Academic Capitalism in Japan: National University Incorporation and
Special Zones for Structural Reform

Jennifer Chan
Assistant Professor in Adult and Higher Education
Department of Educational Studies
University of British Columbia, Vancouver
jennifer.chan@ubc.ca

October 2006
Presentation at JSAC, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops
Just published in Joseph Zajda, 2006, ed., Decentralisation and Privatisation in Education. Springer.

1

Introduction
To support the “knowledge” infrastructure of Japan in the 21st century, with the everincreasing expectations placed on national universities, increasingly strong demands are
being placed on individual universities to clarify the mission and function expected of them,
and to effectively realize these missions and functions…In order to promote reform of
national universities through incorporation it is necessary to expand the discretion of
universities in terms of management, by relaxing wherever possible the day-to-day
regulations that hinder the smooth management of universities.
- A New Image of National University Corporations, Japanese Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, 2002, p. 2 and 4.

In the past decade, industrialized countries have been confronted with the challenge of
reforming their century-old higher education systems in order to remain competitive in the global
knowledge economy. National universities face global competition on the one hand and domestic
constraints such as enrollment decline and increasing demand for public accountability on the other.
As Daun (2002:1) puts it, “almost everywhere in the world, educational systems are now under the
pressure to produce individuals for global competition… Although there is no consensus as to the
nature and scope of globalization, nor its beginnings, the discourse since the 1980s continues to
intensify and increase, and education is expected to respond.” The multiple forces from without and
within have created increasing ideological as well as financial pressure for decentralization,
privatization, and marketization of higher education systems (Zemsky 2005; Yano 2005; Altbach et
al. 2001; Carnoy 2000; and Mok 2000). Universities across the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand,
and Canada have been undergoing structural reforms, often as part of larger public sector reform in
accordance with a New Public Management (NPM) framework that focuses on institutional
performance based on leadership, entrepreneurship, and accountability (Talbot et al. 2005; W illiams
2003; Jones 2003; and Harman 2001).
W hile the impact of globalization on national educational restructuring has been amply
documented by educational researchers in the past two decades (Stromquist and Monkman 2000;
Burbules and Torres 2000; Sadlak 2000; Arnove and Torres 1999; Slaughter and Leslie 1998; and

2

Green 1997), few studies have looked at reforms in non Anglo-Saxon countries and, in particular,
those with traditionally strong state -controlled educational systems such as Japan. Faced with a
protracted economic recession since the early 1990s, national universities in Japan have been under
the same political scrutiny as their W estern counterparts. In 1998, the policy advisory body
University Council issued a comprehensive reform agenda entitled “A Vision for Universities in the
21st Century and Reform Measures: To Be Distinctive Universities in a Competitive Environment,”
which aims at the individualization, diversification, and internationalization of Japanese universities.
In 2003, the Japanese government passed the Law on Special Zones for Structural Reform that
allows business corporations to establish universities in deregulated “special zones” throughout
Japan in order to revitalize university education for national economic growth. The following year,
Japan passed the most important educational reform law since the founding of the Imperial
University system in 1886 and the passing of the Fundamental Education Law in 1947: the National
University Corporation Law to “develop independent universities that conform to the highest
international standards in a competitive environment” (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science, and Technology, MEXT, 2002). W hile falling short of outright privatizing the national
university sector, this law introduces private sector concepts in the management of national
universities, allowing autonomy in budgeting, non-civil servant personnel recruitment, curriculum,
external expert management, and third-party evaluations.
W hy were these two reform measures taken despite opposition from both MEXT that had
traditionally a strong grip on educational policy in Japan and universities that had insisted on their
autonomy throughout postwar Japan? This chapter looks at the domestic political forces that shape
“academic capitalism” in Japan. Through an analysis of the National University Corporation Law
and the Law on Special Zones for Structural Reform, I make a two -fold argument. First, academic
capitalism—“the pursuit of market and marketlike activities to generate external revenues” and the

3

“internal embeddedness of the profit -oriented activities as a point of reorganization by higher
education institutions to develop their own capacity” (Slaughter and Rhoades 2004: 11)—has
emerged in its specific forms in Japan through incorporation and deregulation since the early 2000s
in the larger context of administrative reforms by the leading conservative Liberal Democratic Party
(LDP). Second, opposition from university faculty and staff unions has largely failed due to
structural weaknesses of unions in Japan. This chapter is organized in four parts. Part II discusses
the 2003 National University Corporation Law and the 2002 Law on Special Zones for Structural
Reform. Part III looks at the reform process, tracing the ideological pressure from the Liberal
Democratic Party since the 1980s and the bureaucratic battle between MEXT and the Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry (M ETI). Part IV analyzes the opposition by various stakeholders,
focusing in particular on faculty and staff union response. I conclude on the conflicts between
academic capitalism and commitments to the postwar social contract in Japan.

The Construction of the Competitive University in Japan
The modern Japanese higher education system established in the Meiji era was modeled
after the German and French system, characterized by strong state control and “immobilist politics”
(Schoppa 1990). It is comprised of universities (national, public, and private), junior colleges,
colleges of technology, and specialized training colleges. Even though private universities constitute
over 70% both in terms of institution and student enrollment numbers, national and public
universities established in each prefecture throughout Japan have traditionally maintained their role
in ensuring access, supporting basic research, and training bureaucrats, engineers, doctors, and
teachers etc. for the nation. Until the 1990s, there was little societal or political debate on national
university governance. “ University autonomy” had been a taken-for-granted principle and practice
in postwar Japanese higher education. There was a tacit arrangement on the role of each actor. The

4

Ministry of Education controlled the policy and the budget. Universities were run by faculty
councils and senate. Faculty members were free to pursue their research. Industries expected little
from universities other than graduates with general skills to be trained by corporate in-house
programs throughout the course of a lifelong career.
This tacit arrangement began to collapse after the bubble economy ended in the early 1990s.
Japanese politicians began to point finger on national universities for their inefficiency, inflexibility,
declining quality, and inability to help resurrect a sluggish economy. Industries, which could no
longer afford the high training costs, now expect universities to produce immediately usable and
highly specialized labor force. The general public debates the social and economic relevancy of

university education and research. Drastic population decline (Japanese universities expect full
enrollment by 2007, after which overall supply will exceed demand) on the one hand and the
globalization of higher education on the other translate into heightened competition among
universities in Japan. In a period of fiscal austerity, national universities, like many other public
sectors (postal services, health, and pensions etc.) have become a target of structural reforms.
Since the late 1990s, Japanese national university reform has become part of a larger
political debate on restructuring. In 1997, the Hashimoto Cabinet decided on a 10% overall
reduction of the number of civil servants over ten years. It was then further increased to 20% by the
succeeding Obuchi administration (Tabata 2005). In 1999, the General Law on Independent
Administrative Institutions (IAIs) was passed. Under this scheme, many public services are now
provided by independent administrative institutions. M inistries formulate three-to-five year midterm policy objectives while the IAIs submit their plans in accordance with these objectives,
maintain autonomous management and operations, and are subject to mid-term evaluation. The
national university sector, which had a 135,000-strong payroll, became an inevitable target of
administrative restructuring to relieve the national personnel budget. Based on the IAI scheme, the

5

National University Corporation Law was passed in 2003 through which all national universities
were turned into individual independent corporate entities in April 2004.
The National University Corporation Law aims at increasing the autonomy and flexibility of
university governance, budgeting, non-civil servant personnel recruitment, curriculum, and thirdparty evaluations. Under the new governance structure, MEXT is responsible for the six-year
objectives of each university. Each university in turn submits its six-year plan to MEXT. In addition
to the evaluation at the end of each six-year cycle, universities are also required to submit annual
evaluation reports, which would determine the funding level of the next academic year. In this new
scheme, the university president, who previously had more a symbolic status, has now increased
power and autonomy vis-à-vis the traditional faculty councils and senate. Decision-making power
also centers on a board of directors comprised of at least one external person. In terms of finance,
while over half of the total operating budget of each national university continues to be provided by
MEXT, it is reduced by 1% per year. Universities and individual faculty are instead encouraged to
obtain various kinds of competitive research funds and external funding. Finally, all national
university employees including faculty members, technicians, and nurses in the case of university
hospitals are no long public civil servants. The law has also made it legal and easier to use shortterm labor contracts. The central idea of the National University Corporations Law is to introduce
market principles in university governance, fund raising, academic labor management, performance
evaluation, and university-industry cooperation in order to make Japanese universities globally
competitive on the one hand and locally responsive to rapidly changing social and economic needs

on the other.
The incorporation of Japanese national universities was carried out in parallel to another
more general development in economic restructuring. One of the perceived problems for Japan’s
lingering economic recession is overregulation. In the area of higher education, the rigid legal and

6

bureaucratic requirements for university establishment and operations have long been considered as
business unfriendly. 1 The 1956 University Establishment Standards, for example, require all
higher education institutions to have a significant start -up capital, exclusive university premise, and
non-profit purpose etc. In order to ease these regulations so as to stimulate business, the Minister for
Trade, Economy, and Industry (METI), Takeo Hiranuma, and four private -sector members of the
Council for Economic and Fiscal Policy proposed the idea of Special Zones for Structural Reform
in April 2002, zones within Japan that would be deregulated to promote economic revitalization. 2
The Headquarters for the Promotion of Special Zones for Structural Reform, with the Prime
Minister as its director, was formed within the Cabinet Secretariat in July and subsequently the Law
on Special Zone for Structural Reform was passed in December the same year.3 The Cabinet
Secretariat explains the rationale of the law:
Regulatory reforms are not being implemented as planned in some sectors for a variety of
reasons… To stimulate the Japanese economy, it is necessary to elicit private -sector vitality
to the maximum extent, and to expand private-sector business by implementing regulatory
reforms. By setting up specified zones where regulatory exceptions are established in
accordance with the zones’ specific circumstances, based on voluntary plans proposed by
municipal bodies, private sector enterprises, etc., we promote structural reforms in the area.
By publicizing successful case examples of structural reforms in specified areas, regulatory
reforms can be extended to the whole country, and we can stimulate the economy of Japan
as a whole.4

Behind this bold initiative, competition is the key principle. Municipalities and the private sector
submit project proposals for approval by the concerned ministries and the Prime Minister. The
targeted exceptions to regulations to be implemented in Special Zones are compiled into a list. The
projects are assessed after one year. In the absence of any significant problem, the exceptions to
existing regulations could be extended to the whole country.
In the area of education, from April 2003 to May 2005, MEXT approved a total of 186
applications of exceptions to regulations to be implemented in Special Zones across the country

7

from Hokkaido to Okinawa in nineteen categories from kindergarten operations to the establishment
of for -profit high schools. 5 LEC Tokyo, which had been one of the four key law preparatory cram
schools in Japan, became the first for-profit university in Japan in 2004 and has since been renamed
as the LEC Tokyo Legal Mind University. 6 Digital Hollywood, first formed in 1994 to train
students in the creative industries, also became a University that same year.7 The distance-learningbased business graduate school, Business Breakthrough, established by the renowned Japanese
business guru, Ohmae Kenichi, also became a university under the new Special Zone scheme. Six
more pro-profit universities are scheduled to open in 2006 including W AO Graduate School in
digital animation, TAC Graduate School in accounting, Globis MBA Graduate School, LCA MBA
Graduate School, Japan Education Graduate School, and Japan Interpretation Graduate School. 8

Neoliberal Ideology and University Restructuring in Japan
Pressures to reform Japanese national universities dated back to the Nakasone administration
two decades ago. Seen in this historical context, university reform in Japan is not only a product of
government financial pinch in the post -bubble period of the 1990s but also a consistent target of the
dominant conservative LDP. It is well known that Prime M inister Nakasone was a great admirer of
Ronald Reagan. In as early as 1984, the leading organization of businessmen, Committee for
Economic Development ( Keizai Doyukai), argued that Japan needed the next generation of workers
to be “creative, diverse, and internationally-minded” (Schoppa 1991). That year, Nakasone
established the Daigaku Shingikai (Ad Hoc University Council) to revise the Standards for the
Establishment of Universities, “eliminating uniformity in education” and providing “regulatory
relief” for universities (Schoppa 1991). Attempts to incorporatize national universities, notably
under the ex-Minister of Education, Nagai Michio, largely failed due to opposition from the
Ministry of Education.9

8

It was not until the Hashimoto administration in 1997 that the issue became a heated
political debate. When the idea of writing the entire national university sector off the national
budget through the independent administrative institution scheme was floated by LDP politicians,
the Ministry of Education vehemently opposed it, out of the obvious concern of losing its
bureaucratic power, if not part of its raison d’être. 10 In May 2000, the Policy Affairs Research
Group within LDP issued a statement that while national universities should be incorporated, the
general IAI scheme might not be applicable. The following month, Japan Association of National
Universities, represented by national university presidents, maintained their strong opposition to the
IAI idea at the annual meeting. In June 2002, as a political compromise, a Cabinet decision
announced that national universities would be incorporated under a separate scheme/law, which
some critics argue, fundamentally resembles the basic IAI structure (M iyoshi 1999). The National
University Corporation Law was finally passed in 2003.
To understand how such a sweeping reform measure changing the legal structure,
governance pattern, and status of all 130,000 employees of national universities was undertaken,
one needs to look at the “triumvirate” collusion of interests between the LDP, Keidanren (Japan
Business Federation), and the M inistry of Economy, Trade, and Industry. LDP politicians have been
targeting Japanese national university reforms through two separate, though linked, ideologies. One,
manifested in the “small government” discourse of the Koizumi administration since 2001, focuses
on the fiscal dimension of Japanese national university restructuring. The other, led by conservative
politicians such as Omi Koji, aims more specifically on revitalizing Japanese universities for
economic growth, especially through a proactive science and technology policy. 11
These two dominant LDP positions on national university reforms—on fiscal performance
and national economic growth— have been both pushed by Keidanren. In the post-bubble period,
Keidanren has issued numerous position papers arguing for university restructuring. 12 It lobbied for

9

the passage of several important laws concerning industry-university relations. In 1995, the Basic
Law on Science and Technology (S&T) was passed, which led to the establishment of the First
Basic Plan on S& T in 1996 with a budget of 17 billion yen. In 1998, the Law to Promote
Technology Transfer from Universities to Industry through the establishment of technology
licensing offices was further promulgated. The following year, the Special Measures to Promote
Industrial Revitalization (the so-called Japanese Bayh Dole Act) were passed. In 2000, the Basic
Law on Intellectual Property was adopted to promote the transfer of university technology to
industry, an area that has widely been criticized as underdeveloped in Japan (Sawa et al. 2005). In
2001, Keidanren created a Sub-Committee on Industry-University Promotion within the Committee
on Industrial Technology to promote research and development within universities and human
resource development. The Sub-Committee put in place a new, more institutionalized internship
system and initiatives that allow more flexible exchanges between university and corporate
researchers/personnel.13
National university reform has also been actively promoted by the Ministry of Economy,
Trade, and Industry. In 2001, an informal policy group was created in the Industry Research
Institute within METI, which targeted faculty councils and university autonomy as impediments to
increasing the quantity and quality of Japanese information technology researchers. 14 On May 25
2001, the Minister of Economy, Trade, and Industry Takeo Hiranuma presented the “ Hiranuma
Plan” containing specific measures to encourage new market and job creation through wholesale
university reform. The Hiranuma Plan spurred MEXT into action. 15 On June 11, the Minister of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Toyama Atsuko, submitted instead the
Toyama Plan to the Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy, which was chaired by the Prime
Minister and whose objective was to revitalize the stagnant Japanese economy. The Toyama Plan
centered on three controversial ideas: 1) to drastically promote reorganization and consolidation of

10

national universities, the so-called Scrap and Build approach; 2) to introduce management methods
used in the private sector to the management of national universities; and 3) to introduce a
competitive principle to universities by means of external evaluation, or the so-called “Top 30
Universities,” which have since been renamed as the Center of Excellence program, as a mechanism
of competitive funding.
The National University Corporation Law and the deregulation of universities through the
Law on Special Zone for Structural Reform represent a defeat of MEXT in its bureaucratic battle
with the M inistry of Finance and METI. 16 The political compromise allows M EXT to retain some
control of national universities through the setting of six-year goals and evaluation. Above all,
MEXT attempts to maintain the discursive control of national university corporation as university
reform proper, rather than the victim of an administrative reform coup:
The corporation of national universities, as confirmed by a cabinet decision, should be
reviewed as a part of the promotion of university reform. That is to say, it is assumed that
this problem will be reviewed as a part of creating dynamic universities that are
internationally competitive, exceeding the perspective of the so-called administrative reform,
such as outsourcing of administrative functions, and improving the efficiency of
management, and promoting the flow of conventional university reform, such as upgrading
education and research, creating individualistic universities, and revitalizing university
administration (M EXT 2002: 2).

In particular, since the 1999 Cabinet decision to consider the incorporation of national universities,
MEXT has insisted on framing the imposed reforms around the OECD discourse of “knowledgebased society.” In its 2003 education W hite Paper, MEXT articulates its vision of “Higher
Education in Support of a Knowledge-Based Society Full of Creative Vitality - New Development
for Higher Education Reforms:”

In the so-called “knowledge -based society,” in which new technologies and information has
become the foundation for various social activities… universities bear the role of …
knowledge creation… In addition, the role of universities and other institutions in Japan has
come to be recognized once again as a means to strengthen industrial competitiveness and
ensure employment… Responding to social structural change, universities are also at the

11

stage where they must construct a new image for themselves, one in which they can
appropriately fulfill the role that is expected of them in the new society (p. 6 -7).
This new outlook for Japanese universities emphasizes competitiveness, productivity, flexibility,
and efficiency. Although MEXT lost the bureaucratic battle, in the eyes of its own staff and its

constituents— university employees, students, parents, and the society in general—it justifies the
far-reaching reform measures by couching them in legitimate global discourse of the competitive
21st century university.

Opposition to National University Reforms
Why have university faculty and staff unions failed to stop the drastic reform measures? There
was opposition at all levels. From early on, the Japan Association of National Universities (JAN U),
which represents national university leadership, objected to national university incorporation. The
main Faculty and Staff Union of Japanese Universities (Zendaikyo ) also opposed. Throughout
national universities in Japan, faculties and departments adopted resolutions against the National
University Corporation Law. In particular, a dozen of professors in the fields of education, history,
geography, and philosophy from the University of Tokyo, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, and
Chiba University formed the Shutoken Net (Tokyo Anti-incorporation Network) in 1999. It drew
upon the structure and memberships of existing faculty and staff union within national universities
and tried to formulate a coherent strategy against the reforms. The results of their action—
information dissemination, signature petition, demonstration, media campaign, and lobbying Diet
members—are reflected in the 33 resolutions that accompanied the passage of the National
University Corporation Law in 2003, even though the resolutions are not legally binding. Since
1999, several graduate students from the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies have also formed a
study group and mailing list to oppose university reforms that they believe curtail academic
freedoms and eliminate disciplines that are not “practical.” Undergraduates have also mobilized.

12

Student unions at the Tokyo University and Tohoku University adopted resolutions opposing the
law. Further, in 2002, student union members from several national universities formed a human
chain around MEXT to protest against national university corporation. 17
The inability to stop the National University Corporation Law and related reform measures
reflects several structural problems faced by Japanese faculty and staff as well as student unions.
Some university faculty union members pointed out the traditionally close relationship between
JANU and MEXT as a key factor in their inability to mobilize against national university
corporation. Although JANU had opposed initially, it “ gave in” too early to the demands of MEXT,
after which it became quasi impossible for individual national university to object to the proposed
plan. 18 The response of the university faculty and staff unions in turn has been fragmented and weak.
At the national federated level, Japanese teachers’ unions are divided along ideological and political
lines with the leading Japan Teachers’ Union (Nikkyoso) affiliated with the opposition Democratic
Party, the National Teachers Federation of Japan (Zen-Nikkyoren) affiliated with the Liberal
Democratic Party, and finally All Japan Teachers and Staff Union (Zenkyo) associated with the
Communist Party. University faculty and staff unions are federated under separate structures of the
main Faculty and Staff Union of Japanese Universities ((Zendaikyo, across political party lines) and
the much smaller Japan Public University Staff Union (Zenikkyo, associated with Nikkyoso). Some
faculty union members pinpoint their failure to stop the reform measures to the lack of power, if not
a consensual approach, of the Faculty and Staff Union of Japanese Universities vis- à-vis MEXT. 19
In addition to the problem of ideological division and the lack of unity, all teachers and faculty
unions have been suffering from declining membership rates. A fundamental question pertains to
how a union structure and approach based on the industrial era can still be effective in a
postindustrial society; that is, how an extremely hierarchical structure could adapt to the rapidly
changing labor changes in the era of globalization. 20 The weak linkage between teachers’ unions

13

and political parties in Japan further means that the opposition movement by the faculty and staff
unions had little political leverage.
Opposition at the level of the university remained weak due to the absence of staff unions in
many Japanese universities, a legacy of the 1968 university turmoil. In campuses where staff unions
are present, the low membership rate on the one hand and lack of consensus concerning the merits
and demerits of university corporation among faculty and staff members on the other have made
organizing a challenge. Further, since the corporation impacts various faculties, departments, and
even individual academics differently, there has been no uniformed response to the law. Some
faculties especially in the sciences and engineering seem to favor the development from the
perspective of flexibility and increased external funding possibilities while others in arts, humanities,
and basic sciences find the selective support approach an infringement of university research
autonomy. Many academics seem to be against the law, but few took action. 21
Finally, despite the fact that students—graduate as well as undergraduate—have great stakes
in the current trends of university incorporation and marketization, as they exert significant impact
on tuition fee, academic discipline restructuring, university management, and hence their university
education experience as a whole, student opposition has been marginal and ineffective. W ith the
exception of a few student unions and graduate student networks, for example, in the Komaba
campus of the University of Tokyo and Chiba University, most students remain oblivious to the
recent reforms. The lack of mobilization could be attributed to the absence of student unions in most
Japanese universities, a product of the M inistry of Education policy after the radical student
activism of the 1960s as well as the general decline of student interest in activism in the prosperous
decades of the 1970s and 1980s. 2 2

14

Conclusion: Academic Capitalism and the Social Contract
Almost two years after the National University Corporation Law took effect, Japanese
national universities have become battlegrounds for new missions, innovative governance structures,
decreased funding, flexible personnel arrangements, and heightened performance and global
competitiveness. Universities have responded differently to these new challenges. Faced with the
budget squeeze, some have chosen to freeze hiring 2 3 while others experiment outsourcing in order
to reduce personnel costs. 24 Faculty and staff members alike complain of the massive increase of
administrative workload due to mid-term planning, annual evaluations, and competitive funding
applications. 2 5 University presidents can now be chosen by the President Selection Committee
without the traditional faculty vote. External experts now sit on university boards and could
legitimately introduce market-oriented ideas and activities. One such example is the development of
Tokyo University employee and student identity cards as credit cards. In the spirit of “Scrap and
Build,” some university management teams have begun to think the unthinkable: eliminating entire
faculties that are no longer profitable or useful and replacing them with more practical and locally
adapted disciplines. 26
Although the National University Corporation Law has become a legal reality, the actual
extent of changes will not only depend on university leadership, which has been the active agents
spearheading reforms, but also on the acceptance of the middle management (deans and department
heads etc.) as well as individual academics. Many scholars and practitioners have pointed out the
trends of marketization of Japanese higher education from funding to enrollment (Yano 2005 and
Yamamoto 2005), but faculty members on the ground continue to question the legitimacy of such

top-down reforms that challenge the principles underlying postwar higher education system as well
as the social fabric in Japan. These include the equality of opportunity, university autonomy, higher
education as a public good, and stable employment. 27 As President Komiyama Hiroshi of the

15

University of Tokyo affirmed in a recent gathering of undergraduates from around the world, the
mission of the University of Tokyo, as stipulated in the 2003 university charter, is not only to
perform world-class research and education, but also to serve the public good of the world, from an
Asian perspective. 28 The learning, teaching, and research experience of individual students, faculty,
and staff members will depend on a tug of war between a neoliberal ideology focusing on the
market and commitments to the existing social contract that emphasizes university functions beyond
market values. At stake is not only the ranking of Japanese universities, or but also the democratic

future of Japan.

References
Altbach, P. et al. 2001. In Defense of American Higher Education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Arnove, R and C Torres, eds. 1999. Comparative Education: The Dialectic of the Global and the
Local. Boulder: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Burbules, N and C. Torres (eds.) 2001. Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives. New
York and London: Routledge
Carnoy, M . 2000. “ Globalization and Educational Reform” in Nelly Stromquist and Karen
Monkman, eds., Globalization and Education. Boulder: Rowman and Littlefield.
Daun, H. 2002. Educational Restructuring in the Context of Globalization and National Policy.
New York and London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Green, A. 1999. “Education and globalization in Europe and East Asia: convergent and divergent

trends”. Journal of Education Policy , Volume: 14, Number 1, pp. 55- 71.

16

Harman, G. 2001. “Impact of NPM on Higher Education Reform in Australia” in B. C. Nolan, ed.,
Public Sector Reform: An International Perspective. London: Palgrave.
Jones, G. 2003. “From Modest M odifications to Structural Reform: Higher Education in Ontario
from 1990 to 2003.” Presentation at the International W orkshop on University Reform in
Six Countries, August 14 –15, 2003.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology. 2002. A New Image of National
University Corporations. Tokyo: MEXT.
Miyoshi, M. 1999. “Gurobaru ekonomii to ‘dokuritsu gyôsei hôjin’” [Global Economy and
‘Independent Administrative Corporations’] in M. Iwasaki and H.Ozawa, eds., Gekishin!
Kokuritsu daigaku – Dokuritsu gyôsei hôjinka no yukue (Severe Shock! National
Universities – The Situation of Independent Administrative Incorporation). Tokyo: Miraisha.
Mok, K. H. 2000. “Reflecting on Globalization Effects on Local Policy: Higher Education Reforms
in Taiwan” in Journal of Educational Policy, Vol. 15, No. 6.
Sadlak, J. 2000. “Globalization versus the Universal Role of the University”. Higher Education in

Europe, Volume: 25, Number: 2, pp. 243-249.
Schoppa, L. 1990. Education Reform in Japan: A Case of Immobilist Politics. London: Routledge.
Schoppa, L. 1991 "Education Reform in Japan: Goals and Results of the Recent Reform Campaign”
in Edward Beauchamp (ed.) Windows on Japanese Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press, pp. 51- 75.
Slaughter, S and L. Larry. 1997. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial
University . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

17

Slaughter, Sheila and Gary Rhoades. 2004. Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets,

State, and Higher Education. Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press.
Stromquist, N and K. Monkman, eds. 2000. Globalization and Education: Integration and
Contestation Across Cultures. Boulder: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers
Tabata, H. 2005. “The Incorporation and Economic Structural Reform of Japan’s National
Universities”. Social Science Japan Journal, Vol. 8, No.1, pp. 91- 102.
Talbot, C et al. 2005. Exploring Performance Regimes: A New Approach to Understanding Public
Sector Performance. Report for the National Audit Office.
W illiams, G. 2003. The Enterprising University: Reform, Excellence and Equity. London: Open
University Press.
Yano, M. 2005. “ Socio-economic Contexts of Marketization in Higher Education: Marketization to
Marketization in Japan”. Presentation at the International Seminar on University
Management and Higher Education Policies: Trends, Issues and Prospects, Tokyo,
September 19 -20, 2005.
Zemsky, R. 2005. “On Being Market Smart and Mission Centered”. Presentation at the International
Seminar on University Management and Higher Education Policies: Trends, Issues and
Prospects, Tokyo, September 19 -20, 2005.

1

Personal interview with the President of a foreign private university in Japan, September 16, 2005.

2

Special Zones for Structural Reform, Cabinet Secretariat, 2003
www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/policy/kouzou2/sanko/030326setumei_e.pdf [accessed on November 18,
2005].
3
www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/kouzou2/hourei/02121 [accessed on November 18, 2005].
44

Special Zones for Structural Reform , Cabinet Secretariat, 2003
http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/policy/kouzou2/sanko/030326setumei_e.pdf [accessed on
November 18, 2005].
5
Documents from MEXT. Personal interview with the Unit Chief, Research Environment and
Industry Promotion Division, Technology Transfer Promotion Bureau, MEXT, August 12, 2005.

18

6

http://www.lec.ac.jp/campus/index.shtml
http://www.dhw.co.jp/un/access/index.html
8
Documents from MEXT. Personal interview with the Unit Chief, Research Environment and
Industry Promotion Division, Technology Transfer Promotion Bureau, MEXT, August 12, 2005.
9
Personal interview with a professor in the Faculty of Arts of Chiba University, September 23,
2005.
10
Personal interview with one of the founders of Shutoken-Net (Tokyo Anti-incorporation
Network), a professor in the Faculty of Arts, Chiba University, September 23, 2005.
11
Personal interview with a Professor at the Institute of Social Science, University of Tokyo, who
was the ex-President of the Tokyo University Faculty and Staff Union, September 12, 2005.
12
See, for example, http://www.keidanren.or.jp/japanese/policy/2000/013/index.html;
http://www.keidanren.or.jp/japanese/policy/2001/048/index.html;
http://www.keidanren.or.jp/japanese/policy/2005/039/honbun.html [accessed on November 18,
2005].
13
Personal interview with the Head of the Sub-Committee Industry-University Promotion in
Keidanren, September 14, 2005.
14
Personal interview with a Professor at the Institute of Social Science, University of Tokyo, who
was the ex-President of the Tokyo University Faculty and Staff Union, September 12, 2005.
15
Personal conversation with Senior Specialist, International Affairs Division, MEXT, August 11,
2005.
16
Personal interview with one of the founders of Shutoken-Net (Tokyo Anti-incorporation
Network), a professor in the Faculty of Arts, Chiba University, September 23, 2005.
17
Personal interview with a student union member at the University of Tokyo, Komaba campus,
August 21, 2005.
18
Personal interview with one of the founders of Shutoken-Net (Tokyo Anti-incorporation
Network), a professor in the Faculty of Arts, Chiba University, September 23, 2005
19
Personal conversation with a member of the Japan Public University and Staff Union, a professor
in the Faculty of Law at Nagasaki University during the summer seminar organized by the Japan
Public University Staff Union in Yugawara, August 27-28, 2005.
20
Comment by a union member of the Kyoto Institute of Technology during the summer seminar
organized by the Japan Public University Staff Union in Yugawara, August 27-28, 2005.
21
Personal interview with a Professor at the Institute of Social Science, University of Tokyo,
September 12, 2005.
22
Personal interview with a student union member at the University of Tokyo, Komaba campus,
August 21, 2005.
23
Personal interview with two Vice Presidents of Hitotsubashi University, September 20, 2005.
24
Personal interview with the Dean of Education, Tohoku University, October 13, 2005.
25
Personal interview with three Vice Presidents and Trustees and the Director General of
Administration of Ochanomizu University, August 30, 2005.
26
Personal interview with the Vice President of Ryukyu University, October 6, 2005.
27
Personal interview with a Professor at the Institute of Social Science, University of Tokyo, who
was the ex-Vice President, September 21, 2005.
28
Presentation at the Harvard Project for Asia and International Relations symposium at the
University of Tokyo, August 25, 2005.
7

19