Kamibeppu, Takao. (2002). History of Japanese policies in education aid to developing countries: 1950s-1990s. Reviewed by Ken-ichi Maruyama

	Kamibeppu, Takao. (2002). History of Japanese policies in education aid to developing countries: 1950s-1990s. N.Y.: Routledge Pp. 160 $70 ISBN 0-41593-404-4 Reviewed by Ken-ichi Maruyama Arizona State University April 20, 2004 Studies on foreign aid policies have deepened our understanding of how the international community has tackled global issues, such as poverty, economic development, technology advancement, and educational competence. Along with Western European countries, Japan played an important role in foreign aid policy formation for developing countries after World War II. Through historical analysis, Kamibeppu clearly highlights the significant needs in of Japanese education aid policy as follows: 1) Japanese education aid and its historical development are understudied, 2) foreign aid is one of the more controversial issues among subgovernments, and 3) the history of foreign aid reflects Japan’s shifting foreign policies over time (p.13). By analyzing the bilateral policymaking process of two subgovernments, Kamibeppu explores the development of Japanese education aid policy in the past half-century. The accounts he presents include the birth, growth, separation, and consolidation of subgovernments during this period of time. The book is based on Kamibeppu’s dissertation work. In the appendices, the reader is able to learn how Kamibeppu conducted the historical analysis of Japanese education aid policy. The book consists of six chapters. Chapter One provides the purpose, legitimacy, and methodology for conducting the historical document analysis. Kamibeppu organizes the content of his historical policy analysis in chronological order. From Chapter Two to Chapter Five, Kamibeppu analyzes the impact of historical events related to the development of education aid policies during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s-80s, and 1990s, respectively. By dividing the 1950s -60s and the 1970s-90s into Parts I and II, Kamibeppu emphasizes the birth and development of subgovernments in Part I, and their separation and consolidation in Part II. Chapter Six summarizes the analysis of the previous four chapters and provides some implications of Japanese education aid policies for the future. Education aid is a type of foreign aid. For his study, Kamibeppu defines the term, education aid, as including the following four types of education-related assistance to developing countries: 1) grant aid, 2) loan aid, 3) bilateral cooperation activities, and 4) multilateral cooperation activities. Kamibeppu refers the definition of education aid to the definition of Official Development Assistance (ODA) established by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. According to Kamibeppu, Japanese ODA “served as a benign but powerful tool for Japan to exercise international influence and raise it s international economic and political status, especially in Asia because an international military presence was not an option” (p.117). The diplomatic purpose of ODA reflects interactions between donors and recipients as well as among donors in the international context. The dynamic interactions are associated with the changing trends of Japanese education aid policy over the fifty years. Multiple-definitions of education aid evolved from time to time. Kamibeppu argues, “The definitional differences illuminate the multiple ways in which Japan’s education aid is perceived and why there are conflicts among the subgovernemts and agencies concerned” (p.9). International education aid organizations, such as UNESCO, UNICEF, and the World Bank influenced the changing definition of Japanese education aid. In the international context of education aid policy, Kamibeppu argues that three major shifts occurred during the 1950s-1990s: 1) from secondary, vocational, and higher education to basic education, 2) from quantitative expansion to qualitative improvement, and 3) from project aid to program/sector aid (p.11-12). In Japan, the different definitions of education aid resulted from the involvement of multiple-actors in Japanese subgovernmental policymaking processes, such as government ministries, private/public organizations, and national universities. Kamibeppu identifies two subgovernments: the Education and ODA Subgovernments, as the primary actors in the development of Japanese education aid policies. The Education Subgovernment primarily represents the interests of the Ministry of Education (MOE). The ODA Subgovernment basically includes the interests of multiple-ministries, namely, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), the Ministry of Finance (MOF), and the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI). These subgovernments either independently or interactively engage in Japanese education aid policymaking. Kamibeppu argues for the need to study Japanese education aid policies from an integrated perspective because “education aid transcends the traditional jurisdictions of ministries, unlike school education which is almost completely contained within MOE, and diplomacy which is the domain of MOFA” (p.6). By using the bilateral lenses of policy analysis, Kamibeppu reconstructed the history of Japanese education aid policies, interpreted the multiple-meanings of the education aid policies, and presented his comprehensive analysis of Japanese education aid to developing countries during the 1950s-1990s. Four chapters (Chapter Two—Five) provide Kamibeppu’s historical analysis of Japanese education aid policy. In each chapter, Kamibeppu highlights key historical events for which the Education and ODA Subgovernments engaged in policymaking during a particular period of time. By describing each event, Kamibeppu analyzes what values and interests each subgovernment embraced in policymaking, how the subgovernmental processes developed Japanese education aid policies, how the subgovernments interacted over the policy development, and how Japan built a relationship with foreign countries through the implementation of education policies. On the basis of his interviews and document analysis, Kamibeppu makes his interpretations of the events related to Japanese education aid policies. From the integrated perspective of bilateral policymaking processes, Kamibeppu seeks coherent understanding of Japanese education policy. During the 1950s, Japan started rebuilding the nation and its ties to the nations of the world. After the World War II, Japan did not obtain sovereignty from the U.S. occupation until the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty. Kamibeppu starts the history of Japanese education aid with the year 1951 in which Japan obtained UNESCO membership. UNESCO promotes international harmony through its cultural and educational programs such as International Understanding Education. For UNESCO, “International Understanding Education is not education aid nor education cooperation for developing countries, but it is an intellectual activity undertaken in schools and other settings both in the North and the South on an equal basis” (p.28). MOE engaged in foreign student programs. MOE perceived UNESCO membership as a passport to participate in the international community once again. While the Education Subgovernment started with UNESCO membership, the ODA Subgovernment was created through war reparations, technical assistance, and economic cooperation to developing countries. Under the U.S. occupation, Japan rebuilt its economy with U.S. foreign aid, and developed reparation programs for Asian countries. Although Japan was still a recipient of U.S. foreign aid in 1954, Japan joined the Colombo Plan as a donor; the plan was organized to provide foreign aid to Asian countries. The ODA Subgoverment (MITI, MOFA, etc.) coordinated technical assistance programs to Third World countries, especially those in Asia. In pursuit of building a reciprocal relationship with the recipient countries, the ODA Subgovernment marginalized the concept of education aid from its economic cooperation activities. During the 1960s, Japan transformed itself from an aid recipient to an aid donor. Seventeen countries in Africa declared their independence in 1960. The tension between capitalism and communism heated up the Cold War between the West and the East. Along with the Western donor countries, Japan participated in a U.S.-led foreign aid program. In 1961, the Overseas Technical Cooperation Agency (OCTA) was created to assist ministries in implementing technical cooperation programs in developing countries. With the assistance of OCTA, the ODA Subgovernment further promoted a reciprocal economic relationship with the recipient countries. On the other hand, MOE focused on implementing UNESCO policies, such as the Karachi Plan. In Asia, Japan played a regional leadership role in developing education cooperation with the Karachi Plan. By promoting worldwide compulsory free primary education, UNESCO shifted the policy priority from International Understanding Education to education cooperation. The priority shift stimulated a political debate over Japan’s approach to education cooperation. By the late 1960s, however, Japan achieved economic superpower status through international trading activities. The Western donors expected Japan to increase the amount of its foreign aid. At the same time, Japan was being criticized for its unfair trade agreements and practices toward developing countries in Asia. The 1973 oil crisis forced Japan to review and improve its economic relations with developing countries. To lessen international tensions against Japan, the Japanese government called for the enhancement of foreign aid to developing countries, especially to Asian countries. In the early 1970s, two subgovernments jointly discussed how Japan should provide educational cooperation to developing countries. However, the two subgovernments perceived the role of education aid so differently that they could not reconcile the primary goal of educational cooperation. While the Education Subgovernment promoted educational understanding and cultural cooperation, the ODA Subgovernment sought economic development opportunities from educational cooperation projects. When MOE engaged in major UNESCO projects, the Education Subgovernment moved away from the collaborative policymaking process of the early 1970s. In 1973, the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) was established to transcend the jurisdictional boundaries among ministries and to gain better control over the development of foreign aid policy. The creation of JICA also produced a long-lasting tension between the two subgovernments in the history of Japanese education aid policy. Kamibeppu describes the tension between MOE and JICA as follows: MOE officials were certainly interested in participating in JICA’s bilateral aid … MOE requested the position of the Director of the Training Affairs Department; however, another ministry had already succeeded in grabbing the position with its stronger lobbying. Similarly, other ministries obtained the positions they wanted. JICA offered MOE another senior position, but MOE rejected it. Thus MOE lost a golden opportunity to have a good relationship with JICA at the onset. (p.73) The exclusion of the MOE limited the ability of both MOE and JICA in the development of Japanese education aid policy. The Education Subgovernment took three avenues of education aid to developing countries: 1) education cooperation with UNESCO, 2) in-house foreign student programs, and 3) cooperation with JICA. The MOE actively promoted foreign student programs because international conflicts between the North/West and the South/East prevented UNESCO programs from delivering education aid efficiently to developing countries. The MOE was reluctant to participate in JICA’s education aid. While the Education Subgovernment acted alone in policymaking, the ODA Subgovernment developed a broad network among JICA policymakers (ministries). JICA ministries used education aid as a tool for managing their excessive resources and staff in oversea markets. By comparing the form of education aid between the Education Subgovernment and the ODA Subgovernment, Kamibeppu questions the dichotomy between software aids (e.g., technical training) and hardware aids (e.g., school building). During the 1990s, Japan further expanded its leadership role in Asia. After the end of the Cold War, Japan became less influenced by the Western community and emerged as the political leader of Asia in the global context. The 1990 World Conference on Education for All (WCEFA) forced the two subgovernments to coordinate their respective interests and at the same time respond more effectively to the expectations of foreign countries. The 1990s administrative reform initiatives impacted a broad range of Japanese bureaucracy. By pursuing bureaucratic efficiency, the national government promoted the consolidation of agencies. Kamibeppu identifies the joint-policymaking effort between the Education and ODA Subgovernments as the Education Aid Subgovernment that includes senior policymakers from the two subgovernmental policymaking processes. Establishing the ODA Charter of Japan reflected the emerging strength of Japan’s political leadership in the international community. Kamibeppu describes the establishment of the Charter as follows: In June 1992, the Cabinet approved the ODA Charter of Japan, the first of its kind. The Charter stipulated four major conditions for aid recipients: the recipient’s record on arms proliferations, democratization, market reform, and the protection of basic human rights. The charter indicated the government’s intention to seriously address global issues such as the environment, AIDS, poverty, population, and gender inequality. This proactive and political aid policy radically differed from past policies that were based on the low-profile approach in domestic affairs of recipient countries. (p.95) In the conclusions section (Chapter Six), Kamibeppu argues that there are two unresolved challenges that Japanese bureaucrats will face: 1) improving the ability of selling Japanese education aid policy in the Western community, and 2) strengthening an administrative leadership to implement Japanese education aid policy. Yet, no particular actions are recommended for any ministry to achieve these ends. Kamibeppu’s study provides a comprehensive account of how Japan developed education aid policies over the past five decades. Through the lens of bilateral policymaking processes, Kamibeppu analyzes how the interactions between the two subgovernments affected the development of Japanese education aid policy during each decade. Interviewing a broad range of policymakers allowed Kamibeppu to make a historical analysis of Japanese education aid policy from multiple-perspectives. The book enables the reader to understand the accomplishments, failures, and future challenges of Japanese education aid policy both in the international community and within the domestic arena. I compliment Kamibeppu for succeeding in providing a convincing reconstruction of education aid policy in modern Japanese history. Kamibeppu calls for Japan’s global leadership in order to enhance Japanese education aid policy. Yet, it is not clear what global leadership actually entails. Many different definitions of leadership exist (Ott, 1996). The failure to define global leadership makes this argument weak. Defining leadership would have enabled Kamibeppu to develop some clearer recommendations for particular policy actors to seek the improvement of Japanese education aid policy. Japan can benefit from learning how its education aid contributes to the international community. We owe Kamibeppu a debt of gratitude for advancing the study of his nation’s education aid policy. Reference Ott, J. S. (1996). Classic Readings in Organizational Behavior (2ed.). Orland, FL: Harcourt Brace & Company. About the Reviewer Ken-ichi Maruyama is a Ph.D. student in the Education Leadership and Policy Studies Program at Arizona State University (ASU). He graduated from Meiji University with a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science. He completed the Master’s Degree in Public Administration at ASU. His academic interest includes higher education policy analysis, organizational development, and comparative research.