This chapter covers the evolution of labour migration policy in Japan and provides an overview of recent labour migration to the country. While labour migration channels for high-skill migrants have been in place since the 1950s, it was only in 2019 that Japan introduced the Specified Skilled Workers Programme for medium to low skill labour migration. Prior to 2019, only migrants participating in Japan’s long standing Technical Intern Trainee Programme worked in low to medium skill jobs. Japan is one of the OECD countries with the lowest share of immigrants in the population. However, migration has increased rapidly and become more diversified in the past 15 years and the contribution of migrants to the Japanese labour market is increasing.
Recruiting Immigrant Workers: Japan 2024
3. Labour migration to Japan
Abstract
The evolution of labour migration policy from the 1950s to today
Current Japanese labour migration policy has its origin in the 1951 Immigration Control Ordinance (Cabinet Order No 319 of 4 October 1951), which became the 1952 Immigration Control Act, enacted on the same day as the San Francisco Peace Treaty. The main objective of the Act was to provide for fair management over the entry and departure procedure of all persons in Japan.
Up to the 1980s, there was little immigration to Japan (see also section Labour migration to Japan below) and few changes relative to labour migration in the Immigration Control Act, renamed in 1982 to the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (ICRRA). Since the 1980s, there were three turning points in labour migration policy in Japan, legislated by major changes in the ICRRA: at the end of the 1980s, early 2010s and in 2019.
The end of the 1980s: An expansion of the framework for high-skill labour migration and the emergence of indirect channels for low-skill labour migration
The 1989 revision of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (ICRRA), enacted in 1990, introduced some of the main changes in the 60 years since the Immigration Act was first enacted. These changes were introduced in a very favourable economic context, following Japan’s post war economic miracle and unprecedented economic growth of the 1980s. Although the Japanese labour market of the late 1980s and early 1990s was tight, the demographic context was much more favourable than it currently is, with a growing labour force up to the 1990s.
The 1951 Immigration Control Act introduced several statuses of residence for highly-skilled foreigners. These statuses of residence based on occupation are the foundation of the current framework for high-skill labour migration to Japan. The 1989 revision of the ICRRA revised the existing categories of high-skill labour migration and introduced new categories most of which are still used today, such as Professor, Instructor, Researcher, Intra-company transferee, among others.
Another important development in migration policy introduced in 1990 was the creation of a status of residence, long-term resident, for individuals of Japanese ancestry up to the third generation, referred to as Nikkeijin. This status of residence effectively brought many Brazilians and Peruvians of Japanese ancestry to work in Japan often in low-skill occupations through placement agencies. Long-term residents have a status of residence based on ethnicity and as such have unrestricted access to the Japanese labour market (See Box 3.1).
Box 3.1. Past experience with recruitment of workers of Japanese origin (Nikkeijin)
In the early part of the 1900s, Japan encouraged emigration towards South America, principally Brazil and Peru. As a result, there are several million persons of Japanese descent living in these countries, most three or four generations removed from their ancestors who left Japan.
Starting in the late 1980s, Japan opened the possibility for descendants of Japanese (up to the third generation) to come to Japan through one of two channels: an invitation for a family visit or for employment. In almost all cases, descendants from Brazil and Peru came through agencies (empreiteras in Portuguese), often taking on several months’ salary in debt to pay fees and costs. Agencies dispatched these workers, usually in the manufacturing sector. Later family reunification occurred through the labour channel since few workers had the income to guarantee for spouses or children. The number of Brazilians and Peruvians in Japan rose quickly, from fewer than 3 000 in 1986 to 20 000 in 1989, 67 000 in 1990 and 136 000 in 1991. By 2000 the number stood at 300 000 and peaked in 2007 at 377 000.
The status of residence for most Nikkeijin was at first “Long Term Resident” or “Spouse or Child of a Japanese national”. Over time, many became permanent residents, and the number of family of Japanese nationals declined.
In the 1990s and early 2000s the Nikkeijin were the main group of foreigners in lower skill employment. There was no skills or education threshold applied. Most were employed through agencies as dispatched workers in the manufacturing sector, even if placement was often for extended periods in the same manufacturing facilities. The dispatch model meant that most did not integrate into the regular labour market but remained in a parallel and segregated market in which their interaction was mediated through brokers who spoke Portuguese or Spanish.
The employment model broke down with the economic crisis of the late 2000s, when Nikkeijin were thrown into unemployment at much higher rates than native workers. Retraining was difficulty since few spoke Japanese.
The setback in outcomes of these migrants was highlighted in the 4th Basic Plan (2010): “those of Japanese descent have been in a difficult position due to the recent recession, and one challenge facing us has been acceptance of such foreign nationals so that they will be able to live a stable life in Japanese society while also having them fulfil their obligations as a member of the local community.”
Many Brazilians went home. In April 2009, the Japanese Government started offering grants (JPY 300 000 to each Long-Term Resident and an additional 200 000 for each family member) to those who were willing to return to their home countries, on the condition they not come back to Japan on the same type of visa. By February 2010, about 20 000 had taken the grant. Of those who departed Japan, most preferred to return without taking a financial contribution. Japan prohibited beneficiaries of the Japanese Return Programme who had returned to origin countries with financial support from re‑entering Japan under the status of residence for Nikkeijin, but lifted the ban on 15 October 2013, allowing them to come back to Japan under the same status if they have a labour contract for a year or more. Between 2007 and 2013, the number of Brazilians in Japan fell by 43% and the number of Peruvians fell by 19%.
The pool of descendants of Japanese living in South America is not likely to be an important source of foreign workers. There are at most several million potentially eligible, and they are well informed of the conditions in Japan, since “practically every Nikkeijin household has one member of the household with some working experience in Japan” (Goto, 2007[1]). Many cycle back and forth between Japan and South America. Inflows to Japan of about 10 000 annually in the late 2010s reflect this stable and circular movement.
Figure 3.1. Brazilian and Peruvian residents, 1990‑2022, in thousands
Source: Ministry of Justice.
Note: Data by status of residence is not available for 1991.
The experience with Nikkeijin sheds light on some of the challenges for integration of labour migrants even when they have no restrictions on employment. The relegation to dispatched employment hindered full labour market integration. Their children – like all children of foreign nationality – were not required to attend Japanese schools, although they had the option to do so. In 2002, about half of the Brazilian children between age 5 and 14 were not frequently attending school (Sasaki, 2008[2]); rates of absenteeism of 40% or more were reported. Further, some Nikkeijin went to private Brazilian schools, where they learned little or no Japanese. Poor language skills are an issue for those in who attended both public or private schools (Ishida, Nakamuro and Takenaka, 2016[3]; Vaipae, 2001[4]). The uneven schooling contributed to the negative social outcomes and exclusion of these young people (Takenoshita et al., 2013[5]). Despite their long stay in Japan, many Nikkeijin do not have high levels of mastery of the Japanese language. In the 2021 ISA survey, 37.8% of Brazilians struggled to understand even basic written Japanese, and an additional 13.5% had only limited (JLPT N5 level) ability. Oral skills were slightly better, although 31.8% could not engage in even a simple conversation.
Japan still allows Nikkeijin up to the third generation to come to Japan for work or visit. However, fourth-generation descendants are only able to use a separate programme, introduced in 2018. The residence status for fourth-generation descendants applies age requirements (between 18 and 30, the same as for most Working Holiday Programmes) but also a basic (N5 level) Japanese‑Language proficiency at the time of entry. In addition, the applicant must have a no-fee “Supporter Accepting Fourth-generation Japanese” who will assist them in their lives, activities and work after arrival in Japan. The number of entries is capped; the annual ceiling was set at 4 000 admissions.
Source: Guidelines for Fourth-generation Japanese, www.moj.go.jp/isa/content/001344922.pdf, (Revised on 29 March 2021).
Furthermore, the same revision of the ICRRA introduced the current system in which international students may apply for an authorisation to work part-time along their studies in Japan. The access to the labour market of international student in Japan has remained unchanged since 1990 and is one of the most liberal across the OECD (OECD, 2022[6]). The contribution of international students to employment in Japan increased significantly in the 2010s, making international students a relevant source of labour currently, particularly in the retail sector.
Following the approval by parliament in August 1999 of new measures to combat illegal immigration, in October 1999 the duration of initial visas accorded to all skilled workers, except for entertainers, was extended and the entry requirements for certain categories of skilled worker were the subject of a slight relaxation.
The early 2010s: the establishment of the Technical Intern Trainee status of residence and the introduction of the Points-Based System
Two revisions of the ICRRA, in 2009 and 2012, introduced important changes to labour migration policy in Japan. The 2009 revision established the status of residence Technical Intern Trainee. Technical interns are the largest source of medium to low-skilled foreign labour currently in Japan. At the other end of the skill spectrum, the 2012 ICRRA revision introduced a Points Based System (PBS) to increase Japan’s foreign talent attraction.
The Technical Intern Trainee Programme (TITP) was established in 1993 with the stated objective of transferring skills, technologies, and knowledge to developing countries and promoting international co‑operation. Until 2010, when the change in the ICRRA came into force, technical intern trainees were considered trainees – not workers – and as such were paid a training allowance often below minimum wage, and did not have the right to paid overtime, nor social security benefits. With the introduction of the Technical Intern Trainee status of residence, as a separate status of residence, technical intern trainees were protected as workers based on the Labor Standards Act.1 In the last decade, the TITP went through other major changes, in terms of allowed duration of stay and eligible sectors, but also in terms of oversight (See Chapter 6).
The PBS was enacted in 2012 with the subsequent creation of three types of activities permitted by the status of residence for highly skilled professionals in 2015: academic research; specialised/technical; and business management. The introduction of the PBS was part of an overall strategy to make Japan more attractive for high-skilled workers in the aftermath of the 2009 global financial crisis. The creation of a PBS was called for in the 2010 4th Basic Plan (See Box 3.2).
Relative to immigrants under the specialised and technical fields statuses of residence, immigrants admitted through the PBS benefit from an easier immigration procedure (faster processing times, longer permit duration) and better overall conditions in the host country (earlier eligibility for permanent residence, unrestricted labour market access for spouses, and the possibility for some to bring ascendent family members and domestic workers).
Box 3.2. The Basic Plans
The background to the formulation of the first “Basic Plan for Immigration Control” lay in the large influx of foreigners entering, and staying in, Japan in the 1980s as a result of rapid economic growth. In response, the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act was revised in 1990 to improve the status of the residence system and make screening criteria more transparent. It was following this revision that the “First Basic Plan for Immigration Control” was established by the Immigration Control Policy Roundtable of the MOJ in June 1992 as a guideline for medium- to long-term immigration and residency management for foreigners.
Between 1990 and 2019, the MOJ organised a total of seven roundtable conferences and released six editions of the Basic Plan (1992, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2019). The Basic Plans reveal a gradual change in the government’s policy position towards immigration over the past three decades.
The First Basic Plan reflected the prevalent political atmosphere in the 1990s by reaffirming the existing immigration policy and focusing on measures to promote the “smooth exchanges of personnel” and to counter “illegal foreign workers”. During the 1990s, the basic principles of migration policy were reiterated in the Economic Plan (1996) and the Employment Counter Measures Plan (1996), according to which “Japan [would] readily accept foreigners possessing technological expertise, skills or knowledge or who engage[d] in business which require[d] a knowledge of foreign culture not possessed by Japanese nationals”. Those with lower levels of qualification, however, were not to be accepted. Ethnic Japanese who entered under the status of residence Long-Term Resident were exempt from qualifications thresholds.
Starting with the Second Basic Plan in 2000, all Plans have expressed concern over Japan’s ageing population and the need to expand the intake of foreigners. For example, the Third Basic Plan, in 2005, introduced the aim to address labour shortages in elder care through accepting foreign nursing care workers, which led to the acceptance of nurses and nursing care workers through Economic Partnership Agreements in the late 2000s. The Fifth Basic Plan, in 2015, noted the need for more “acceptance of foreigners in light of the declining birth rate and ageing population”.
All developments in Japan’s immigration policy are announced in the Basic Plans. The Fourth Basic Plan in 2010 introduced the point-based system for highly-skilled professionals. The revisions of the different migration channels were also discussed in the Plans, including those of the Technical Intern Training Programme.
The Plans also reflect global events and concerns. The Third Basic Plan in 2005 called for stricter border control and increased fight against illegal foreign residents, following the terrorist attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001. The Fifth Basic Plan in 2015 called for prompt asylum for refugees as the duty of a contributing member of the international community.
In December 2018, the Immigration Control Act was amended, assigning explicit responsibility to the Ministry of Justice for ensuring equitable management of the “residence of foreign nationals” in addition to immigration control. The Plan was renamed “Basic Plan for Immigration Control and Residency Management”. The latest Basic Plan for Immigration and Residency Management, published in April 2019, emphasises the further active acceptance of foreigners who vitalise the Japanese economy and the development of an environment for coexistence with foreigners. The plan discusses the management of the newly established Specified Skilled Worker status of residence and improved management of the Technical Intern Training Programme.
The Plans do not set numerical targets for migration but rather guide policy development in the domains it covers, identifying issues that have emerged in the implementation of the preceding Plans. In that sense, the roundtable conferences to draft the Basic Plans were an important mechanism for the MOJ to co‑ordinate discourse on immigration policy reform across stakeholders.
In addition to the Plan, once a year, the Immigration Services Agency compiles a report detailing the situation surrounding immigration control and residency management and its latest measures.
Source: Ministry of Justice, Basic Plans, various years, www.moj.go.jp/isa/policies/policies/basic_plan.html.
2019: The introduction of the Specified Skilled Worker Programme, a turning point for medium to low-skill labour migration
During the 2010s, the Japanese labour market became increasingly tight. Shortages reported by employers increased across all sectors (see Chapter 2). Despite the counteractive increase in the employment rate of women and older workers, the effects of demographic ageing on the labour market became increasingly felt.
This shift in the demographic and labour market contexts led to a more active public debate on whether to create new channels for labour migration to meet shortages in the Japanese labour market. Japan’s labour migration policy had been so far very restrictive towards low-skill immigration. No channels for low-skill migration offered a pathway to permanent residency in Japan.
Japanese public opinion is relatively positive towards hosting immigrants. Most of the Japanese (59%) think that immigrants make Japan stronger because of their work or talents, the same share than in the United States or Germany, according to a 2018 Pew Research Survey.2 They are also less likely to think that immigrants are a burden because they take away jobs and social benefits. Only 31% declare so in Japan, compared with 34% in the United Sates and 35% in Germany.
An increasing share of Japanese support an increase in immigration. 69% of Japanese are favourable to an increase in immigration to Japan, according to a 2019 Nikkei Survey.3 82% of respondents state the need for foreign workers as a main reason to accept more immigrants into the country. This represents an increase of 10 percentage points year on year.
In the 2010s, in a favourable overall economic and social context, the Japanese Government took some measures to allow an increase in migration to address labour shortages. In 2014, the government allowed Technical Interns in the construction and ship building industries to remain in Japan for an additional two years, under a designated visa, to address labour shortages due to the preparation of the 2020 Olympic Games. More generally, in 2017, a major revision of the TITP extended the total duration of stay of Technical Interns from three to five years and introduced a stream in the programme for nursing care.
The main turning point in labour migration policy occurred in December 2018 through a major revision of the ICRRA. The main changes introduced by this revision were the establishment of a new immigration programme for medium to low skill foreign workers – the Specified Skilled Worker Programme (SSWP) –; the introduction of an immigrant integration framework – the Comprehensive Measures for the Acceptance and Coexistence of Foreign Residents; and the establishment of the Immigration Services Agency (ISA), as an external agency of the Ministry of Justice (See Box 3.3).
The SSWP aims at accepting work-ready foreign workers, with specific expertise and skills, in sectors facing labour shortages. There are two streams in the new programme, Specified Skilled Worker (i) and Specified Skilled Worker (ii). The first stream offers up to five years of residency for foreign workers in one of the 14 sectors (since then regrouped into 12) considered under pressure. Applicants are required to take a sector specific exam and a Japanese language test. The second stream is only open to foreign workers with more advanced skills. Initially, it applied only to the construction and the shipbuilding and ship building machinery industries. It has since expanded to 11 sectors.4 It offers the possibility of family reunification and a pathway to permanent residency.
The Comprehensive Measures for Acceptance and Coexistence of Foreign Nationals include measures related to various aspects of daily life such as the working environment, education, healthcare, and housing. The Comprehensive Measures are revised every year. In 2022, the government formulated the Roadmap for the Realization of a Society of Harmonious Coexistence with Foreign Nationals, which identifies medium to long-term issues to address The implementation status of the Roadmap is to be assessed annually.
Although the creation of a mid to low skill temporary migration programme represents a shift in migration policy, it remains unclear the extent to which it will translate into a pathway to permanent residency for medium to low skill immigrants. At this point, an overall immigration policy is still lacking.
Box 3.3. Key actors in Japanese labour migration policy
The Immigration Service Agency (ISA) is an external bureau of the Ministry of Justice responsible for overall immigration administration. It was established in 2019 following a revision of the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (ICRRA). The Agency oversees border control, carries out immigration enforcement activities, and manages the status of residence system under the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act. The ISA regularly publishes immigration statistics, as well as a yearly report, Immigration Control and Residency Management, on immigration trends and migration policy developments.
The Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW) is responsible for monitoring the labor conditions of foreign workers and supporting foreign job seekers. All firms in Japan must declare the beginning and end of any employment spell of a foreign worker (except for special permanent residents). Based on these firms’ declarations, the MHLW publishes every year a Summary of Notifications of Employment of Foreign Workers, a comprehensive picture of foreign employment in Japan. The Employment Security Bureau (ESB) under the MHLW and its local branches, Hello Work, the Public Employment Services of Japan, play a role in providing advice to foreign workers, helping job seekers find employment, as well as preparing international students for job hunting in Japan.
The Organization for Technical Intern Training (OTIT) co‑ordinates, implements and oversees the Technical Intern Training Program (TITP) in collaboration with Japanese employers and relevant organisations in partner countries. The OTIT plays an important role in monitoring and inspecting the working conditions of technical intern trainees. It publishes annual statistics on violations of regulations of the TITP.
The Specified Skilled Worker Programme (SSWP) is co‑ordinated by the MOJ. However, each industry stream of the programme is managed by the ministry in charge of the industry (MHLW, MAFF, METI, MLIT). In particular, the ministries design and administer the skills tests for eligibility into the programme.
Labour migration to Japan
The immigrant population in Japan remains one of the smallest in the OECD
Japan was largely a sending country of migrants until the 1930s, and throughout the four decades following World War II, there was little migration to Japan (Figure 3.2). The foreign population was small and stable at 0.7% of the total population, predominately composed of Koreans who remained in Japan at the end of World War II. There are often referred to as Zainichi (literally “residing in Japan”) or Zainichi Koreans. Koreans accounted for 90% of the total foreign population in 1950 and still for 80% in 1985.
The first significant increase in the foreign population in Japan was due to high-skilled labour migration in the 1980s, mainly from China. The Chinese foreign population increased threefold from 1980 to 1990, from approximately 50 000 to 150 000.
A second source of growth in the foreign population was the arrival of Brazilian and Peruvian Japanese descendants, referred to as Nikkeijin (Japanese diaspora). South Americans with Japanese origins started arriving in Japan for work in the 1980s due to the economic boom. However, their number only really took off after 1990 when the Japanese Government revised the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (ICRRA) to introduce a migration pathway for foreigners of Japanese ancestry (see Box 3.1). The number of foreigners holding the status of residence “workers of Japanese descent” rose from 71 800 in 1990 to 232 100 in 2000.
Figure 3.2. Stock of foreign population in Japan 1955‑2020
In thousands (left-axis) and in percentage of total population (right-axis)
Note: These numbers are based on the statistics as at the end of December each year. The numbers until 1985 represent the number of alien registrations, the numbers between 1990 and 2011 represent the sum of the number of alien registrations who stayed in Japan with the status of residence eligible for mid to long-term residents and the number of special permanent residents. The numbers from 2012 onwards represent the number of foreign residents adding together mid to long-term residents and special permanent residents.
The “percentage of the total population of Japan” is calculated based on the population as of 1 October each year taken from the “Population Estimates” and the “Population Census” of the Statistics Bureau of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications.
Source: White Papers of Immigration Control and Residency Management 2021.
In the 2000s, and in particular in the last 10 to 15 years, immigration to Japan has increased again, driven by labour migrants and international students. Despite an increase in the share of foreigners in the total population from 1.7% to 2.3%, from 2011 to 2021, Japan remains one of the three OECD countries with the smallest immigrant population (Figure 3.3). As a comparison, in 2021, 10.4% of the OECD population was foreign born.
Figure 3.3. Share of immigrants in the population, 2011 and 2021
Note: Total population (0+). Population with a foreign nationality as opposed to foreign-born in Japan and Korea.
Source: OECD/European Commission (2023[7]), Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2023: Settling In, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d5020a6-en.
Labour migration to Japan increased rapidly over the last decade and became more diversified
While the total foreign population increased by 30% from 2010 to 2021, this increase varied substantially across the different migrant groups (Figure 3.4). Box 3.4 presents the different groups considered in the analysis.
Box 3.4. Statuses of residence and main immigrant groups in Japan
To live in Japan, foreigners need to be granted a status of residence (SoR) designated in the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act (ICRRA). There are two main categories of SoR: those based on personal status (e.g. permanent resident, long-term resident), and those based on the authorised activities of the foreign national while in Japan. The authorised activities in Japan may be work-related, the focus of this publication, or not (e.g. student, visitor, cultural activities).
In this chapter, immigrants are classified into 5 groups based on their status of residence. First, there are all immigrants who are in Japan based on personal status. For simplicity, there are referred to as permanent residents in this chapter. This group includes spouses and children of Japanese citizens, special permanent residents (ethnic Koreans), long-term residents (mainly immigrants of Japanese descent), and immigrants who acquired permanent residence after living in Japan for a long-time, usually at least ten years. Second, there are skilled labour migrants and their dependents. As described in the text, these are mainly highly-skilled migrants (See also section on Programmes for high skilled migration in Chapter 4 and section on High-skilled labour migrants in Chapter 3.). Third, there are technical intern trainees, that is participants in Japan’s Technical Intern Training Program (TITP) (See section on Temporary labour migration programmes for low-skill and medium-skill trades jobs in Chapter 4 and Chapter 6 for a detailed analysis of the TITP). Fourth, there are international students. (Chapter 5 discusses international students as potential high-skilled labour migrants). Fifth, there is a residual group, other, consisting of participants in cultural activities, artists, religious, entertainers, etc. Immigrants under Japan’s Designated Activities status of residence are classified in this group. This status of residence encompasses many different categories of migrants, some are work related (such as participants in Economic Partnership Agreements) others are cultural exchanges with work rights (working holiday makers) and others are dependents or humanitarian migrants, Box 4.2 in Chapter 4 describes this status of residence in detail. Small labour migration programmes under which migrants are in Japan under a Designated Activities status of residence are covered in Chapter 4.Annex Table 3.A.1 maps the statuses of residence of foreigners in Japan into the five groups above.
Note: Participants in the Specified Skilled Workers Programme, established in 2019, are classified under skilled migrants in this chapter for simplicity. The section on Temporary labour migration programmes for low-skill and medium-skill trades jobs in Chapter 4 and Chapter 6 cover this program.
Figure 3.4. Stock of foreign population in Japan, main migrant groups, 2010‑22, in thousands
Note: See Box 3.4 and Annex Table 3.A.1on the grouping of status of residence into the main categories of immigrants in the figure.
Stock at the end of the year.
Source: Immigration Services Agency.
The total population of permanent residents (that is all immigrants who are in Japan based on personal status, see Box 3.4) represents (without special permanent residents) 50% of all foreign residents in Japan in 2022, but a smaller share than it did in 2010, 65%. The declining share of permanent residents was driven by the decline in the number of special permanent residents and the stability of the number of long-term residents over the past 10 years. In 2022, special permanent residents, who are mainly Zainichi Koreans, represent 19% of this group. Their number decreased by one‑third over the period to just under 200 000. Long-term residents, who are mainly Nikkeijin and some smaller categories such as resettled refugees, account for 13%. The remaining 68% are immigrants under the Permanent Resident SoR, that is immigrants who acquired permanent residence after living in Japan usually for at least ten years, as well as foreign spouses and children of Japanese citizens and Permanent Residents.
In contrast, the population of labour migrants and their dependents, technical intern trainees and international students increased sharply in the past 10 years. 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.
In the last years, labour migration flows to Japan accounted for a larger share of flows than in any other OECD country. Among permanent-type migration flows, labour migration accounted for 60% of the total in 2019. This share was 30% for Canada, 26% for Australia, 18% for France and 15% for the United Kingdom (OECD, 2021[8]).5 Moreover, inflows of technical intern trainees are excluded from the OECD’s definition of permanent-type labour migration in Japan. Including this inflow, would triple the inflows that are categorised as labour migration.
The immigrant population in Japan is young. This is driven by the high share of labour migrants, technical interns and international students in the overall migrant population. In 2020, 50% of foreigners in Japan – and 55% of foreign men – were aged 20 to 39, compared with 20% of the Japanese (Figure 3.5). Despite this over-representation of immigrants among youth, immigrants account only for 4.8% of all residents aged 20 to 39. This share has nevertheless increased by 1.6 percentage points (from 3.2%) since 2010 and is expected to increase further given Japan’s population ageing.
Figure 3.5. Population pyramid, Japanese and immigrants, 2020
Source: Census 2020.
The composition of the foreign population by country of origin has changed significantly over the past decade. The main region of origin of foreigners remains Asia: 79% of foreign residents come from another Asian country in 2010 and 84% in 2021. The share of foreign residents from Korea and China decreased whereas that of Vietnamese increased tremendously (Figure 3.6).
Figure 3.6. Main countries of origin of the foreign resident population, 2010 and 2021
Note: Stock at the end of the year.
Source: Immigration Services Agency.
In 2021, only 15% of foreign residents are Korean compared with 27% in 2010. This is due to the slight decrease of the number of Zainichi Koreans over the decade. The share of residents from China, the main country of origin of migrants in Japan, has also decreased from 32 to 26%. This is a decrease across the different migrant groups. The number of Chinese international students in Japan decreased from 2010 to 2021. While they accounted for two‑thirds of international students in Japan in 2010, they account for less than half in 2021 (Figure 3.7). The number of technical interns from China is by 2021 half of what it was in 2010. Only the number of Chinese labour migrants – despite its increase in absolute numbers – represents by 2021 only 29% of all labour migrants, compared with 43% in 2010.
In the last decade, Viet Nam became one of the main source countries of migrants in Japan. The number of Vietnamese migrants living in Japan increased 10‑fold from 2010 to 2021. Vietnamese represent 58% of all technical interns, and between one fifth and one‑quarter of all international students and labour migrants (Figure 3.7).
Figure 3.7. Main countries of origin of immigrants, selected groups, 2010 and 2021
Note: Stocks at the end of the year.
Source: Immigration Services Agency.
The number of migrants in the labour market increased threefold over the past decade
The number of migrants in the labour market increased much more rapidly than the total number of resident foreigners in Japan in the last 10 to 15 years. While as noted above, the total migrant population increased 30% from 2010 to 2021, the number of foreign workers increased 2.7‑fold, from approximately 650 000 in 2010 to 1.7 million in 2021 (Figure 3.8).
The large increase in the number of migrants in the labour market comes from the increase in the number of labour migrants and technical intern trainees, whose main purpose of stay in Japan is employment, as well as from the increase in labour market participation of other migrant categories (such as international students or dependents).
The number of labour migrants and technical intern trainees employed by Japanese companies increased particularly sharply in the years leading to the pandemic, 2.8 and 2.5‑fold respectively, from 2013 to 2019. This increase accounts for slightly over half of the increase in the number of migrants employed in Japanese companies over these years.
International students may work part-time during their studies in Japan, up to 28 hours per week. The number of students approximately doubled in the last 15 years and a larger share is taking up work alongside their studies. The number of recorded employment spells of international students tripled in the 6 years leading to the COVID-pandemic. In 2019, 318 000 employment spells of international students were recorded in Japan. Although this is likely to be an overestimation of the number of international students employed.6 Nevertheless, survey data indicates that about three‑quarters of international students in Japan work part-time (see also Chapter 6).
Figure 3.8. Foreigners employed in Japan, in thousands, 2010‑22
Note: Annex Table 3.A.1 presents the mapping of the status of residence into the main groups of migrants in the figure. Immigrants under the Special Permanent Resident status of residence are not included in this MHLW data set.
Technical intern trainees were under a Designated Activities status of residence until 2011.
Source: Summary of Notifications of Employment of Foreign Workers, MHLW.
Similarly, more migrants under a Designated Activities status of residence participate in the labour market now than 10 years ago. This status of residence encompasses many different small programmes. Some are labour migration, such as Economic Partnership Agreement nurses and caregivers or domestic staff of migrants in Japan, others are international exchanges, such as working holidaymakers, or trainees, and some are humanitarian, such as individuals with refugee recognition in process (See Box 4.2 on the Designated Activities SoR in Chapter 4). While the number of migrants under this status of residence tripled from 2013 to 2019, the number of employed migrants was multiplied by 5. Only a relatively small number of migrants is in Japan under a Designated Activities status of residence; however, the increase in the number of employed migrants under this status mirrors the overall increase in labour migration to Japan.
The contribution of migrants to total employment is marginal but likely to increase in the next decade
Despite the increase in the number of labour migrants and employed migrants in Japan in the last decade, the share of immigrants in the employed population remains one of the lowest among OECD countries.
Figure 3.9. Immigrant share in employment, 15‑64 year‑olds, 2011 and 2021
Note: Population with a foreign nationality as opposed to foreign-born in Japan and Korea.
Source: Secretariat calculations based on OECD/European Commission (2023[7]), Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2023: Settling In, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d5020a6-en.
Due to data gaps, it is not possible to estimate the role immigrants played in employment growth over the last decade. According to the Japanese labour force survey, total employment increased by 4.6 million – from 62.6 to 67.2 million – from 2010 to 2022. There is no variable indicating the country of nationality in the labour force survey. Hence, it is impossible to decompose this increase into the change in employment of foreigners and Japanese.
According to the declarations of employment to the MHLW, the number of foreigners employed by Japanese companies increased by almost 1.2 million – from 650 000 to 1.82 million – from 2010 to 2022. These numbers are an over-estimation of the number of employed foreigners in Japan. Taken at face value they would indicate that a quarter of the increase in employment was due to increased foreign employment.
The employment rate of women and older workers in Japan has already increased substantially in the last decade and the scope for further increases is now more limited (see Chapter 2). Immigration is likely to play a bigger role in driving employment growth in the next decades.
Immigrants already account for a significant share of employment in some industries and some local labour markets
Immigrants in Japan, as in most other OECD countries, tend to work in different industries than the native‑born (Table 3.1). According to the 2020 Census, 36% of employed foreigners work in manufacturing, compared with only 15% of Japanese workers. Immigrants are also over-represented in accommodation, eating and drinking services and in information and communications: 8% and 5% of immigrants work in these sectors, compared with 5% and 3% of Japanese workers.7
Table 3.1. Distribution of foreign and Japanese workers across sectors, 2020
Note: The numbers in each column add to 100%
Source: Census 2020.
The concentration of immigrants in the hospitality sector is common across OECD countries, such as European OECD countries, Canada or the United States (see Annex Table 3.A.3). Like in Japan, immigrants in Canada and the United States are also more concentrated in Information and Communications than the native‑born. However, the high concentration of immigrants in the manufacturing sector in Japan differs from most other OECD countries.
The very strong concentration of immigrants in manufacturing is the main reason why Japan is among the OECD countries in which the distribution of immigrants across industries differs more from that of the native‑born (Figure 3.10).
Almost half of technical intern trainees are employed in manufacturing, compared with 27% of all employed foreigners (Table 3.2). A further 20% work in construction. While over 20% of skilled migrants also work in manufacturing, 14% also work in wholesale and retail trade and 12% in IT. Over half of international students work in accommodation and food services (35%) or in accommodation and retail services (21%).
Figure 3.10. Sectoral immigrant concentration in OECD countries
Dissimilarity index, 2018
Note: The dissimilarity index is defined as half the sum of the absolute values of the differences between the distribution of the foreign-born across industries (ISIC) and the distribution of the native‑born across industries. The index is calculated on 21 industries, except for Australia and New Zealand (19 industries). Data for Japan refer to foreign nationals, not foreign-born.
Source: OECD (2020[9]), International Migration Outlook 2020, https://doi.org/10.1787/ec98f531-en, based on European Union Labour Force Survey (EU-LFS 2005 and 2018), Current Population Survey (CPS 2005 and 2018), Canada: Census 2016 and LFS 2008. Japanese Census 2015, Australian LFS 2007 and 2017, New Zealand LFS 2005 and 2019, Israel LFS 2005 and 2019.
Table 3.2. Share of foreign workers by status of residence, by industry, 2022
Note: The percentages in each column add to 100% when summed across all industries.
Source: Summary of Notification of Employment Status of Foreign Workers October 2022 (MHLW).
Despite the concentration of immigrants in a few sectors, given their low overall number, immigrants account for less than 5% of employment in any aggregate industry (see Annex Table 3.A.4). Immigrants account for a larger share of employment in manufacturing (4.4%), hospitality (3%), information and communication, as well as in the fishing industry (2.6%), compared with 2% of employment overall.
Within manufacturing, immigrants in Japan are concentrated in the manufacturing of food, textile and transportation equipment. We estimate that in 2020,8 immigrants account for at least 10% of the total employed population in food manufacturing, 8% in textile manufacturing and 7% in manufacturing of transportation equipment.9 Textile manufacturing is often a sector with an over-representation of immigrants in OECD countries: in the Baltic countries, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands and the United States, immigrants are also over-represented (OECD, 2020[9]).
Furthermore, immigrants are geographically concentrated. The three most populous prefectures (Tokyo, Aichi and Osaka) account for 35% of all foreigners in Japan, compared with 24% of all Japanese according to the 2020 Census (Table 3.3).10
Table 3.3. Top 10 most populated prefectures, share of foreign and Japanese, 2020
Note: Top 10 prefectures according to the distribution of the foreign population.
Source: Census 2020.
The geographical concentration of foreign workers varies across immigrant groups. Thirty-eight percent of skilled labour migrants are employed in Tokyo, as well as 39% of international students. In contrast, only 6% of technical intern trainees work in Tokyo (Table 3.4). Technical intern trainees are dispersed all over the country. Their largest concentration is in Aichi, where 10% of technical intern trainees work.
Table 3.4. Share of foreign workers by status of residence, selected prefectures, 2022
Note: The percentages in each column add to 100% when summed across all 47 municipalities.
Source: Summary of Notification of Employment Status of Foreign Workers October 2022 (MHLW).
The geographical and sectoral concentration of immigrants implies larger concentrations in local labour markets than their small share in total employment. According to the 2020 Census, immigrants represent between 5 and 10% of total employment in manufacturing in some prefectures (such as in Shimane, Gifu, Mie or Gunma), as well as in agriculture in the prefecture of Ibaraki. Despite the small share of immigrants working in the fishing industry, they account for 32% of employment in the fishing industry in Hiroshima, and over 5% in seven other prefectures.
Box 3.5. Main data sources on labour migration in Japan
Population Census and survey data
The most comprehensive data on immigrants in Japan is the Population Census, similarly to other countries. The information on the country of birth is not available in the Census. Japanese statistics follow the citizenship classification, not the place of birth, in recording the nativity information of individuals. A main drawback of the population census is that there is no question on the status of residence of foreigners. Hence, it is not possible to identify labour migrants.
Contrary to most OECD countries, the labour force survey in Japan does not contain information on country of nationality. Many OECD cross-country comparisons of the situation of immigrants in the labour market are drawn on labour force surveys given that labour force surveys are timely and closely comparable across countries.
However, the Basic Survey on Wage Structure has introduced information on the status of residence in 2019. This is a survey of establishments in 16 industries. The survey does not target foreign workers but has been shown to cover approximately one‑third of foreign workers in Japan. This is, for the time being, the most comprehensive data set currently available on the working conditions of foreign workers.
The Basic Survey on Foreign Residents FY2021 is conducted by the Immigration Services Agency based on the “Comprehensive Measures for Acceptance and Coexistence of Foreign Nationals”. The survey aims at grasping the situation of foreign residents and the problems in their work, daily life, and social lives. As such, it contains detailed information on foreign residents – demographic characteristics, education abroad and in Japan, status of residence, years spent in Japan – and their experience in the Japanese labour market and society.
Administrative data
The Immigration Services Agency collects detailed administrative data on entry and exit from Japan, as well as on immigration procedures. The ISA publishes detailed monthly statistics on immigrant flows by status of residence, on renewals and changes of status, and on permissions to work outside of residency status (mainly for international students and dependents of labour migrants).
The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MLHW) collects data on foreigners employed in Japan. Since 2007, employers are required to notify the ministry at the beginning and end of employment of all foreign workers, apart from special permanent residents, and foreigners with a status of residence of “diplomat” or “official”. Failure to do so, or providing an incorrect notification, is subject to a fine of up to JPY 300 000. This administrative data set is a de facto continuous census of the employed foreign population. It contains information on the worker (nationality, status of residence, gender, age) as well as on the employer (size and industry of the firm, prefecture).
A “Summary of Notification of Employment Status of Foreign Workers” with summary statistics is published as of the end of October each year. Unfortunately, the microdata is not available to external researchers and has never been analysed to produce a more detailed analysis of foreign employment in Japan.
The collected data has a longitudinal dimension for both foreign workers and firms. The data could be used to study the job mobility of foreigners and address questions such as: how stable the jobs of foreigners with different status of residence are; or whether technical trainees who transition to specified skilled workers change employers; among others. The data could also be mobilised to study firms’ recruitment patterns of foreigners, and to understand for example, how firms expand their hiring of foreign workers under different status of residence over time.
A main drawback of this data is that there is no comparable data on Japanese workers. Any comparison with Japanese workers must draw on alternative data sets.
References
[1] Goto, J. (2007), Latin Americans Of Japanese Origin (Nikkeijin) Working In Japan : A Survey, The World Bank, https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-4203.
[10] Immigration Services Agency (2021), Immigration Control and Residency Management.
[3] Ishida, K., M. Nakamuro and A. Takenaka (2016), “The Academic Achievement of Immigrant Children in Japan: An Empirical Analysis of the Assimilation Hypothesis”, Educational Studies in Japan, Vol. 10/0, pp. 93-107, https://doi.org/10.7571/esjkyoiku.10.93.
[6] OECD (2022), International Migration Outlook 2022, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/30fe16d2-en.
[8] OECD (2021), International Migration Outlook 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/29f23e9d-en.
[9] OECD (2020), International Migration Outlook 2020, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ec98f531-en.
[7] OECD/European Commission (2023), Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2023: Settling In, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d5020a6-en.
[2] Sasaki, K. (2008), “Between Emigration and Immigration: Japanese Emigrants to Brazil and Their Descendants in Japan”, Senri Ethnological Reports, Vol. 77, pp. 53-66, https://doi.org/10.15021/00001269.
[5] Takenoshita, H. et al. (2013), “Segmented Assimilation, Transnationalism, and Educational Attainment of Brazilian Migrant Children in Japan”, International Migration, Vol. 52/2, pp. 84-99, https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12057.
[4] Vaipae, S. (2001), “Language Minority Students in Japanese Public Schools”, in Noguchi, M. and S. Fotos (eds.), Studies in Japanese Bilingualism, Multilingual Matters, London, https://www.multilingual-matters.com/page/detail/Studies-in-Japanese-Bilingualism/?k=9781853594892 (accessed on 7 February 2024).
Annex 3.A. Additional tables
Annex Table 3.A.1. Main groups of foreigners in the chapter
Source: Secretariat grouping based on Status of Residence as of 1 April 2021, as in Immigration Services Agency (2021[10]).
Note: Special permanent residency is not a Status of Residence.
Annex Table 3.A.2. Distribution of foreign workers across industries, 2020
Note: The numbers in each column add to 100%. The large share of foreign workers in “Services, n.e.c.” in the MHLW Notifications of Employment Status of Foreign Workers is driven by 8% of total foreigners working in “Employment and worker dispatching services”.
Source: Census 2020 and Summary of Notification of Employment Status of Foreign Workers October 2020 (MHLW).
Annex Table 3.A.3. Distribution of immigrants and native‑born across industries
European OECD countries, the United States and Canada
Source: Calculations by the Secretariat based on data collection for OECD (2020[9]), International Migration Outlook 2020, https://doi.org/10.1787/ec98f531-en.
Annex Table 3.A.4. Share of foreign workers in employment by industry, 2020
Source: Census 2020 and Summary of Notification of Employment Status of Foreign Workers October 2020 (MHLW).
Notes
← 1. Prior to the creation of the specific Technical Intern Trainee status of residence, technical intern trainees held a Designated Activities Visa.
← 2. Pew Research Survey, Spring 2018 Global Attitudes Survey, Q54a.
← 3. https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Japan-immigration/Nearly-70-of-Japanese-say-more-foreigners-are-good-survey.
← 4. Cabinet decision of 9 June 2023. The only excluded sector is Nursing Care for which an SoR already exists.
← 5. The shares for France and the United Kingdom assume that all free movement inflows were labour related, which is an over-estimation of the share of labour migration in total inflows.
← 6. First, since the data records employment spells and does not keep track of individual workers, an international student with two part-time jobs would be counted twice. Second, if firms do not notify the Public Employment Services, Hello Work, at the end of an employment spell, international students may appear to still be in employment in October (time of the data collection) while they may have already left the firm.
← 7. The distribution of foreign workers across industries based on administrative data collected on foreign workers by the Ministry of Health and Labour produces similar results (see Box 2.5 and Annex Table 2.A.4).
← 8. Estimations based on the Notifications of the Employment of Foreigners, MHLW and the Japanese Labour Force Survey.
← 9. These estimations are a lower bound given that worker-dispatching services employ 8% of foreign workers. There is no information in the data on the sector of activity these foreign workers actually work in.
← 10. Stock data on all foreigners at the end of 2020 published by ISA provide a similar distribution, although the exact shares differ.