWP requires having completed three or five years of TITP or passing an examination. The exam can be taken in the country of origin, by candidates who have studied independently or through training institutions, or in Japan, by any legally resident foreigner, including those in TITP, in vocational schools, in language schools, or in higher education.
Figure 6.2. The Japanese pathway for progressive upskilling of labour migrants
Testing requirements and passageways into and through TITP and SSWP, 2023
TITP and SSWP have different ways of defining the skill levels of activities performed
The general principle of the TITP is that Japanese production techniques involve technology and methods which are more advanced than those prevailing in the origin country, so that work in these occupations allows development of familiarity with advanced practices and tools inaccessible in the origin country. Nonetheless, many but not all of the occupations allowed under TITP cover repetitive manual tasks. There is a range in the complexity and variety of tasks in the positions. Some involve a limited number of tasks, such as factory line work, building cleaning, egg collection, laundering, sewing and meatcutting. Others imply flexibility in daily tasks, such as horticultural work on small farms, or certain construction occupations.
SSW(i) is meant for jobs which are performed under supervision; there is therefore some overlap between the job description of TIT(ii) and (iii) and SSW(i) occupations. SSW(ii) is meant to be hanchō level, which corresponds to a foreman or leader of a small team. This position is often achieved by Japanese workers after 5‑10 years and can be considered to correspond to a junior-manager level job. The skills test for SSW(ii) is meant to be correspondingly difficult, although in practice the knowledge expected of a hanchō varies considerably according to the occupation and sector.
Technical Intern Trainees remain in Japan as long as they are allowed
Prior to the establishment of the TIT(iii) and SSWP, technical intern trainees had the possibility to stay in Japan only up to three years. After one year in the TIT(i), if participants were successful in the testing procedure, they could remain for an additional two years in TIT(ii). Most TITP participants transitioned to TIT(ii). Among the 2011‑14 entry cohorts (not yet eligible for TIT(iii) nor for SSWP), 73% transitioned to TIT(ii).
In terms of completed years of stay in Japan, almost 90% remain for the first full year and over 70% remained in Japan for over two years (Figure 6.3). Virtually all participants exited Japan at the end of the program, by the fourth year.
Figure 6.3. Stay rates (%) in Japan of Technical Intern Trainees
2011‑14 entry cohorts
Source: Immigration Services Agency.
The stay rates of Technical Intern Trainees are similar for all main nationalities of participants in the program. Trainees from Thailand are less likely to remain in Japan after the first year. However, in the entry cohorts considered, they represent only 3% of incoming trainees.
Figure 6.4. Stay rates (%) of Technical Intern Trainees in Japan, by nationality
2011‑14 entry cohorts
Source: Immigration Services Agency.
Among the more recent entry cohorts, Technical Intern Trainees were more likely to remain in Japan for longer (Figure 6.5). Seventy percent were still in Japan after three full years in the country. This increased stay rate, relative to previous entry cohorts, was due both to the possibility to transition to the newly established programmes, TITP(iii) and then SSWP, and to the COVID‑19 lockdowns.
Figure 6.5. Stay rates (%) of Technical Intern Trainees in Japan, by entry cohort
2017‑19 entry cohorts
Source: Immigration Services Agency.
It is starting with the 2017 entry cohort that more TITP participants transition from TITP(ii) to TITP(iii) and to SSWP. Among all Technical Intern Trainees entering Japan in 2017, 11% transitioned to TITP(iii) and 13% to SSWP.8 Among Technical Intern Trainees of the 2017 entry cohort who transitioned to TITP(iii), 40% were still in Japan at the end of 2022. Similarly, among the migrants who transitioned to SSWP, 84% were still in Japan at the end of 2022.9
The SSWP rollout has been successful
The SSW programme has been running since 2019, at least in its initial SSW(i) component. Despite the disruptions of the pandemic, by November 2023 there were more than 200 000 Specified Skilled Workers (Figure 6.6). The programme has already assumed proportions large enough to be considered one of the major temporary labour migration programmes in the OECD. Like TITP, it is structured differently from other programmes in OECD countries and is almost unique in its requirement to pass custom-designed tests for eligibility, as well as the formalised system of intermediary Registered Support Organisations to provide support to those employers who choose to use support.
Figure 6.6. The Specified Skilled Worker programme has rapidly increased
Specified Skilled Worker (i) by Sector, Stock June 2022 and November 2023 vs. Target April 2024
Note: Targets are the June 2022 targets based on a nominal start date for SSW of 1 April 2019.
Source: ISA 特定技能１号在留外国人数, 令和４年６月末; Ministry of Justice.
The SSWP inherited a practice by employers of using an intermediary. While there is no requirement to use a Registered Support Organisation (RSO) in the SSWP, most firms chose to do so, and often used the same body which they knew as a supervising organisation under TITP (Box 6.2).
Box 6.2. Employers prefer to use Registered Support Organisations for employing SSWs
In September 2020, with SSWP starting to take off, the ISA and Mitsubishi Consulting surveyed 1 270 employers regarding a number of issues. 79.8% use Registered Support Organisations (RSOs). Among those using RSOs, 60.1% continues to use the same organisation (Supervising Organizations) they used in TITP.
65% of those using RSOs are satisfied with their service and fees; 25.8% complained that fees were too high. The tasks commissioned to RSOs were mainly dealing with Status of Residence (74.9%) and drafting the required supporting plan for SSWs (71.5%).
Source: Survey by ISA and Mitsubishi Consulting in 2021 www.moj.go.jp/content/001357399.pdf.
The SSWP is gradually but unevenly moving to a test-based system rather than a TITP‑based system
The initial passage to SSW was through TITP, since the testing framework was not in place yet. With pandemic restrictions, testing was delayed and even those who passed in origin countries were unable to travel to Japan to take up employment. However, by 2022 almost 30% of SSW entries were through the testing route. Of those who acquired SSW(i) status in the first half of 2023, 42% came through the exam channel. By mid‑2023, 30% of all SSWs had entered the programme through testing, indicating a sharp increase in the share entering the programme through testing.
Figure 6.7. A growing share of SSW entries are through exams
Admission to SSW, by type of route, 2019‑22, percentage
Source: ISA.
Exams are administered by different bodies and are subject to a fee. The exam fees are low and never exceed USD 100. The nursing exam fee, for example, is about JPY 5 400, while the accommodation exam fee is JPY 7 700 and agriculture JPY 8 000. Exams are usually slightly more expensive in origin countries, but the cost is not high enough to be a barrier to participation. The passing certificate requires additional fees (for the manufacturing sector, for example, this amounts to JPY 15 000).
Some sectors are more accessible for former TITP workers, while others are more accessible through exams (Figure 6.8). Nursing care is the sector where the most foreigners have taken the SSW exam and where the largest share of new workers come through the exam route. TITP only recently introduced health work, so it is not surprising that the number of TITP workers available to pass directly into SSW is still low. Further, there are already many foreigners in Japan studying nursing care.
Figure 6.8. Manufacturing sector SSW exams are not attractive
SSWs and routes by sectors, June 2023
Source: ISA.
Exams have been held in Japan and abroad, although the roll-out abroad has been slower. Nonetheless, by the end of 2022, more than 50 000 candidates had taken SSW(i) tests abroad, and more than 100 000 had taken SSW(i) tests in Japan (Table 6.3).
Table 6.3. Test uptake and pass rates vary
Candidates sitting for test, by industry and location, through June 2023
Source: Initiatives for the acceptance of foreign personnel and the realisation of a convivial society, www.moj.go.jp/isa/content/001335263.pdf.
Figure 6.9. Most SSW test takers so far have been in Japan
Exam sitters by place of exam and pass rate, by SSWP sector, 2022
Source: Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare.
Looking at tests for individual sectors within SSW(i), uptake, pass rates and place of exam vary. The nursing exam has a relatively high and rising pass rate – above 80% in 2023. It is notably expanding outside Japan as one of the main channels of SSW of interest in origin countries (Figure 6.10). The pass rate is comparable in most origin countries to the rate in Japan, suggesting that candidates are well-prepared for these tests. The pass rate in Thailand and Myanmar is very high (above 90 and 95%, respectively).
The other sectors where exams are an important entry point are food and beverage manufacturing and food service. The former is an important TITP sector – as noted, almost one in five TITP workers came through this sector between 2017 and 2021 – so it is not surprising that it has a large inflow. In June 2023, there were 53 300 SSW(i) in food and beverage manufacturing, of which 71.7% had transitioned from TITP. In food service, on the other hand, there were 8 800 SSW(i) workers, of which only 3.6% had transitioned from TITP.
The Organisation for Technical Skill Assessment of Foreign Workers in the Food Industry (OTAFF) is responsible for testing in both sectors. In the Food and Beverage Manufacturing Industries, about 50 000 candidates had taken the test by the end of 2022, of which 86% were in Japan. The pass rate for this sector ranges between 62% and 80% for candidates in Japan, suggesting that there is scope for foreigners in Japan on other Statuses of Residence – including TITP workers who are in other sectors – to pass the exam for the food industry. Pass rates vary much more widely in the Philippines and Indonesia, the two countries where the tests have been offered. The test is also relatively simple compared to the test in other industrial trades. Aspirant labour migrants looking for an accessible channel may find it more attractive.
Figure 6.10. Nursing care exams are expanding outside Japan
Nursing care exam applicants by place of examination and total pass rate, 2019‑23
Source: MHLW.
The food service test is practically the only route into SSW(i) in the sector, since there are few TITP workers who can pass automatically into the sector. On the food service test, almost 40 000 sat for the test the end of 2022 in Japan, of which more than half passed. More than 5 000 passed the test abroad, about two‑thirds of those who took the test abroad. Given that so many foreigners are employed in occupations involving food service – for example, restaurants and retail – it is not surprising that many take the SSW test. However, the pass rate in Japan, which is lower than the rate abroad, also suggests that the test may require more knowledge than that gained simply from experience in Japan.
Agriculture is another example of the sector which benefits from a substantial pipeline of TITP workers and from a relatively accessible skills test. The pass rate is above 90% and the test has been offered in a number of origin countries (Figure 6.11). The56 000 test takers between 2019 and 2023 were evenly split between Japan and abroad. Fisheries and aquaculture, on the other hand, have attracted relatively few test-takers – fewer than 500 between 2019 and 2022, primarily in Indonesia rather than in Japan. Ninety-two percent of the SSW(i) workers in fisheries arrived from TITP.
The test for the automotive repair sector appears accessible to participants. According to the Japan Automobile Service Promotion Association, which runs regular tests in Japan and in the Philippines, 2 400 candidates took the test in 2019‑22, with a pass rate of about 60%. More than 90% took the test in Japan.
In aviation, the Japan Aeronautical Engineers’ Association administers the test, and most applicants have been for ground handling rather than aviation technician. Indeed, the aviation industry had more than 2 600 candidates sit for the exam for ground handling crew between 2019 and September 2023, about three‑fourths in Japan and the remainder in the Philippines and Nepal. Pass rates for the test were above 50%, and notably higher in origin countries. In late 2023, the industry rolled out testing in Indonesia and Mongolia.
Figure 6.11. The agriculture test for SSW(i) is accessible and widely taken
Candidates for the Agriculture SSW(i) test, by country of test, and pass rates (right axis), 2019‑23
Note: Other includes Philippines, Thailand, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Sri Lanka, India and Bangladesh.
Source: National Chamber of Agriculture, 2023.
Some sectors have attracted fewer workers due to difficult tests or limited pools of interested candidates
Developing the test pathway for other sectors or job roles appears more challenging. Skilled trades such as aviation technician and ship machinist require a high level of vocational training.
Industrial manufacturing, where pass rates are low, largely relies on TITP as a pipeline for SSW. The high industrial standards in Japan make the exams in the Machining and metal processing, Electric and Electronic equipment assembly, and Metal surface treatment daunting. According to data from METI, between October 2020, when testing began, and November 2022, 4 300 candidates took the test, and the pass rate was only 15.3%. In some examinations, no one passed the test. The SSW(i) test for this sector is designed at the lowest level of national qualification in the system, corresponding to the entry level. Most testing so far has been in Japan, with one test held in Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand and Nepal in February 2021. To increase access, the technical language used in the test has been simplified. The practical part of the test was eliminated for certain occupations in 2023. Still, the difficulty of the test is one reason why TIT(iii) remains an important phase for preparing for entry in SSW(i) in this sector.
In shipbuilding, the issue has primarily been attracting a sufficient number of candidates for the test. According to Nippon Kaiji Kyokai General Incorporated Foundation, which administers the test, about 190 candidates had sat for the test by August 2023, with a pass rate close to 100%, except for the one test administered in the Philippines where only half passed.
Building cleaning management was one sector initially expected to attract a large number of SSWs; when first rolling out SSWP, the target was 37 000 by April 2024, although the revised expectation was lowered to 20 000 in August 2022. The test does not appear to be the obstacle – and indeed the pass rate has risen since testing began in 2019, from 67% to 88%, even as the number taking the test of building cleaning increased (Figure 6.12). Testing expanded significantly in 2023, especially abroad.
Figure 6.12. Building Cleaning Management test pass rates are high
Test for Building Cleaning Management, by place of test, and annual pass rate, 2019‑23
Source: MHLW; National Building Maintenance Association (JBMA).
Accommodation is the sector with a lower pass rate than most (Figure 6.9). As of late 2022, no textbook had been published. The sector had very low take up. TITP has only one occupation in the accommodation sector, and there were only 250 training plans active in 2021, so there is no significant stream of potential workers who can be directly recruited from TITP. TITP in accommodation does not include TIT(iii), however, so if TITP expands recruitment in this area it can be a three‑year route to SSW(i). The industry considers that 70% of applicants with at least two years of experience in hospitality whether in Japan or overseas should be able to pass the test. The results since 2019 to 2023 indicate that about half of test takers in Japan and overseas passes. The test has been administered in Myanmar, Indonesia, Nepal and the Philippines.
Figure 6.13. Candidates struggle with SSW tests in the Accommodation Industry
SSW Tests for the Accommodation Industry, 2019‑23, by location, and pass rate
Source: Accommodation Industry Skills Testing Centre (CAIPT), 2023.
The TITP and SSWP cover only part of the labour market
Technical intern trainees are allowed in certain occupations and sectors
Technical intern trainees are allowed to work in 165 jobs in 90 sectors. The list of eligible occupations is drawn up by MHLW in consultation with experts chosen by OTIT. While there is an annual meeting to discuss the list, there is no regular revision; occupations are added when necessary, but rarely removed. The list of occupations is noteworthy for the sectors which are not included. All wholesale and retail activities are excluded, as are transportation jobs (drivers) and many logistics jobs (e.g. warehousing, delivery). The restaurant sector is also excluded, although several accommodation sector jobs are included.
Figure 6.14. Several sectors dominate TITP
Approved training plans, 2017‑21
Note: The figure refers to training plans approved, not to trainees. There are more plans approved than trainees due to transitions between levels of TITP.
Source: OTIT.
Some sectors where TITP workers are not allowed have pressured the government to expand. For example, the supermarket sector, which is labour intensive and has many lower-wage jobs, is not included. In 2021, supermarkets reported a 12% rate of unfilled vacancies. Because of the occupation-based definition of TITP, some jobs in sectors excluded from SSWP may employ trainees. In the case of supermarkets, for example, some food processing jobs under TITP may be supermarket-based, such as in bakeries or fish and meat preparation. The convenience store sector, which is one of the most important retail sectors for employment, has pushed for access to TITP and later SSWP without success. In both supermarkets and convenience stores, one longer term concern is the development of managerial staff, in a context where fewer Japanese are moving into the stores. Retail managers have limited options in the current system (Box 6.3).
Box 6.3. Convenience stores and foreign workers
Japan has more than 50 000 convenience stores, an unusually high number relative to population among OECD countries, dominated by several chains which have franchises throughout the country. The workforce relies on part-time workers, including students. As the youth cohort shrinks, labour shortages increase; this is especially true in rural areas with no colleges and universities. The employment model in convenience stores is an owner – who may operate multiple franchises – as well as a manager, several shift-leaders, and general staff. Some of the tasks of the latter can be automated or productivity increased, but other roles are harder to eliminate. The industry forecasts a need for 20 000 shift leaders by 2027.
One of the leading chains is 7‑11, with 20 000 stores and 400 000 employees. Ten percent of staff are non-Japanese and of these 80% are international students with permission to engage in activities other than those permitted by the Status of Residence. Twenty percent of international students work in convenience stores and 7‑11 employs half of those. Convenience store employment is a frequent first entry to the Japanese labour market and a means for foreigners to learn language and client service culture.
No status of residence exists which would allow franchise owners to hire international students after graduation, although higher education is usually aimed at preparing students for jobs other than managing small retail operations. Neither TITP nor SSW allow retail employment, preventing inflows through these programmes. While some vocational education tracks (IT, business, culture and language) could be argued to be linked to retail management, this is not currently allowed, ruling out eligibility for the EHI status. Further, since international students are part-time workers with no career prospects, franchise owners have no incentive to train them.
Source: 7‑11 Japan.
Another activity where migrant workers often fill positions in OECD countries is in domestic work. To increase Japanese women’s labour force participation, a pilot programme to allow agency recruitment and placement of foreigners as housekeepers was introduced. This programme has seen limited use (Box 6.4).
Box 6.4. Foreign workers in housekeeping services
Japanese households generally do not employ paid housekeepers for financial and cultural reasons, but this service is an important source of employment opportunities for migrants in other OECD countries. For example, in 2013, more than one‑third of domestic workers in Spain and Italy were non-EU nationals (OECD/European Union, 2016[5]). According to the OECD Time Use Database, Japan is the OECD country where the gender division of unpaid work is most unequal; Japanese women spend more than five times as much time on unpaid work as Japanese men.
In the late 2010s, as part of the effort of the government to increase labour force participation particularly among women, contract housekeeping agencies in NSSZs were authorised to employ foreign workers under the Designated Activities Status of Residence. NSSZs cover most urban areas of Japan. Programmes for foreign workers authorised in NSSZs are run by the Cabinet Office and report to the Cabinet Office rather than to ISA. The housekeeping programme only allows agency employment; seven agencies have been authorised to use the programme. They compete for workers and clients but also communicate about the programme. While no statistics are available, the number currently employed under the pilot is around 1 000. Almost all are women, mostly from the Philippines.
Agencies use recruiters in the origin country and apply their own hiring standards. The pool of interest in the Philippines is quite large; one agency collected 15 000 applications. Employees receive a minimum wage above which they are paid based on hours worked. However, workers can try to qualify for the SSWP at any point – notably, in accommodation.
The programme has some structural limits. The first is the cost to households, which can exceed JPY 50 000 per month for 3 hours a week of housekeeping. This prices it beyond the capacity of most households and is much higher than housekeeping services in most OECD countries. Second, the programme doesn’t allow agencies to contract with private companies – either to place workers in establishments, flat rentals or to allow firms to purchase services for employees. Third, it is difficult for agencies to cover recruitment costs, which include cost of training, of up to JPY 2M. The initial maximum stay (3 years) was not considered enough to recover costs, and the programme now allows a 5‑year stay.
Source: Pasona.
Definition of job categories and sectors is not transparent
In light of the importance of the sectors and restrictions in determining the upper limit to the potential contribution of trainees and SSWs to the Japanese labour market, the mechanism for defining them is likely to face increased demand for transparency.
In the SSWP, the competent Ministries decide which jobs and industries are to be designated through consultation with the relevant professional associations. The analysis takes into account signals of shortages, assumptions about availability of labour, facility of developing skills certification requirements and associated testing, but there is no publication of data on this. The decision to open a sector or occupation to recruitment is not only related to labour demand, however; it can also be related to policy objectives for productivity shifts.
The initial decision on design of the SSW limited it to 14 specific sectors, later consolidated into 12. The occupations covered by SSW comprise about 20% of total employment in Japan. In December 2018, in the Sector-Specific Operation Policy approved by the Cabinet, targets were established for the different sectors. The actual uptake of SSWP varied substantially from these initial expectations, first due to the slow roll-out of the exams and later to the massive disruption caused by the pandemic. In August 2022, a revised set of expectations were published (Figure 6.15).
These revisions reflected the actual inflow of workers, which was for example much greater into the food and beverage manufacturing sector than originally expected, while sectors such as accommodation which were hard hit by the pandemic understandably saw scaled-back expectations.
Figure 6.15. Initial expectations for SSWP inflows were adjusted
Initial and adjusted anticipated sector target for SSW(i) inflows between 2018 and 2024, and stock at 30 November 2023
Source: Ministry of Justice.
A clear method for establishing eligible sectors for SSWP would help policy evaluation
As noted, there are no grounds for refusal of individual Statuses of Residence on the basis of labour market slack or risk of undermining conditions for resident workers. Indeed, Japan stands out among OECD countries as a context where competition with resident workers has not been a factor in migration policy design, although the risk of undermining the labour market is one of the considerations taken into account in designating sectors for employment in the SSWP.
The SSWP has increased substantially despite the fact it is limited to a fraction of the Japanese labour market. Since there is no firm-level limit on employment of SSWs, the potential for expansion within these sectors is unlimited, unless the targets mentioned above are transformed into hard caps. Even with current target numbers, there is a risk that certain workplaces or occupations become dominated by migrant workers. Further, there is discussion of expanding SSWP to cover additional sectors.
Establishing the appropriate occupations for TITP and the sectors of SSWP is an important policy question. In most OECD countries, drawing up a shortage list or identifying sectors for recruitment involves both an empirical analysis and consultation of stakeholders, on a regular basis (OECD, 2014[6]). The labour market evolution of jobs in these sectors or occupations are followed and evaluated to detect any risk of distortion or negative impact on the labour market for residents. Considerations may include long-term job prospects for residents: in some cases, once an occupation is associated with migrant workers, it can become stigmatised and lose attractiveness for local recruitment (OECD, 2011[7]). Greater transparency also helps communication with the public about policy choices. These lists are not set in stone, and stakeholder consultation helps ensure that designation of sectors is not just a result of labour market indicators but also an informed assessment of which jobs make sense to open to international recruitment.
The strong skills assessment element of both TITP and SSWP mean that both programmes need to be reviewed in light of the feasibility of ensuring a training or assessment channel for the jobs included, but this is not enough. Jobs in TITP and SSWP make reference to the national qualification framework. Nonetheless, not all jobs in the national qualification framework have corresponding positions in TITP or SSWP. Similarly, sector qualification frameworks may also be adaptable. For example, the JCCI “Retail Management” qualification category, with three levels, in principle it would not be difficult to adapt to TITP or SSWP. The decision to do so, however, is tied to expectations about the development of productivity in the retail sector and whether the migration system should supply it with labour.
The specific case of foreign workers in agriculture
The Japanese agricultural workforce is ageing and labour shortages are growing (OECD, 2019[8]). The agricultural workforce declined by more than half since 1980 to 2 million in 2019, with an accelerated pace of decline in the last decade. There are 1.03 million commercial farm households, which is less than half the number in 1990. In 2020, according to the Agricultural and Forestry Census, the average age of farmers was 67.8. About 70% of farmers in Japan were over 65 years old (OECD, 2021[9]). Most new farmers are older workers who retire from non-farm jobs and return to farming. New employees number about 10 000 annually, close to the inflow of foreign workers to the sector. While younger Japanese entering farming are often employees, their career path is meant to lead to management of their own farms once they have acquired experience.
In June 2022, there were about 29 000 TITP workers in agriculture, although this number fell by 2023 to below 20 000. In June 2022, there were 21 000 SSWs in agriculture, up from 6 000 in 2021. This comprised together about 3.3% of the total of 1.3 million farm employed in Japan, up from 2.3% the previous year. The share of foreign workers in agriculture was higher than the share of foreign workers in the working age population (2.4%). The number of foreign workers in agriculture has been increasing as SSWP in agriculture expands; in October 2022, the MHLW registered 43 600 total foreign workers in agriculture.
In the past, it was farm co‑operatives which employed workers – and the job was always classified as “agriculture”, even if it was packing or direct crop processing. Japanese consumers have high standards for presentation of fruit and vegetables, creating a need for labour-intensive treatment of soft fruits and vegetables.
Most farm operations are family run, and paradoxically, employment of foreign farm workers is more formalised than employment of Japanese, since there is paperwork, for which they must rely on supervising organisations for support. Larger farms – those with annual sales between 50 and JPY 200 million – are not small family operations and, prior to use of trainees, relied on part-time workers as well as family members. Technical intern trainees work full time. Agricultural work sites are exempt from the limits on daily, weekly and monthly rest periods which apply to other sectors.
TITP workers have been lodged by their employers, often with the intermediation of the supervisory organisations to identify collective housing solutions. TITP workers can work on multiple sites, but only for one employer. The SSWP, in contrast, requires workers to find their own housing. SSWs are allowed to have be hired by dispatching agencies, in which case they may work for several agricultural employers, subject to approval by ISA. Municipalities where farm workers are needed have mobilised to find housing in order to secure human resources. Other aspects of rural life are less receptive to foreigners, who – in contrast to some other OECD countries – are rarely seen by communities as a potential source of rural population growth.
Even so, SSWP has been a boon for the agricultural sector because it grants a degree of flexibility which was not possible for TITP. SSWP workers are able to move around Japan, working the summer in the north and the winter in the south. TITP required a new acceptance each time and a stay terminated at the end of the season. Not only did this increase unit costs for employers, but it also put trainees in a difficult situation in recovering costs borne to gain participation in a programme they expected to last for several years. In contrast, SSWs can return to the home country and come back for successive spells of employment in Japan. The obstacle represented by the SSW skills test can be circumvented through direct hire of TITP workers completing the second phase, although SSWP workers have higher employment costs.
The skills test doesn’t represent a major obstacle. As for other SSWP sectors, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries tenders administration of the SSW test; the cost of the test, in Japan and abroad, is covered by the ministry. There are two tests: for horticulture and for livestock. The tests for SSW(i), administered by the National Chamber of Agriculture, are relatively simple.10 Former trainees who completed TIT(ii) have a pass rate of about 70%.
SSW(ii) provides further opportunities for activities in agriculture. Higher skill agricultural workers may find opportunities. The SSW(ii) test in agriculture was open to applicants from December 2023.
Box 6.5. Canada encourages immigrants to become farmers
Many OECD countries have ageing agricultural workforces, although not as advanced as Japan. In Canada, for example, the average age of farm operators in 2021 was 56. Canada’s agricultural sector is expected to see two‑fifths of its farmers retire between 2023 and 2033, with two‑thirds not having identified a succession plan.
Some immigrants to Canada acquire and operate farms. In 2016, immigrants comprised 8.7% of Canadian farm operators (Tam and Shumsky, 2019[10]). While this was a slight decline from 1996, when they comprised 10.2%, many were still new immigrants: 1.7% of all farm operators, or 4 600 people, had immigrated between 2011 and 2016. Farm operators came from both OECD countries (the United States, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) and non-OECD countries (mainly China and India). Chinese‑born farm operators in Canada were more likely to work in higher-technology greenhouse farming operations in more urban areas.
Agricultural employment is one route to permanent migration in Canada. In 2022 Canada admitted 970 new permanent residents with agricultural sector jobs, including 155 managers. One channel to select permanent migrants who will operate farms is the Provincial Nominee System. Canadian provinces can choose aspirant farmers from the pool of candidates and support their permanent residence application.
In most cases, immigrants farm operators arrived with the intention of operating an agricultural business, rather than working their way from temporary employees on a farm to operator.
Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Agriculture. For succession plans see Table 32‑10‑0244‑01. Succession plan for the agricultural operation, Census of Agriculture, 2021, https://doi.org/10.25318/3210024401‑eng.
Integrating foreign workers into the agricultural sector as more than just labourers faces a number of challenges. Rural communities are often traditional and have not seen foreign workers as a possible solution to their demographic decline. Most foreign workers in the sector are on Statuses of Residence which do not allow family reunification, so they cannot bring families into the communities in which they live. There has not been a pathway for foreigners to transition to farming, nor is this possibility discussed, despite the bleak outlook for family farming. It is complex for foreigners to become owners of farmland, which may discourage foreign workers from planning to eventually acquire their own farm. Inheritance law strongly favours maintaining agricultural land cultivated and within Japanese families, although since 2009 it has been easier for heirs to rent the land out to other operators. There are programmes in Japan to subsidise new entrants and provide facilitated credit to the farming sector, but limited to those who take up family farms and those who start farming as a corporation. Permanent residents may be eligible if they are farmers, but immigrants are not seen as a target group.
Many technical intern trainees in agriculture do not come from agriculture in their home country and do not return to farm work, limiting the benefit of skills transfer. The absence of intervention in selection is partly responsible. Some co‑operatives have organised recruitment events in origin countries to make sure that trainees are recruited from rural areas. In order to improve skills transfer within the agricultural stream of TITP, JICA identified an opportunity to establish closer relationships between agricultural workers in the Lao PDR and the Farmers’ Co‑operative Association (a supervising organisation) in Kagawa Prefecture. As part of this Lao PDR and Kagawa project, JICA conducted market research and promoted TITP to Lao farm workers. Since 2020, more than 700 workers have gone to Kagawa.
The skills framework for testing is based on a vocational education framework
Both TITP and SSW employ skill levels. Skill levels use correspond to the different levels of the VET tests (“National Trade Skill Test”) administered by the Japan Vocational Ability Development Association (JAVADA), the national vocational standards body. JAVADA skill levels range from Basic Grade to Grade 3, Grade 2, and Grade 1, with the latter the highest level (Table 6.4).
The skills objectives and thresholds for TITP and SSWP use these levels. For TITP, the exam is developed specifically for TITP on the basis of the National Trade Skill Test & Certification (NTSTC) system (JAVADA grades). For job categories under TITP not covered by JAVADA tests, there is a separate TITP evaluation examination. The SSWP requires candidates to pass an exam based on Grade 3 (entry-level technician) for SSW(i) and Grade 1 (senior technician) for SSW(ii), or to demonstrate equivalent knowledge. The bridge from TIT(ii) to SSW(i) is guaranteed because the test at the completion of TIT(ii) is at Grade 3. Trainees in TIT(ii) who do not take the test at the conclusion of this phase, however, are also allowed to pass into SSW(i) on the presumption they have acquired the appropriate skills.
Table 6.4. Each level in TITP and SSW corresponds to a VET framework skills level
JAVADA Skill Level and corresponding programme
Source: OTIT, JITCO.
The suitability of JAVADA tests for both TITP and SSWP has been questioned. One concern is about the usefulness of the National Trade Skill Tests in assessing the skills required on-the‑job for all categories of Japanese workers. There is also a concern about the narrowly defined job classifications, so that there is no incentive to prepare trainees for multiple tasks and develop competences outside those which will be on the highly specialised test.
Japanese language education and testing has expanded abroad
Japan cannot count on a large pool of Japanese‑speakers abroad, but language competence is necessary to perform effectively in most workplaces. It is also a requirement of SSWP. The SSW(i) programme requires the N4 certificate for the Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) (similar to CEFR level A2) except for those who pass from TIT(ii).
Interest in taking the JLPT has increased greatly in recent years in line with interest in employment in Japan and the language requirement imposed by the SSW programme. 2019 was a record year for test-takers, with 1.17 million individuals. The test is administered twice a year. The JLPT in December 2022 saw 506 293applicants, up from 426 225. The largest nationality was Myanmar (52 132 registered and 45 788 candidates). When the test was held again in July 2023, it nearly doubled.
Demand for the JLPT is expanding quickly in origin countries. Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Nepal and the Philippines have all seen large increases in demand for JLPT certification. Since the JLPT is used for all purposes, not only for eligibility for labour migration programmes, it is not possible to consider that all test-takers are interested in employment in Japan. A Japan Foundation survey in 2018 found that 10.3% of test-takers were interested in employment access in Japan. While there are many reasons to take the JLPT, the expansion in these low-income countries is difficult to explain without taking into consideration the opening of labour migration channels to Japan.
Pass rates globally however remain low overall. For N5 – the lowest level of certification – the pass rate in December 2022 was 46.0% overseas and 63.1% in Japan. For N4, the pass rates were 43.5% and 35.8% respectively. Higher level tests had higher pass rates abroad than in Japan.
In addition to the JLPT, a specific Basic Japanese language test can be taken to qualify for the SSWP. By June 2023, 103 000 candidates had sat for the test, of which 80% were outside Japan. Cumulative pass rates for the test were 47% for candidates in Japan and 40% for those outside. For SSWP, this test appears to be used more than the JLPT.
TITP participants often have a low level of Japanese language skills
The language level of TITP participants in Japan is not very advanced (Figure 6.16). About 10% report being able to converse, and one‑third in total can at least exchange on familiar topics. An additional one‑third reports being above to conduct essential daily communication, while one‑third cannot interact beyond basic greetings. While this includes TITP participants of varying degrees of stay in Japan, it does suggest that additional effort is necessary for trainees to be able to pass in large numbers through the language test necessary for SSW(i) if required.
Figure 6.16. While TITP participants have basic Japanese skills, few can converse freely
Responses to the question “How proficient are you in Japanese?” in 2021
Source: ISA Survey, 2021.
Some vulnerabilities of foreign workers remain
Rent-taking and indebtedness are still a problem
One of the main vulnerabilities of international recruitment for less skilled occupations lies in the disproportion between supply – the vast number of interested candidates in origin countries – and the limited number of positions available in destination countries. Intermediaries can exploit information asymmetry between job-seekers and employers and take rents on mediation. The willingness of job-seekers to pay for the opportunity is a risk for system integrity, since job-seekers may go into debt to pay for the position – and to pay off this debt, they may accept unlawful employment conditions or violate the terms of their work authorisation. In extreme cases, the rents may corrupt employers, who accept payment from intermediaries to offer real or spurious employment to job-seekers (OECD, 2013[11]).
The process of recruitment of trainees and SSW workers in origin countries is opaque to the Japanese authorities and to OTIT. Sending organisations may work with a myriad of intermediaries in the origin country, but selection of candidates is the responsibility of the sending organisation. The Memoranda of Co‑operation between Japan and origin countries specifies that the origin country must regulate sending agencies and only approve agencies which do not impose “excessive” fees – although they may charge candidates for pre‑placement services such as language training. Surveys of trainees have found that many paid fees equivalent to many months of expected earnings (Table 6.5). In particular, nationals of Viet Nam and Cambodia paid fees, averaging about 5 000 USD for Vietnamese and USD 4 300 for Cambodians. Other nationalities surveyed paid lower fees. Unsurprisingly, many of those surveyed were in debt for amounts exceeding earnings of four months work.
Table 6.5. Many trainees pay high fees and go into debt to come to Japan
Fees paid by TITP workers, by nationality, whether they paid fees, and how much if so, July 2022
Note: Exchange rate is .0073 JPY/USD at time of survey (July 2022).
Source: ISA “Survey on Payment Expenses for Technical Intern Trainees”, cited in www.moj.go.jp/isa/content/001385692.pdf.
The sending organisation model is vulnerable by nature to the possible imposition of high recruitment fees. Sending organisations can be difficult to regulate. They usually compete to send workers to supervising organisations, and one important competitive factor is cost, so sending organisations may be reluctant to pass costs on to supervising organisations or employers. Sending organisations may also rely on unregulated intermediaries and brokers outside the scope of the MOC who provide candidates at no cost or with a kickback. Fixing costs could level the playing field between fee‑taking organisations and those which charge all costs to employers, forcing competition between sending organisations, but this is impractical since the real costs borne by sending organisations vary significantly according to the country, occupation and training and preparation required by individual candidates. There are means, however, to intervene in the recruitment process to reduce fee‑taking. One non-legislative measure, within the possibility of the current system, is to provide more information to potential trainees about the services, pricing and quality of sending organisations. JICA, through JP-MIRAI, is supporting the Vietnamese Government to create such a platform (Box 6.6).
Box 6.6. JICA programme for fair and ethical recruitment between Viet Nam and Japan
“Vietnam-Japan Fair and Ethical Recruitment Initiative” (VJ-FERI)
In August 2023, an agreement was reached on the launch of the Fair and Ethical Recruitment Initiative (VJ-FERI). Partners include the Vietnamese Government’s Overseas Labour Administration (DOLAB), the Vietnam Association of Manpower Supply (VAMAS), the Japan International Co‑operation Agency (JICA), the International Labour Organization (ILO), and the Japan Platform for Migrant Workers towards Responsible and Inclusive Society (JP-MIRAI). The VJ-FERI evolved from the discussions of JP-MIRA’s “Zero-Fee Committee” in 2022, which explored means to protect migrant workers who are susceptible to labour exploitation risks due to high recruitment fees and related costs.
The voluntary initiative creates a collaborative framework among various stakeholders both in Viet Nam and Japan, to implement relevant international standards and guidelines on fair and ethical recruitment, especially removing recruitment fees and related costs for Technical Intern Trainees. A Fair and Ethical Recruitment Policy (VJ-FERI policy) will be developed, compliant with international standards as well as related laws and regulations of Viet Nam. VAMAS is in charge of capacity enhancement of sending organisations with the support of ILO. Sending organisations which commit to VJ-FERI policy are registered, and implementation it with the help of VAMAS’ periodical monitoring and guidance. Given the importance of collaborative work to tackle the issue from the Viet Nam and Japan sides, VJ-FERI also foresees activities in Japan including capacity enhancement of supervising organisations and firms employing Technical Intern Trainees.
JP-MIRAI is also developing an online feedback tool allowing foreign workers in Japan to self-assess whether they are suffering from serious human rights violations or legal violations in their daily lives.
A more serious risk of malpractice by sending agencies is forced labour – which can be exacerbated by indebtedness or occur through using placement to traffic workers into forced labour. Prior to the major reforms of the TITP in 2009 and 2017, the US State Department’s Trafficking in Persons Report referred to some of the structural elements in the programme which increased vulnerability of trainees. These critical points have been largely addressed, although the risk of trafficking for forced labour continues to be the focus of discussion of the TITP in the US State Department’s Report (Box 6.7).
One way to reduce the risk of rent-taking is to introduce a random selection element into the recruitment process, so that intermediaries are unable to offer any assurance of deployment, and employers are unable to draw rents from their ability to offer a job to a specific candidate. The “lottery” element has been included in a number of different labour migration channels, both within the framework of a bilateral agreement and without any agreement (Box 6.8).
Box 6.7. The US State Department Trafficking in Persons Report and TITP
The US State Department publishes an annual report on Trafficking in Persons (TIP) which ranks countries – including the United States itself – according to their government efforts to combat trafficking in persons and their progress in action. TIP rankings are closely watched by some countries and can be influential in policy development in this sphere. Forced labour and modern slavery are covered in the TIP Report. Japan was in Tier 2 from 2020 to 2023, down from Tier 1 in 2018‑19. Unfortunately, this assessment is dated and subjective.
The TIP Report is based on a mixed methodology – drawing on input from US missions as well as public documents and solicited and unsolicited feedback. The 2022 report cites instances of sending agencies in a number of origin countries to exploit trainees in forced labour, without quantifying the scope or scale. The TIP Report asserts that labor trafficking under TITP is more frequent than the Japanese Government claims; it similarly assesses the agreements with origin countries as unable to prevent intermediaries from charging excessive fees. The TIP Report highlighted that evidence of trafficking in Japan was limited (for example, in 2021, Japanese immigration authorities interviewed 12 865 trainees departing Japan prior to the end of their contracts, without identifying a single trafficking victim among them). It attributed the lack of evidence of trafficking, however, to inadequate screening protocols and training. This assessment is grounded in anecdotal reports and extreme cases of abuse rather than an in-depth assessment of policy outcomes in a programme involving hundreds of thousands of participants.
Temporary labour migration programmes in OECD countries are not immune to the risk of abuse or vulnerability to forced labour because of illegal recruitment fees and indebtedness. In most of these cases, however, the TIP Report does not make sweeping recommendations on reform of the programmes.
Source: US State Department, (2022[12]), Trafficking in Persons Report, www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022October 20221020-2022-TIP-Report.pdf.
Box 6.8. Lotteries to reduce rent-taking in recruitment
Bilateral agreements and lotteries to cut out illegal brokers
Israel
Israel has a large temporary work programme for care, construction and agricultural workers. Since the skills threshold for these programmes is respectively low in comparison to the supply of workers in the main origin countries, candidates far exceed available places. For many years, recruitment fees – officially regulated – were high, with brokers taking rents equivalent to a year or more of earnings during a five‑year stay. To improve fair recruitment practices, programme integrity and sustainability, Israel moved towards a system of bilateral agreements with origin countries. Candidates are recruited by origin countries who are responsible for validating their prerequisites. The Israeli authorities review the candidates and conduct a skills test. Skills tests are conducted based on requirements of the employers associations and overseen by representatives of employers, but with candidate anonymity. Using the pool of those who pass the test, a digital lottery is run to pick a random selection.
Candidates who are not selected in the lottery are unable to participate in subsequent lotteries. For selected candidates, medical and criminal records are checked, and workers are assigned randomly to employers. This procedure ensures that actors in the origin and destination country cannot offer any assurance to candidates that they will be successful, curtailing the margin for rent-taking.
Korea
Korea’s EPS is based on Government-to-Government (G2G) agreements. The pool of candidates is based on a language and basic ability test. From the pool, a roster of candidates is drawn up and a random selection of candidates is submitted for selection by employers. Several candidates are provided for each position. In general, fewer than half of the candidates end up offered a position.
Source: Population & Immigration Authority, Israel, and Human Resource Development Korea.
A further means of reducing rent-taking is to increase the skills threshold. Since this reduces the pool of job-seekers, it lowers the advantage of mediation in securing a position.
Trainees remain vulnerable to violations of working conditions
The Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare inspectorate conducts labour inspections of sites where trainees are employed. In 2022, more than 9 000 inspections were conducted. Labour inspections of TITP employers usually find violations – consistently in more than 70% of cases (Figure 6.17). The violations identified are most frequently in terms of working hours which exceed the legal amount. Failure to pay overtime – and failure to pay full wages – are also frequently encountered in inspections. Post-pandemic, health and safety violations have been a more frequent finding. Firms are also required to report hiring trainees and SSWs to the local HelloWork office, although these do not have an inspection role.
Figure 6.17. High rate of violations found in inspections of TITP employers
Source: MHLW, Status of Supervision, Guidance, Prosecution, etc. for Technical Intern Trainee Implementers, various years.
OTIT has supervisory powers and inspects supervisory organisations. In 2021, for example, it conducted more than 20 000 inspections and found about 10 340 violations, mostly for administrative issues, although some cases of illegal and exploitative practices were found. OTIT can intervene in case of non-compliance and ban implementing organisations for up to five years. This is infrequent with only a handful of cases.
The Immigration Service may also conduct inspections of workplaces where trainees and SSWs are employed. In these cases, the firm and the supervisory organisation are notified in advance. If the Immigration Service finds cause for referring the firm, the standard labour inspection bureau will also conduct an inspection. Separate Ministries are able to provide “guidance” and “advice” to peer Ministries, rather than instruction to intervene, due to separation of competence.
The ISA and MHLW can also revoke certification of training implementers (employers). This is also infrequent; there were 114 employers who lost their certification in 2022, with more than 1 700 associated training plans, usually following findings of fraud. For trainees whose training implementers have lost certification, they must be placed again – with the help of the supervisory organisation or OTIT, within the same field – or depart. In practice, there is little mobility among training implementers except in cases of firm closure, major conflict between trainee and employer, criminal abuse or serious violation of labour law.
While long working hours are the main category of violation found in inspections, they are not the main complaint of trainees. Nonetheless, long working hours are a high-priority policy issue in the Japanese labour market, partly stoked by public debate over “karoshi” or death or injury from overwork. In 2018, legislative amendments to labour laws reformed maximum working hour limits. Exceptions were abolished and new absolute working hour limits were granted (e.g. 720 hours of overtime and holiday work per year and less than 100 hours per month; an average of 80 hours of overtime and holiday work per month over two to six months a year.
Government oversight in TITP occurs largely through the intermediate layers (OTIT and the supervisory organisation) and mostly through checking that everyone has the right documents. Since a single corporate actor might run several legal persons each playing a role in a different or even the same channel (e.g. operating a sending organisation, a supervisory organisation and a training provider), there may not always be an incentive to make complaints or transmit them to government bodies. The multiple actors in the TITP can also obscure from technical intern trainees who should intervene, even if guidance is provided.
Figure 6.18. The main complaint of TITP workers is related to earnings
What problems are you experiencing in your current job? (Multiple responses possible), TITP, 2021
Note: TITP respondents in total = 911.
Source: Basic Survey on Foreign Residents in FY2021.
The simplest recourse for Japanese authorities in cases of abuse is to deny renewal of certification, accreditation or residence titles. Decertifying is more complicated since it requires administrative procedures so the main enforcement action of the State is to refuse renewal. This makes it important for accreditation and certification to require frequent renewal, even if this increases administrative burdens for processing.
One form of ensuring compliance with labour regulations is a presence of trade unions in firms. The role of trade unions in protecting foreign workers varies among OECD countries, according to the priorities of the trade union and their penetration in workplaces where foreign workers are present. Japanese trade unions have not campaigned to recruit and represent foreign workers, in part due to their focus on “regular” workers.
One concern could be non-payment of wages. The TITP process tends to ensure that firms are stable and capable of paying wages, but SSW introduces more margin for labour brokers to place workers – with a consequent risk of firm bankruptcy and unpaid wages. There is no evidence of such problems in the programme, and in any case, Japanese labour insurance protects workers against this risk (Box 6.9).
Box 6.9. Bonds to ensure wage payment of agricultural workers
Temporary agricultural worker programmes are subject to particular concerns about vulnerability. In the United States, the H‑2A temporary agricultural worker programme involves many labour contractors rather than fixed long-term relationships with farm employers. Between US fiscal years 2017 and 2021, the Department of Labor’s Working Hours Division concluded about 650 investigations of H‑2A labour contractors, finding violations in more than three‑quarters of cases. The primary issue was non-payment of wages.
The US imposes a “H‑2A Labor Contractor Surety Bond” on contractors who request a foreign worker under the H‑2A. The Surety Bond is usually provided by a third-party (insurer) who assumes liability for unmet financial obligations to its workers. The bond is payable to the government and must extend three years beyond the end of the contract. Farm labour contractors in the US are often “transient and undercapitalized”, and it is difficult to recover back wages from them. The bond provides a degree of protection.
In Japan, national labour insurance mediates for unpaid wages and covers workers in the case of bankruptcy or disappearance of the employer.
Source: United States Department of Labor, H‑2A Report, 2022.
Maternity rights are guaranteed but the programme is not compatible with childrearing
One issue for a temporary labour migration programme is treatment of maternity. Trainees may become pregnant in Japan, which has implications for their employment. By law, pregnancy is not grounds for dismissal, and TITP can be continued while pregnant. Maternity leave is granted six weeks before expected due date, as for any Japanese employee; similarly, a childbirth allowance of about 67% of salary is provided during the six weeks before expected delivery date and the eight weeks after. Trainees therefore can leave Japan temporarily and return (without their child) to resume their employment. While the mother can remain in TITP with a child, this could raise issues with housing – employer-sponsored housing is not required to house children – and childcare access compatible with working hours is difficult to access.
Due to concern over miscommunication about maternity rights, ISA conducted a survey through OTIT on-site visits on Pregnancy and TITP in December 2022.11 About one in four trainees was told that pregnancy was grounds for dismissal – in most cases, it was the sending organisation which said this, and less often by the supervisory organisation or the employer. More than 5% signed contracts for employment which illegally stated that pregnancy was grounds for dismissal. OTIT provides information to trainees explaining their maternity rights.
Job mobility within TITP is constrained
TITP does not foresee changes of firm except in unusual circumstances. The number of training plan changes handled by OTIT is very limited: fewer than 60 in 2019 and around 50 in 2022. Switching within a job category is allowed in cases such as in situations where the employer goes into bankruptcy.
The justification for restricting job mobility is partly due to the trainee model itself, with trainees subject to a training plan. Many of these plans are generic and could be transferred to other workplaces in the same occupation or even similar occupations; this is especially true if the supervising organisation in the new firm were the same as in the previous one.
Another reason for restricting job-change is that firms have invested in initial costs and low initial productivity of trainees does not allow them to recoup their costs until a certain period of employment has passed. In a number of OECD countries, labour migrants must remain with their initial employer for a fixed period before changing; this is often related to the labour market test and the principle that the vacancy was tested for a specific job and workplace, which does not apply in the case of TITP. However, given the initial investment, and the need to provide consistent support and orientation services during the first phase of employment in Japan, it can be justified to limit initial mobility.
A further reason is that workers, granted mobility, will not only gravitate towards firms offering better wages and working conditions but also abandon regions and sectors which are unattractive. The pull effect of metropolitan areas is evident in Korea’s EPS, for example, where there is a tension between demand in rural and remote areas and the interest of workers to be in cities where there are more cultural resources and job opportunities for them. Spain limits initial job mobility to the occupation and region of recruitment, for the first year, although firm change is allowed.
One of the main criticisms of the TITP levelled by NGOs is that the requirement for trainees to remain with the same firm makes them vulnerable to exploitation. Many temporary labour programmes in OECD countries restrict employer mobility, although these restrictions are usually gradually eased for workers who remain. One possibility is to grant mobility at transition points, such as between TIT(i) and (ii), where skills assessments take place. Conditioning job change on achieving certain skills levels could have a negative effect as employers, instead of encouraging their trainees to reach certain skills objectives, hinder training or underinvest in it in order to prevent trainees from eligibility for change of employer.
Another possibility is to grant changes but within a sector. In-sector changes benefit those who are in larger sectors. Non-compliance is lower when workers have more opportunities to change employers. Notably, in Korea’s EPS, compliance rates are higher in manufacturing, where there are many employers, than in sectors such as agriculture or fishery, where conditions are more difficult but there are also fewer employers within the sector and geographic areas of employment for workers to see.
Job mobility could be a means to improve compliance in conjunction with a “Trusted Employer” approach: if job mobility were limited only towards highly compliant and virtuous firms, it would represent an incentive to improve treatment of trainees and at the same time limit poaching. Marginal businesses offering only minimum wage and poor working conditions would lose out. One lesson from Korea’s EPS is also that firms which don’t offer maximum paid overtime also loss attractiveness for those workers who are trying to maximise earnings, who prefer more hours even when conditions are better in the lower-hours workplace (OECD, 2019[13]).
Most trainees remain with their employer, and compliance is high
Strict rules on place and duration of employment heighten the risk of violation of conditions of TITP, since it is easier to run afoul of such regulations. Most temporary labour programmes for lower-wage and less-skilled employment face the challenge of managing cases where the worker is not allowed to leave the employer before the end of the maximum stay, but does so, and cases where the worker stays on beyond the legal deadline for departing.
Figure 6.19. Few trainees go missing
Note: The number of missing persons are those who hold a Status of Residence for TITP and were reported by the supervising organisation as difficult to conduct training because “missing”.
Source: Ministry of Justice, 2023.
The number of TITP workers absconding from their assigned workplace is relatively limited, about 2% in 2022 relative to the total number of trainees, and higher in certain sectors and among certain nationalities, according to figures published by the Ministry of Justice.12 In 2022, the TITP sector with the highest disappearance rate was construction, at 6.6%, followed by agriculture, at 3.5%. The nationality with the highest rate of disappearance was Cambodian, at 7.3%. These are fairly low non-compliance rates for non-skilled low-wage temporary work programmes in OECD countries.
The main categories of foreigners whose status is revoked are TITP and students; these comprised 80% and 14% respectively of the 1 200 revocations of status in 2022. The reasons for revocation of status are primarily either performing activities not allowed under the SoR (e.g. working for a different employer or working in unauthorised activities); and failure to conduct the activity foreseen by the SoR (e.g. absence from the employer or school) for more than three months. The number of revocations of status of TITP workers has been increasing in recent years, in line with the increase in the number of TITP workers. Prior to 2018 it was rare for TITP participants to have their status revoked. Foreigners whose SoR is revoked have 30 days to depart Japan or become subject to deportation.13
Across OECD countries, it is generally more difficult to withdraw a valid permit to stay than to decline to renew one. Revocation requires a review of respect of conditions and often an administrative act, while declining to renew is much simpler.
Deportations are more frequent than revocations. The main categories of foreigners placed in deportation procedures – excluding temporary visitors – are TITP participants, followed by students and designated activities (Figure 6.20). The main reason for deportation is overstay.
Figure 6.20. TITP is the main category for deportation procedures
Deportation procedures and revocation of Status of Residence, by Status of Residence, 2017‑22
Source: ISA.
These figures suggest an overall rate of non-compliance of under 4%, which is relatively low in international comparison. In Korea in 2021, for example, the rate of non-compliance among E‑9 workers – i.e. those who had lost their legal status due to overstay or unauthorised cessation of employment – was 18.9%. In Israel, the overstay rate in the second quarter of 2023 was 17.5% for all programmes, with a higher rate for agriculture (24.7%) and home care (18.9%) workers. The United States sets the general exclusion threshold for nationalities in the H‑2A and H‑2B programme at an overstay rate of 10% for that nationality, including but not limited to H‑2A and H‑2B visa overstay. Notably, general eligibility for these US visas is currently excluded for nationals of Viet Nam and several other main origin countries of workers in TITP and SSW.
In TITP, the sending organisation not only places the trainee but also maintains a relationship with the trainee during the entire period of TIT(i), (ii) and (iii). One means of reducing absconding is to penalise sending organisations whose placed trainees have high rates of going missing. This possibility was introduced in 2019 and has been applied to sending organisations in a number of origin countries including Viet Nam and Cambodia.14
Trainees are compliant with the requirement to depart
Virtually all TITP participants who do not transition to another status end up leaving Japan. Data from the Immigration Services Agency suggest that only approximately 3% of TITP participants entering between 2011 and 2019 remained temporarily in Japan at the end of their participation in the programme, without a valid SoR. The median duration of overstay in these cases is, however, almost 10 months.
There are a number of measures that can be taken to reduce the risk of disappearance and overstay. The main response is to ensure programme integrity and proper compliance with conditions by firms. Unlicensed brokers in origin countries or Japan may make illegal offers to trainees to work without authorisation outside of the programme, in exchange for introduction fees. Communication with candidates prior to arrival in Japan can also help filter out those who would be discouraged or disappointed in the work or who have unrealistic expectations. Some supervising organisations show videos explaining the exact nature of the work to be performed and the residential and working conditions associated with the programme prior to interviews with candidates. It is also a responsibility of sending organisations and origin countries to address illegal and onerous recruitment fees which increase pressure to earn; closer monitoring of sending agencies and application of MOCs can address this.
Trainees would like to remain in Japan long-term
There is a strong interest in remaining in Japan long-term among TITP participants (Figure 6.21). More than one‑quarter would like to remain in Japan indefinitely, and another one‑quarter would like to stay 10 years, implying an interest in transition to another status in order to remain. One in four respondents sees a time horizon of about five years, which is beyond the maximum duration of TITP, although the survey did not allow answers between one and five years. Only a small number of respondents (5.5%) state that they want to leave Japan in the next year. Seventeen of TITP participants surveyed did not know how long they wanted to stay in Japan.
Figure 6.21. There is a strong interest in remaining in Japan long-term among TITP participants
Response of TITP participants to the questions “Do you want to continue to stay in Japan in the future?”, 2021
Note: TITP Respondents N=965.
Source: ISA Survey of Foreign Residents, 2021.
The transition from a temporary labour migration programme to long-term stay
Until now, the trainee programme and SSW(i) have seen temporary workers. The creation of SSW(ii) as a pathway for long-term stay has implications for the rest of the migration management system.
Family reunification and formation have integration consequences
Many OECD countries limit family reunification for low-wage temporary foreign workers – and even those who have long-term residence status – by imposing a salary and housing requirement. The ability to support a family without recourse to public benefit is another limit. In EU countries covered by the Family Reunification Directive, labour migrants can apply for family reunification after no more than 24 months if they hold a residence permit valid for at least one year and “reasonable prospects of obtaining the right of permanent residence”. There still may be income, housing, insurance and other integration requirements. Eligibility for social assistance is often the income threshold at which family reunification is authorised (OECD, 2017[14]). Other countries, like Japan and Korea, limit family reunification to certain statuses, including SSW(ii).
SSW(ii) allows the worker to bring family members, and if they meet the requirements, family members can reside in Japan with the SoR of “Dependent”. The SSW(ii) programme, in fact, opens up the possibility for a significant inflow of accompanying family members. At present, accompanying partners of any labour migrant in Japan are subject to labour market restrictions. The decision on labour market access for spouses of SSW(ii) workers is an important policy decision with an impact on the success of the programme and the integration and retention of its participants.
There are at least three arguments for why spouses of SSW(ii) workers should be granted labour market access. The first is that spousal work conditions affect the attractiveness of countries for skilled migrants. Since SSW(ii) targets technical workers who are in demand across OECD countries, and in most competing countries spousal work rights for workers are granted, Japan should consider offering similar rights. The second reason is retention: one of the most influential factors in retention of labour migrants is the employment status of the spouse.
The third reason is that the income of labour migrants in Japan is low and a second income may be necessary not only to support the family but to avoid benefit use. A household of four relying on one minimum wage income is in principle eligible for benefits – primarily social assistance and housing, but also family benefits – which then comprise almost half of net income (OECD Taxben). Severe restrictions on employment possibilities – including for example hours worked or sectors available – may have negative effects on family income and integration. Family migrants are also an important contribution to the labour force in OECD countries, particularly in occupations where no labour migration channels exist.
Since it is possible for SSW(ii) workers to enter Japan directly from abroad, the policy shift may mean that labour migrants start to arrive in significant numbers with spouses. This will require a range of complementary integration services which have not been necessary until now. Most OECD countries allow labour migrants to bring family members with them, as a means of granting stability (Box 6.10).
Box 6.10. Family reunification eligibility is related to duration of stay
One important distinction among OECD countries is the maximum duration of stay of foreigners admitted for less skilled employment. On the one hand, those OECD countries in the European Union which admit lower skilled migrants offer renewable residence permits – subject to continuing employment – which potentially lead to eligibility for permanent residence after five or more years. Temporary foreign workers in less skilled occupations can therefore plan to remain and settle. On the other hand, programmes for temporary foreign workers in less skilled occupations in non-EU countries often impose a maximum stay; this is the case for the United States (H‑2 visas), Canada, Israel and Korea, for example. Family is not generally allowed to join. Historically, Japan has been in the latter category.
Long-term stay without the possibility of bringing family is considered, in most OECD countries, undesirable, both for social stability and for the well-being of the migrant and the right to family life. The maximum point varies. At the extreme, Korea’s EPS allows stays of up to almost 10 years without admitting accompanying family. In the EU, family reunification must be allowed after no more than two years, although it may be subject to income and other requirements.
Towards a Skills Mobility Partnership Model
The training and testing component in TITP, and the testing component in the SSWP, make these programmes promising for a comprehensive Skills Mobility Partnership approach. Employers in Japan invest in training in the origin country, supporting the migration route. The expansion of training in origin countries is already apparent. The private sector has been active in developing market-driven training services in origin countries, with employers covering the costs at the moment of recruitment. The same applies to in-firm training Box 6.11.
TITP has fallen short on the reintegration of returnees, responsibility of the sending organisation but rarely functional due to mismatch between activity prior to migration, activity in Japan and activity upon return. Some examples cited above show how targeted recruitment of trainees in agriculture can contribute to use of skills in the same field upon return. With the introduction of SSWP, the possibility for former trainees to again come to Japan under an employment programme opens new opportunities for bridging courses and assessments in origin countries.
For Japan to develop a full-fledged skills mobility partnership, it would need to make SSWP and TITP more accessible from abroad. Japan should develop pathways into these programmes in origin countries by fostering a broader pool of candidates for direct recruitment and by encouraging, supporting or even establishing training capacity and pipelines.
An open issue remains the portability of skills upon return. Japan’s VET system is aligned with TITP and SSWP and in principle participants in these programmes could receive certificates of competences acquired for use upon return. This is an area for further exploration, especially in terms of the practical value of these certificates in the origin country labour market.
Box 6.11. Examples of Skills Mobility Partnerships in Japan using SSW
Onodera User Run
Onodera User Run (OUR) is a private enterprise which provides training and placement of foreign workers in SSW(i) jobs in Japan. Training is provided in seven origin countries (Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Indonesia, the Philippines and India) in centres created and run by the firm. All education and training expenses are borne by OUR; in some cases, room and board are also covered. Initial training lasts approximately six months and includes both language and professional skills. Trainers have experience in the relevant field in Japan. After this training, participants who receive a job offer receive an additional 4‑6 months of training – largely self-study – as well as orientation on Japanese culture and practices. OUR has its own language‑learning app. Once they arrive in Japan, they continue to receive training to pass higher level and certification tests, such as the test needed to pass to Certified Care Giver status of residence. OUR covers costs while in the country of origin, while employers cover costs in Japan. The pass rate for participants is higher than the overall pass rate: 76% for language, and almost 100% for Care Giver language and skills tests. By mid‑2023, OUR had 30 000 students enrolled or completing the programme and 3 000 placed in Japan. The placement fees from employers allow this approach to be financially sustainable despite the lengthy training period. OUR is selective of students – screening and evaluating them for aptitude for the study and overall commitment to the migration project.
Komeda Coffee
Komeda coffee is coffee shop/diner franchise chain, present in Japan as well as a number of other Asian economies. Komeda has been suffering from lack of workers (waiters etc). In 2019, the job-opening-to‑applicant ratio was 3.86 in 2019 in the restaurant industry, higher than the overall ratio in Japan (1.44). Komeda partnered with a private Japanese language school in Myanmar to train workers to pass the “restaurant worker” certificate of SSW(i) while in Myanmar, and come to Japan to work in Komeda’s shops across Japan as SSWs. Komeda also plans to expand overseas in Myanmar and have these workers, return from Japan after completing the duration of SSWP and work in Komeda shops in Myanmar. In 2023, 43 workers had begun working in Japan in directly managed stores and bakeries and will receive training aimed at promotion to management positions in the future.
Mos Burger
Mos Burger is a Japanese burger chain with shops in Australia and a number of Asian economies. Since 2019, Mos Food Services Inc., in a programme called “Vietnam Kazoku”, has an agreement with a college in Viet Nam (the Danang Vocational Tourism College to provide a “Mos Food Business College (MFC)” curriculum. Graduates of MFC who obtain pass the SSW(i) exam in food service while in Viet Nam can come to Japan to work at Mos Burger. “Vietnam Kazoku” also assists in preparation for the exams. With the addition in 2023 of the SSW(ii) exam in this sector, there is the potential to remain longer in Japan. Vietnam Kazoku provides ongoing support for the future careers of the accepted members, in Mos Burger shops in different locations. The pandemic delayed the initial recruitment, with the first 14 employees arriving in Japan in 2022. The total number is expected to reach 60 in 2024.
Source: Komeda: 2023 https://finance.stockweather.co.jp/contents/dispPDF.aspx?disclosure=20240112514685 (Corporate Governance Report for Komeda Holdings); Mos Burger, communication with the firm, and 2019, blueprint for SSWP worker development https://www.mos.co.jp/company/pr_pdf/pr_191015_1.pdf; Integrated Report 2023 https://www.mos.co.jp/company/social_activity/pdf/mos_csr23_all_en.pdf; OUR: presentation by OUR at the 13th ADBI-OECD-ILO Roundtable on Labor Migration in Asia: Integrating Skills Development and Certification into the Labor Migration Cycle, 27 June 2023, Bangkok, Thailand.
Conclusions
The labour migration channel for low to medium skilled workers which is emerging in Japan from the piecemeal programmes has the potential to meet Japan’s medium-term policy objectives of ensuring sufficient workforce in occupations, sectors and locations where they are needed. It also has the potential to advance a model of low to medium skilled labour migration management which integrates skills development and contributes to positive outcomes in the country of origin.
The pathway which is developing establishes a trajectory through TITP into SSWP and potentially on to settlement. However, there are different pathways through this trajectory. There are multiple entry and exit points from these programmes, corresponding not only to the ability of foreigners to meet conditions but also on the intentions and needs of Japanese employers and the foreigners who come to work in Japan.
TITP as it currently stands is able to both provide rotational low skilled workforce with little skills development and tracks for career development and skills acquisition relevant for longer-term, higher-productivity stay in Japan or boosting of opportunities upon return home. Indeed, its expansion between 1993 and 2018 was largely due to a meeting of interests between candidates seeking work in Japan and employers interested in expanding their labour force. The need for longer-term solutions has increased the relevance of the skills acquisition component in TITP as it became one prerequisite for the SSWP.
SSWP has three principal entry points: arrival from abroad through qualification on tests, arrival in Japan from training and testing in Japan, and direct passage from TITP. Each one of these entry points has distinct policy implications and creates opportunities. Greater involvement of Japanese actors – private and public – in origin countries can increase the use of this channel and its positive impact on participants and origin countries. The expansion of vocational training in Japan to meet SSW categories can reinforce a virtuous bridge between language study and employment. Finally, the TITP has shown how important it is to ensure a long skills development period in Japan to acquire the language and professional competences necessary to feed the SSWP channels. TITP is a necessary “filter” to identify candidates who are able to acquire the necessary skills through experience and those who are unable to meet this threshold.
TITP reform needs to recognise the dual scope it currently serves – meeting immediate labour needs and offering a chance to build skills for longer stay. In order to fully realise its potential, the pathways into and between the TITP and SSWP should be improved. At the same time, more flexibility within TITP to interrupt and restart the stay in Japan, or to move among firms, would better align the contribution of trainees to the needs of the Japanese labour market.
Japan relies on a large universe of intermediary bodies for management of TITP and SSWP, at a limited additional cost to firms. The advantage of the intermediary bodies is to provide orientation and a third or fourth party for mediation between the firm and the worker. As these programmes develop, the unique Japanese approach of support through multiple government and programme‑specific intermediaries should be monitored. Since any low-skill migration programme contains a potential for abuse by bad actors, it is important that the layers of responsibility increase the ability to detect problems rather than obscure them.
As the new migration channel develops, numbers increase and foreign workers settle in larger numbers, the involvement of communities will be necessary to ensure integration of these migrants and their families.
With the introduction of the SSWP in 2019, Japan established a key link in a pipeline for labour migration capable of managing larger and more diversified inflows than those which occurred in the past. The SSWP, however, has implications for the parts of the pipeline which precede and follow it. Initial experience with SSWP has shown the importance of TITP as a filter and feeder for SSWP. TITP, as both the historic and the sequential precursor, cannot remain unchanged with the introduction of SSWP, since it now forms one of the main entry channels into SSWP. Yet not all trainees have the ability, desire or possibility to transfer into SSWP, nor is it the objective of TITP to link the trainee programme entirely to further stay and employment in Japan. The challenge facing Japan is to establish a clear set of entry and exit points for these programmes, linking them where appropriate and providing opportunities for skills development and, where workers qualify, for longer term and even indefinite stay and settlement in Japan.
References
[4] Korekawa, Y. (2023), “Determinants of Foreign Workers’ Wage in Japan: An Analysis Focusing on Wage Gaps with Japanese”, National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, Working Paper Series, Vol. N. 66.
[1] MOFA (1994), Japan’s ODA Annual Report (Summary) 1994: The 40th Anniversary of Japan’s ODA: Accomplishments and Challenges, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, https://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/oda/summary/1994/index.html (accessed on 11 August 2021).
[2] Murakami, E. (2007), The Consequences of Policy Reform: Japanese Industrial Training Programs and Female Migrant Workers.
[9] OECD (2021), “Japan”, in Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2021: Addressing the Challenges Facing Food Systems, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e4c38702-en.
[8] OECD (2019), “Human capital development in Japan’s agriculture”, in Innovation, Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability in Japan, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/93e84944-en.
[13] OECD (2019), Recruiting Immigrant Workers: Korea 2019, Recruiting Immigrant Workers, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307872-en.
[14] OECD (2017), “A portrait of family migration in OECD countries”, in International Migration Outlook 2017, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/migr_outlook-2017-6-en.
[6] OECD (2014), “Managing labour migration: Smart policies to support economic growth”, in International Migration Outlook 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/migr_outlook-2014-6-en.
[11] OECD (2013), Review of Recent Developments and Progress in Labour Market and Social Policy in Israel: Slow Progress Towards a More Inclusive Society, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264200401-en.
[7] OECD (2011), “International Migration to Israel and its Impact”, in International Migration Outlook 2011, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/migr_outlook-2011-9-en.
[5] OECD/European Union (2016), Recruiting Immigrant Workers: Europe 2016, Recruiting Immigrant Workers, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264257290-en.
[3] OTIT (2023), 令和３年度における技能実習の状況について（概要） (Overview of the status of technical intern training in FY2021), OTIT, Tokyo, https://www.otit.go.jp/files/user/%E3%80%90230327%E5%85%AC%E8%A1%A8%E7%89%88%E3%80%91%E4%BB%A4%E5%92%8C%EF%BC%93%E5%B9%B4%E5%BA%A6%E3%81%AB%E3%81%8A%E3%81%91%E3%82%8B%E6%8A%80%E8%83%BD%E5%AE%9F%E7%BF%92%E3%81%AE%E7%8A%B6%E6%B3%81%E3%81%AB%E3%81%A4%E3%81%84%E3%81%A6%EF%BC%88%E6%A6%82%E8%A6%81%EF%BC%89.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2024).
[10] Tam, S. and M. Shumsky (2019), The changing face of the immigrant farm operator, Statistics Canada, Ottawa, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/96-325-x/2019001/article/00003-eng.htm (accessed on 5 June 2023).
[12] US State Department (2022), Trafficking in Persons Report, https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/20221020-2022-TIP-Report.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2023).
Annex 6.A. An analysis of the wages of TITP participants using the Basic Survey on Wage Structure
Estimation
The models estimated to analyse the wage gap of TITP participants relative to the Japanese have the same form than those used to estimate the wage gap for EHI migrants described in Chapter 5, Annex 5.A.15
Results
The wage gap of TITP participants relative to the Japanese is extremely large at about ‑85% (Model 10, Annex Table 6.A.1). In contrast, when controlling for differences in the distribution of attributes such as education and length of service, the gap narrows to ‑36% (Model 11). When controlling for heterogeneity by the firm, the gap narrows to ‑29% (Model 12). As a result, 57.1% of the disparity is explained by the attribute effect, 8.2% by sorting, and 34.7% by the coefficient effect.
Annex Table 6.A.1. Estimation results
Note: ** p<0.01, * p<0.05, † p<0.1. Pooled OLS estimates models 10.11 and 14. Models 12, 13, 15, and 16 are estimated by a multi-level (fixed effect model) model. The dependent variable of Model 16 is a unit labor cost (wage and related costs per hour).
Source: Basic Survey on Wage Structure.
When the coefficient effects were examined in more detail regarding education and years of experience up to the start of the current job (Model 13), additional negative results were identified for education and years of experience. When taken together with the main effect of education, the effect of higher education is almost cancelled out, indicating that there is almost no difference in wage levels depending on educational attainment. This means that TITP workers are treated identically within the same system without considering their educational background and working experiences. On the other hand, no differences in wage increases during the TITP period, almost irrespective of educational background (except junior high school graduates), have been observed between Japanese and foreign workers. This means Japanese and TITP workers are placed under the same employment management.
Furthermore, it has been confirmed that the TITP system imposes additional costs on recruitment and employment not incurred by Japanese workers, as mentioned above. If these costs are considered, in other words, viewed from the perspective of unit labor costs, how will the gap between TITP and Japanese workers be reduced?
According to the estimation results, in terms of unit labor cost, the disparity with the Japanese decreases to about ‑17% (Model 14). When heterogeneity among firms is taken into account (sorting), the disparity (coefficient effect) drops to ‑10% (Model 15).
Looking at the details of the coefficient effects, a wage gap of about ‑4% was confirmed as the main effect of the SoR, while the education effect was found to cancel out the wage gap between education levels (Model 16). Similar additional adverse effects were obtained for years of experience. For years of tenure, the results showed that wage increases are more suppressed than for Japanese workers.
Furthermore, compared to Japanese non-regular workers (with fixed terms of employment), the employment costs of TITP workers are about 4% higher (Model 17). Considering that the costs in this analysis are limited to monetary costs and do not consider non-monetary costs such as the time and effort required to provide on-site guidance, the argument that TITP workers are inexpensive workers is invalid. In other words, the wage gap between TITP workers and Japanese is practically non-existent when additional costs and forms of employment are considered.
Annex 6.B. Additional tables
Annex Table 6.6. Jobs and sectors allowed for TITP
Industry, job category and job operation allowed for the TITP, 2021‑23
Source: OTIT.
Notes
← 2. One example cited for care trainees is the need to learn how to work for example with clients with dementia or cognitive problems.
← 4. Memoranda of Co‑operation in 2023 cover Viet Nam, Cambodia, India, the Philippines, Laos, Mongolia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Bhutan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Thailand, and Indonesia.
← 5. Operative Manual for Sending Organizations, JITCO, 11/2010, www.jitco.or.jp/download/data/okuridashi_English.pdf.
← 6. Based on 126 Myanmar sending organisations with experience sending workers. Summary of Hearing Results, Interview on 3 July 2023 with a Myanmar sending agency, www.moj.go.jp/isa/content/001403328.pdf.
← 7. Among the 2011‑17 entry cohorts, 60% of participants in the TITP remain in Japan for three years.
← 8. Among those who transitioned to SSWP, some had first transitioned to TITP(iii). This implies that more than 11% of migrants arrived as TITP(i) in 2017 transitioned to TITP(iii).
← 9. Among the 2018 and 2019 entry cohorts, approximately 40% of the trainees transitioned to either TITP(iii) or SSWP, and most were still in Japan by the end of 2022.
← 10. Agriculture Skill Assessment sample test and study materials can be found at https://asat-nca.jp/textbook.
← 11. 技能実習生の妊娠・出産に係る不適正な取扱いに関する実態調査について（結果の概要）www.moj.go.jp/isa/content/001390139.pdf.
← 13. Except those whose admission to Japan was on fraudulent grounds, who must depart immediately.