This chapter presents the overall assessment of Japan's labour migration system. It first summarises the main findings of the review followed by the key recommendations.
Recruiting Immigrant Workers: Japan 2024
Report
Recruiting Immigrant Workers
Table of contents
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
1. Summary of the evaluation of Japan's labour migration system and main recommendations
Abstract
Japan has one of the smallest immigrant populations among OECD countries. In 2021, 2.2% of the population was immigrant compared with 10.4% of the OECD population. In Japan, immigrants are defined as foreigners, while most other OECD countries define them as foreign-born. Given that the naturalisation rate is low in Japan, the vast majority of the foreign-born are foreigners.
Only half of the approximately 3 million foreigners living in Japan in 2022 are permanent residents.1 These are former temporary labour migrants, and their families, who have been granted permanent residence, as well as spouses and children of Japanese citizens, immigrants of Japanese ethnicity and residents of Japan with ancestral origins in Japan’s former colonies. All labour migrants to Japan are initially granted permits with a temporary duration.
The other half are for the most part temporary labour migrants and their families, technical intern trainees, and international students. In 2022, temporary labour migrants and their families accounted for 22% of foreigners in Japan (674 000). Japan hosts also a large number of trainees, through its Technical Internship Trainee Programme, who stay and work in the country for up to 5 years. In 2022, 325 000 technical interns were in Japan. Finally, there were over 300 000 international students in 2022.
The number of labour migrants, technical intern trainees and international students in Japan increased sharply in the years leading to the COVID‑19 pandemic. The number of labour migrants approximately doubled since 2010. The number of technical intern trainees tripled, and that of international students almost doubled, from 2012 to 2019.
The COVID‑19 pandemic put a sudden stop to migration to Japan, but in 2022 the flows have bounced back. Migrant inflows in 2021 dropped by 86% relative to 2019. In 2022, over 100 000new labour migrants and their families entered Japan, as well as 179 000 new technical intern trainees, and 167 000 international students.
Almost all labour migrants come from Asia, but the countries of origin have changed recently. In 2011, labour migrants from China accounted for 31% of all new labour migrants arriving in Japan. In 2019, Chinese migrants accounted for only 24% of new labour migrants. In the same years, the share of Vietnamese labour migrants increased dramatically, from 3% in 2011 to 20% in 2019.
The change in the countries of origin has been similar for international students. While international students from China and Korea represented 48% and 14% of the total number of students arriving in Japan in 2011, by 2019, the represented only 39% and 7%, respectively. Conversely, the number of international students arriving from Viet Nam increased 11‑fold from 2011 to 2019, and that from Nepal over 7‑fold. By 2019, these two countries together represented almost one‑quarter of the total yearly inflow of international students.
The increase in labour migration was partly a response to the favourable conditions in the Japanese labour market. The unemployment rate has been sustainedly low over the past 15 years. The unemployment rate in the first quarter of 2023 was 2.6%, under its’ structural level estimated at 4.6%, and well below the OECD unemployment rate of 5%. Furthermore, the number of vacancies per applicant was 1.6 in 2019, the highest ratio since the 1970s, and at 1.3 in 2022.
Japan’s population is ageing rapidly. The working age population (ages 15 to 64) decreased by 9 million individuals, from 83 to 74 million, or 11%, in the past 15 years (2007 to 2021). The most recent population projections estimate that this population will drop to 71m in 2030 and to 51m in 2060. This represents a decrease of 4.6% and 31.6% from the current level. The magnitude of this demographic change is already posing challenges to the labour market.
Japan is addressing structural challenges in the labour market through a mix of policies, aimed mainly at increasing productivity and the labour supply of domestic residents. Boosting economic growth through increased productivity has been a key strategy of the Japanese Government in the past ten years. Increasing participation of women and older workers has also been a main aim of the government, namely through a package of measures in the 2018 work-style reform, including legislation to ensure equal pay for equal work, and measures to promote job mobility at all ages.
Labour migration is one of the policy options considered to address changes in the labour market. The “third arrow”, or growth strategy, of the Abe Government, starting in 2012 included relaxing immigration requirements for high-skilled foreign workers. Until recently, however, no policy was meant explicitly to address labour shortages. In 2019, Japan established its first labour migration programme for medium-skill trades jobs in identified shortage sectors, the Specified Skilled Worker Programme (SSWP). This is a two‑tier programme: one temporary; and one with a pathway to permanent residency for some participants. This is the first time that medium skilled labour migrants have a clear pathway to qualify to remain in Japan indefinitely.
Japan has focused its labour migration programmes on specific sectors, including those most affected by demographic structural changes. An example is nursing care. Japan has an Economic Partnership Agreement with three countries to train nurses and nursing care workers, who may stay working in Japan if successful in the national qualification exams. Japan has also created a specific status of residence for migrants who pass Japanese qualification exams for nursing care, mainly international students. This is in addition to the nursing care stream of the TITP, and of the newly established SSWP (more on these programmes below). Agriculture is another example. As the average age of farmers increases and the number of young people going into the sector declines, Japan has included farm work in the different labour migration programmes.
Japan has a demand-driven labour migration system. Labour migration to Japan is driven by Japanese employers, rather than by the government choosing candidates. All migrants, regardless of the programme, are required to hold a job offer from a Japanese employer. There is no labour market test or salary threshold beyond the prevailing wage.
The system is mainly overseen by the Immigration Services Agency (ISA) at the Ministry of Justice. The ISA, which was created in 2019 as a higher-level agency than the Immigration Bureau which preceded it, holds the reins of the migration system, deciding on issuance of different permit categories or Statuses of Residence. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) has a relatively limited role in the labour migration system, including its oversight of the labour inspectorate. Along with other Ministries, the MHLW is also involved in certifying actors within the different programmes. For example, the MHLW jointly manages the TITP with the Ministry of Justice. Policy has been guided by regular Basic Plans drafted by the Ministry of Justice since 1992, which outlines multi-year priorities and strategic directions.
There are few restrictions on skilled labour migration to Japan. To be eligible, in addition to a job offer, migrants must fulfil specific requirements in terms of educational attainment and work experience. The refusal rates are low. Japan places no caps on immigration, except for the SSWP, and job offers to foreigners do not need to be labour market tested.
The migration process is fast, the processing fees are low, and the digitalisation of processes is improving. The immigration process in Japan compares favourably with those of other OECD countries. There are no backlogs, and the processes are relatively simple and inexpensive. Although most immigration processes may now be filled online, this is a recent development and there are still difficulties in practice. However, Japan is monitoring the user experience and introducing improvements regularly.
Japan’s migration policy has focussed on accepting skilled migrants and attracting international students. Until very recently, there were no channels for migrants to work in low to medium trades jobs, except for the TITP. In contrast, skilled migrants have long-established labour migration channels. Furthermore, attracting international students has been a key objective of Japan’s Basic Plan for Immigration Control and Residency Management (the main guiding document for migration policy) for decades. Over the past 40 years, Japan has implemented successive International Student Plans with numerical targets. In 1983, it established the “100 000 Foreign Student Program”. The latest target is hosting 400 000 international students by 2033.
Most high-skilled immigrants migrate to Japan under a single programme, Engineers/ Specialists in Humanities/ International Services. In 2022, 60% of newly arrived skilled migrants entered Japan under the status of residence Engineers/ Specialists in Humanities/ International Services. Furthermore, the number of immigrants arriving through this status has increased five‑fold from 2011 to 2019, driving the observed overall increase in skilled migration.
This status of residence encompasses a wide range of eligible occupations. While many migrants work in high-skilled occupations, such as engineers, IT professionals or architects, close to one fifth of incoming immigrants under this status work as translators or in education (including language education). There is no published comprehensive list of occupations eligible for this status of residence. Hence, the skill threshold of the major skilled migration pathway is unclear for potential migrants and the public at large.
Japan introduced a Points-Based System (PBS) for highly-skilled foreign professionals in 2012. The Japanese PBS is designed to offer more rights to individuals who already hold a job offer and would have in any case qualified for an existing status of residence. In this respect, the PBS resembles that in the Netherlands and in Germany. In contrast, in OECD settlement countries, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the PBS is a means for deciding eligibility for admission with immediate permanent residence status, including in the absence of a job offer.
Few immigrants have come to Japan through the PBS, while most have used it to change status. The uptake of the PBS has been low. In its 10 years of existence, only 4 200 immigrants arrived in Japan under the PBS by the end of 2022 (since its start in 2013). During the same years, there have been almost ten times more, 38 500, in country status changes. These are for the most part international students who remain in Japan after graduation. It remains unclear whether migrants arriving in Japan under other high-skilled statuses of residence do not qualify for the PBS or do not know about the programme.
Relative to other OECD countries, the residence requirements for permanent residency are strict. Labour migrants basically become eligible for permanent residence after ten years in Japan. In OECD settlement countries, like Australia, Canada and New Zealand, high-skilled migrants are already often permanent residents upon arrival, and in European countries, or in Korea, they are generally eligible after no more than five years of residence.
Recent changes in the PBS have offered faster access to permanent residency to qualifying immigrants. Under the PBS, since 2017, if migrants score above a given threshold on the PBS scale, they may be eligible for permanent residence (PR) after three years, or even one year. In 2023, the government announced a new status of residence, J-Skip-visa, which extends the eligibility to PR after one year of residence to all immigrants who satisfy the education criteria or experience, and a high earnings threshold.
Given the recent multiplication of labour migration programmes for high-skill migrants, Japan could consider creating a platform to help potential migrants navigate the system. The introduction of the PBS and its successive revisions imply that high-skill migrants may simultaneously qualify for different labour migration programmes that offer different conditions of stay. Japan could consider developing a single platform in which potential migrants could self-select into the migration programme which offers the most favourable conditions given their characteristics and job offer. This would also help with the evaluation of the different programmes and in particular ensuring that the best conditions are offered to priority migrants.
In the longer term, Japan should consider consolidating labour migration pathways. Japan recently developed several overlapping pathways, partly because of the establishment of the new programme SSWP but also through new programmes under the National Strategic Special Zones (NSSZs). The latter have the advantage of testing new policies in restricted geographic areas before potentially expanding to the rest of the country. However, some of these pilots overlap, complicating management and evaluation. As of 2022, there were, for example, four different migration pathways for caregivers, three for entrepreneurs, and three for agricultural workers.
The definition of accompanying family is restrictive. High-skilled immigrants may be accompanied by their immediate family. However, the conditions are stricter than in many OECD countries. This basically excludes commonlaw partners and same sex-partners (married or common law).
Spouses’ access to the labour market should be facilitated. Unlike in many other OECD countries, spouses of high-skilled migrants do not have immediate and unrestricted access to the labour market. They may apply for an authorisation for employment and be allowed to work part-time. Spouses of migrants under the PBS are eligible to work full-time. However, they may only work in jobs that would be eligible for some of the existing statuses of residence.
Attracting talent is also hindered by the Japanese employment system. Japan is disadvantaged in the global race for talent by some specific features of its labour market. First, wages for new graduates are low but increase steeply with tenure, making it difficult to attract young, high-skilled immigrants who do not necessarily plan to stay in Japan for long. Second, most training occurs within firms, and it is difficult for migrants to have their foreign skills recognised. Third, most recruitment for new graduates in Japan takes place before graduation. Immigrants arriving after completing their studies abroad will have missed the main recruitment cycle. Furthermore, employer have high expectations relative to foreigners’ language fluency and understanding of Japanese labour market norms.
Recent policies aiming to change employment practices may improve Japan’s attractiveness to high-skilled migrants. Employment practices are changing, especially in larger companies. The Japanese Government has adopted a series of measures since 2018 to reform the labour market. There are measures targeted at increasing job mobility and ensuring wages reflect productivity rather than tenure. These changes should make Japan more attractive to high-skilled migrants in the future.
Integrating into Japanese society remains a challenge for migrants. Japan has only recently started developing integration policy. In 2018, the government formulated the Comprehensive Measures for Acceptance and Coexistence of Foreign Nationals. These include a package of integration measures, such as increased options to learn Japanese, the promotion of the use of plain Japanese in information dissemination and consultation services, increased support for foreign children in schools, etc. Since then, the Comprehensive Measures have been revised and enhanced every year. Furthermore, in 2022, the government formulated the Roadmap for the Realization of a Society of Harmonious Coexistence with Foreign Nationals, which shows the visions of a society of coexistence to aim for, and the medium-to long-term issues that should be addressed. The implementation status of the Roadmap is to be assessed annually to confirm its progress and review the measures as needed. Despite these recent developments, Japan lags behind countries with a long history of immigrant integration. For example, there are no policies to help spouses of skilled migrants integrate into the labour market, nor the society at large.
Japan could develop a job matching platform to attract potential high-skilled migrants. Japan accepts, but does not actively try to attract, high-skilled migrants overseas. It is currently difficult for foreigners abroad to understand what jobs are open to high-skilled migrants. Japan should consider developing a job matching platform in which potential candidates could look for job offers. This could potentially be based on the existing platform developed by JETRO. A number of OECD countries have integrated vacancies into information portals for potential immigrants, such as Make It in Germany, or collect profiles of interested candidates, such as New Zealand Now.
High-skilled migrants who choose to come to Japan tend to stay in the country. Among foreigners who first entered Japan as skilled labour migrants between 2011 and 2017, approximately 40% were still in Japan five years later. Given that this group of migrants includes many highly mobile migrants, such as intra-company transferees, this is rather high and suggests that Japan can benefit from long-term contribution to the skilled labour supply through these channels. Among migrants arriving as Engineers/ Specialists in Humanities/ International Services, the main migration channel, half of the migrants remain in Japan after five years, and up to two‑thirds of migrants arrived under a small programme for skilled trades (Skilled Labour).
International students are key players of Japan’s strategy to attract and retain global talent. International students who choose to remain in the host country after graduation typically integrate more easily in the labour market. Most OECD countries are developing policies to attract and retain international students. The advantage of international students, relative to labour migrants, is particularly important in the case of Japan. Japan, like many other non-English speaking countries, does not have a large pool of potential labour migrant who already speak the language, which makes talent attraction harder. Moreover, the traditional Japanese Employment System is difficult to navigate for immigrants and easier to integrate right after graduation. Some Japanese firms have begun recruiting students from foreign universities prior to their graduation in order to integrate them directly into the Japanese Employment System.
Most high-skilled labour migrants in Japan first entered the country as international students. In 2019, international students changing into a labour migration status of residence accounted for 30% of all new permits issued for labour migration (excluding the SSW programme and the TITP). This is a similar share as in Italy or France and among the highest in the OECD. Furthermore, labour migrants who arrived as international students are more likely to remain in the country. Over half of high-skilled migrants at the end of 2022 first migrated to Japan as international students.2
The number of international students in Japanese vocational schools has increased more than that in universities. International students in Higher Education in Japan enrol either in tertiary education (universities, junior colleges, colleges of technology, graduate schools) or in vocational schools. In 2022, approximately 30% of international students in Higher Education were enrolled in vocational schools. From 2011 to 2019, the number of international students in vocational schools more than tripled. In contrast, the number of international students in tertiary education increased only by 30% in the same years.
Many international students start by attending a Japanese Language Institute (JLI) in Japan before enrolling into Higher Education. In 2022, one fifth of international students in Japan were enrolled in a JLI (and over one‑quarter in 2019). Learning Japanese is one of the main difficulties faced by prospective international students. Attending a JLI in Japan has become particularly attractive since students in JLIs have the same access to the labour market than international students in higher education institutions, among the most favourable accesses across OECD countries.
Closer monitoring of the quality of education at JLIs is needed. JLIs are not part of Higher Education Institutions. They are accredited by the Ministry of Justice, after consultation of the Ministry of Education, Culture Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). JLIs do not follow a standard curriculum. The Ministry of Justice conducts residency examinations of students in JLIs and checks student attendance strictly. However, there is little oversight regarding the quality of teaching.
New legislation to improve quality of JLIs was passed in May 2023. In February 2023, a proposal was submitted to the Diet at the time to improve quality of JLIs and passed into legislation in May 2023. The changes include a new certification scheme of JLIs based on the quality of education, overseen by MEXT, as well as a certification mechanism of Japanese language teacher through an examination. The changes will be implemented from April 2024 and will be an important step in ensuring the quality of language teaching to international students.
Japan has a high retention rate of international students by international comparison. Between 30 and 40% of international students are still in Japan 5 years after arrival. Although the retention rates of international students in Japan lag behind those in Canada and Germany, they compare favourably with those of many European countries – including Switzerland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
The retention rate of international students has increased in the last decade due to the shift in the country-of-origin mix. The 5‑year retention rate increased by 6.5 percentage points from 37.3% to 43.7% from the 2011 to the 2017 entry cohort. However, this increase is completely driven by the cohort composition in terms of country of origin. An increasing share of international students come from Viet Nam and Nepal who are more likely to remain in the country after graduation. Among international students arrived in Japan between 2011 and 2017, 57% of students from Viet Nam and 80% of those from Nepal are still in Japan 5 years later, compared with 47% of those from China.
In line with other OECD countries, Japan has created several pathways to retain international students after graduation. Japan introduced a 6‑month job search programme for graduates of Japanese HEIs, renewable up to 2 years, and specific support programmes for graduates founding a startup. In Japan, more than in other OECD countries, graduates find employment before graduating. The jobhunting process starts over a year before graduation and is highly codified.
Job hunting in Japan remains a challenge for international students. The Japan Student Services Organization (JASSO) provides detailed information on job hunting for international students. Fifteen universities participate in the “International Student Employment Promotion Programme” organised by the MEXT since 2017 to provide specific career support for international students in collaboration with Hello Work, the Japanese Public Employment Security Offices. A 2020 MEXT survey of universities that accept international students shows that there are few universities providing specific help for international students to find internships during their studies and that students themselves do not always grasp the importance of the job-hunting process.
For lower skilled occupations, Japan historically had no labour migration channels. Starting around 1990, however, foreigners began to contribute to employment in less skilled occupations and roles. International students took service sector jobs, especially in restaurants and retail. Two important policy changes in 1990 also contributed to a rapid expansion in the number of foreigners working in low-skilled occupations. Hundreds of thousands of Brazilian and Peruvian migrants of Japanese origin came to Japan under a residence status for descendants of Japanese emigrants and worked, primarily as dispatched workers, in manufacturing. The Technical Intern Training Programme (TITP), first created for skills development and transfer back to developing countries, expanded rapidly after policy changes in 1993 allowed more businesses to host trainees.
TITP is currently the main programme for employment of less skilled foreign workers. The 325 000 TITP participants in 2022, down from more than 400 000 in 2019, are primarily employed in manufacturing – including food processing – construction and agriculture. While their overall contribution to employment in these sectors is very small, they are concentrated in certain prefectures and industrial jobs, and comprise a larger share of new workers than their overall share in employment.
TITP has several stages and can last for three to five years, depending on the sector. There is a skills test to pass from the first phase to the second phase after one year, and skills tests to qualify for an additional two years after the third year for most TITP jobs. Some tests are based on the Japanese Vocational Education and Training framework while others are developed by industry associations specially for TITP. In both cases some tests have not been revised in decades and has not always been relevant to evolving tasks. Further, some tests are unrelated to the tasks actually performed by the trainee. TITP involves a “supervising organisation” which provides support and counselling to trainees and helps develop an individual training plan for each participant. Despite these skill development components, both workers and employers have perceived and used it largely as a labour migration programme.
Excessive fees and the involvement of brokers in sending countries remain a problem. TITP has been largely used to meet labour demand, rather than for skills transfer. TITP was initially designed to last for one year, extended to two years, and then three years maximum, with the first year as a “trainee” not treated as an employee (e.g. minimum wage did not apply). Since July 2010, trainees have been treated as employees for the full duration of their stay. Since the TITP is designed for participants to return home after completion, family reunification is not allowed. Rent-seeking by brokers in sending countries was difficult to prevent and some trainees arrived indebted. Since 2016, Japan has signed Memoranda of Co‑operation with its main origin countries, which accredit the “sending organisation” which recruits the workers. Excessive fees and involvement of other brokers are forbidden, but in practice have not been entirely eliminated. Overstay rates for TITP are not high, but firms were often reluctant to give up workers who had acquired useful human capital.
Trainees are bound to their “receiving organisation” or employer, with limited possibilities for change after arrival. Limited employer mobility constrains bargaining power and hinders wage growth, and in the worst cases makes the trainee vulnerable to exploitation. The TITP requirement to stay with the initial employer is based on the idea of receiving training rather than performing employment. The TITP infrastructure and regulations are designed to support a training rather than employment relationship. Voluntary employer changes are not allowed. However, trainees with compelling reasons can change employers without returning to the home country. TITP, as the only available programme, is sometimes used for short-term seasonal employment or other tasks not fully compatible with an extended training programme. In most labour migration programmes in OECD countries; workers can change employer if the new employment meets the labour market testing and other criteria imposed by programme rules. For example, most European countries grant employer mobility within 6 or 12 months of arrival, subject to the same conditions as applied upon admission. Korea’s EPS allows several changes among authorised employers, although there are incentives to stay with the initial employer.
The structural shifts underway in the Japanese labour market should be addressed through a programme which has the flexibility to address real skills needs and the different types of demand. Japanese firms privilege on-the‑job training for development of both soft and technical vocational skills. For soft skills, job experience in Japan is essential, but does not require remaining with a single employer for three to five years; it can be acquired in most suitable workplaces. Similarly, the multi-tiered TITP is arranged to help trainees develop professionally, but the temporal aspect – requiring a year in TIT (i) and two years in TIT (ii) – do not necessarily correspond to the time necessary for skills acquisition to test standards. TITP participants don’t always have the intention to return home to use the skills acquired. Since the programme was introduced, the gap between Japanese standards and practices and those in many origin countries has shrunk, although Japan still has more advanced technologies in most fields. Half of trainees would like to remain in Japan for 10 or more years. Most return since there are few options to remain, but do not often return home to the same exact sector, limiting the impact of transfer of skills acquired within their training plan. Other skills – language and soft skills and use of technology – are often of more value upon return.
The place of development co‑operation elements in the programme needs to be rethought. TITP can do a better job of serving the interest of the origin country. This requires revising the testing thresholds and requirements to facilitate the provision of training opportunities in origin countries. Clear and modern testing focused on Japanese work practices would be more suitable and still encourage participants to develop skills useful for future careers in Japan or at home. It would also reinforce the ability of training institutes in origin countries to prepare workers for the Japanese labour market and to enter directly into the programme corresponding to their skill level. It would also open a number of opportunities for skills development partnerships which could be organised flexibly and independent of TITP and other specific Japanese labour migration programmes, while still taking into account the different entry requirements.
As TITP is under review, its reform should retain the support provided to workers under today’s TITP. TITP currently includes many additional support mechanisms not usually included in labour migration programmes. The supervising organisation provides initial orientation and training, monitors the work experience of the employee. OTIT, the legal entity approved by MOJ and MHLW, oversees the training plans. Different bodies administer the skills tests for passing different tiers. TITP employers are responsible for securing lodging for trainees. There are different institutional forms this support can take, and the current distribution of tasks may need to evolve, but the overall framework of orientation, assistance to employers and workers, and responsibility for daily living in the initial phase of labour migration provided by supervising organisations should be maintained, given the specificities of the Japanese labour market.
The SSWP was introduced to create a potentially long-term pathway for migrants with trades qualifications. Japan did not have a dedicated channel for labour migration by workers with technical skills. The “Skilled Labour” Status of Residence does not apply to many technical occupations. In 2019, the SSWP was introduced, for a limited number of sectors, based on a skills assessment – either through a formal test or through demonstrated experience by finishing a TITP programme in the same sector. It resembles temporary foreign worker programmes in some OECD countries. A second tier of the SSWP was created for workers who qualify for a higher-level skill test; the second tier allows family reunification and indefinite stay. This is similar to the labour migration channel in most European countries.
SSWP, like TITP, is more heavily managed than most labour migration programmes in other OECD countries. There is a support organisation in the relationship between SSWP participants and their employers – the Registered Support Organisation. This organisation is supposed to provide support to workers. The SSWP allows workers to change employers within the sector for which the worker is qualified. SSWP employers are not required to directly provide housing but are required to help finding housing and signing a lease.
The SSWP was delayed by the COVID‑19 Pandemic but has since taken off. The original expected upper limit for the 12 sectors designated for the SSWP was about 345 000 workers in the first five years. The pandemic affected not only entries to Japan but the entire testing system. Nonetheless, there were about 150 000 SSWP workers in March 2023, 43% of the expected number. However, these were distributed unevenly across sectors: some sectors such as machine parts and tooling industries, industrial machinery industry, electric, electronics and information Industries, were already above the expected number, others, such as food service and accommodation, were far below the expected number. The latter can be attributed to the slow return of employment in these sectors as well as lags in the roll-out of testing.
The SSWP is much more accessible from within Japan than from abroad. The roll-out of skills testing has been slow, with a relatively low number of applicants in origin countries. Testing has been sporadic but is always announced and texts are now also published on the website. Language learning infrastructure is still developing in most origin countries. There is no official “pool” of potential recruits available in origin countries, so recruitment occurs through different agencies. There is scope for an official platform of candidates who have met basic skill and aptitude requirements.
This means that the TITP has so far been the main pathway to SSWP rather than skills testing. Even in sectors like nursing care where testing is the main SSWP channel, most applicants are inside Japan. This means that the SSWP is still dependent on the TITP – or on another programme allowing migrants to acquire language and occupational skills in Japan. Not all TITP sectors lead to the SSWP, since both the TITP and SSWP are limited to certain industrial sectors, and they are not aligned.
The SSWP has the potential to meet future labour demand effectively but should rely on different programmes to allow migrants to acquire the necessary skills. The SSWP responds to the specificity of the Japanese labour market which requires a threshold of Japan-specific skills for employment in many jobs. This extends beyond language skills to include work practices. A reformed TITP will be important in supplying workers to the SSWP. It is already possible for TITP participants to finish the TITP and enter the SSWP without passing the test. This places importance on the quality of testing. The distribution of initial SSWP test takers suggests that some tests are easier to pass than others; more uniform standards would prevent distortion in the distribution of participants in the SSWP.
Japan also needs to establish training capacity and pipelines in origin countries. If the SSWP is to develop scale, Japan must also expand its ability to recruit adequately prepared workers directly from origin countries. Some actions can be taken within the SSWP itself, such as making the testing and qualification structure more transparent and increasing the number of tests administered in origin countries.
There is a business case for investing in a “skills mobility partnership” with origin countries. Stakeholders in Japan – business associations, employers or public agencies – can follow the emerging model of “skills mobility partnerships”. This means investing in partner training institutions in origin countries to reinforce their capacity to provide candidates with the language and vocational skills to enter both the future TITP and the SSWP. Training should also be relevant for job opportunities in the origin country – for example, in Japanese subsidiaries – so that the training is attractive to more candidates and contributes to the skills base of the origin country. Funding models vary, but some involvement of the beneficiary – the Japanese businesses – is crucial.
Summary of the main recommendations for Japan
Reorganise Statuses of Residence for greater transparency and better monitoring
Clarify the skill threshold of the status of residence “Engineers/Specialists in Humanities/International Services”.
Align the list of occupations eligible to the different statuses of residence with the national classification of occupations.
Publish, and update regularly, the going rate of wages for each occupation to ensure that job offers to migrants are at the going rate.
Clarify the occupations eligible for the “skilled labour” status of residence.
Consolidating labour migration pathways to reduce overlap and duplication.
Publish complete data on yearly inflows and stocks of migrants under the Designated Activities status of residence.
Help potential and recent migrants navigate the migration system
Improve the visibility of the PBS for highly qualified workers.
Create a single portal to orient foreigners through the Japanese labour migration system.
Continue improving the digitalisation of immigration processes.
Improve permit conditions for higher skilled labour migrants
Expand access to permanent residence before residing 10 years.
Grant immediate unrestricted labour market access to family members of skilled labour migrants.
Expand recognition of different types of family ties.
Accompany skilled foreign workers through the Japanese Employment System
Provide more orientation to potential migrants abroad, and graduating students in Japan, on navigating the specific recruitment and employment practices prevailing in Japan.
Increase the visibility of job opportunities in Japan to candidates abroad.
Provide support for spouses of skilled migrants to integrate into the labour market.
Monitor international student pathways more closely
Monitor more closely the quality of education at Japanese Language Institutes.
Monitor the quality of jobs of former international students and their career paths in the Japanese labour market, for graduates of universities and vocational schools alike.
Revise TITP
Skills testing
Modernise training goals and align them with occupations in shortage and with further labour migration channels, as well as soft skills and aptitude for Japanese workplaces.
Decouple training from individual employers to allow more flexibility in employer change.
Provide options to advance through TITP according to revised testing requirements. Align skills testing requirements across sectors so that the skills thresholds for different tiers and different programmes are set similarly between sectors.
Reducing factors of vulnerability for workers
Allow TITP workers to change employers after completing a minimum period with the first employer.
Adjust roles of different actors in governance of TITP to reduce risks of rent seeking.
Allow interruptions of employment to accommodate seasonal and circular participation.
Improve access routes to the Specified Skilled Worker Programme
Develop the bridges between TITP and SSWP so that more sectors/activities are covered and the training in TITP leads more directly to both SSW(i) and (ii).
Develop test preparation material in different languages for study in the country of origin.
Invest in partnerships with bodies in origin countries to increase the skills pool from which to recruit SSWs, through training capacity, awareness raising, and direct engagement in the recruitment process.