Introduction
This article explores the puzzle of the limited societal recognition among the general public for the professional identities and activities of humanitarian and development practitioners working in the Japanese NGO sector, despite the latter’s increasing engagement in the delivery of Japanese foreign aid and humanitarian responses to disasters in the domestic and international settings.
To achieve this goal, the article first describes the trends in professionalization among Japanese international cooperation NGOs to elucidate the continuing shift in the sector toward knowledge-based professional engagement for addressing development and humanitarian challenges. It then delineates the voices of NGO practitioners, illuminating their assessments of how far the public understands the nature of their activities. Here, the article sets the reported experiences of NGO practitioners against the broader trends in public attitudes toward non-profits in Japan, highlighting the challenges that they face in trying to secure recognition among the general public. Finally, the article explains the causal importance of the heightened governmental interest in promoting volunteer activities since the mid-1990s and assesses the repercussions of this state of affairs for societal understanding and recognition of the professional identities of NGO workers, including the latter’s efforts to build supportive constituencies among the general public.
To summarize the article’s main conclusions, it is proposed that the development and humanitarian endeavors of Japanese NGO practitioners are yet to receive societal recognition as professional knowledge-based work, despite the professionalization and professionalism in the international cooperation NGO community having steadily progressed over the years. The lingering societal misperceptions about NGO practitioners’ work as volunteering, coupled with mistrust about the potential for political aspects of their work and diminishing interest in international cooperation issues, have hindered the securing and broadening of horizontal recognition among members of the general public. Furthermore, the article suggests that neo-liberal discourse on volunteering—endorsing apolitical and service-oriented voluntary activities as a desirable form of civic engagement—promoted by the government in the post-1995/98 climate is a significant contributing factor that has stymied the fostering of recognition of Japanese NGOs’ aid work as a professional enterprise.
The article aims to make a threefold contribution to the existing literature on the Japanese voluntary and non-profit sector. First, by illuminating a little-studied aspect of the lived experienced of professional development and humanitarian workers, the article adds new knowledge to our understanding of challenges faced by the NGO community in contemporary Japan. As such, the article augments earlier studies by Hirata (Reference Hirata2002) and Reimann (Reference Reimann2010) explaining the trends in development of the NGO sector in Japan in the 1990s and 2000s. Whereas these publications accentuate the evolving relationship between the Japanese government and NGOs, this article emphasizes the importance of perceptions and understandings of the Japanese public regarding NGO activities as a significant influence on the growth of the NGO community.
Second, alongside the growing body of scholarly literature exploring volunteering and civic engagement trends among the Japanese public (e.g., Nakano, Reference Nakano2005; Georgeou, Reference Georgeou2010; Taniguchi, Reference Taniguchi2010; Taniguchi & Buttry-Watson, Reference Taniguchi and Buttry-Watson2014; Okabe, Shiratori & Suda Reference Okabe, Shiratori and Suda2019), a steady undercurrent of studies have underlined challenges facing non-profits in Japan, including inadequate awareness of non-profits and their work among the public, restricted donation flows to them, and their internal management shortcomings (Bothwell, Reference Bothwell and Osbourne2003; Imada, Reference Imada and Osbourne2003; Ito, Reference Ito2017; Ouchi, Reference Ouchi2004). In the early 2000s, Kuroda & Imata (2002 and Reference Kuroda and Imata2004, pp.3,7), tellingly, enumerated the building of trust and a domestic support base or constituency as crucial factors for the further growth of Japanese NGOs. Hence, the findings of this article illuminate the extent to which the above-mentioned challenges are reflected in the experiences of professionals working for Japanese development and humanitarian NGOs, and how efforts to foster a domestic support base have progressed, thereby complementing the existing research.
Finally, the article adds to the body of literature underscoring the restrictive consequences of the volunteer frame for the development of the voluntary and non-profit sector in Japan (see Ogawa, Reference Ogawa2009; Avenell, Reference Avenell2010, Reference Avenell and Kinnia2013). It draws attention to the constraining qualities and “unintended” consequences of the volunteer frame that—while making important contributions toward expanding space for non-profit, non-governmental actors in Japan—have ascribed value and meaning to selected types of engagement in non-profit enterprise, while at the same time obscuring the saliency of alternative paths. As such, the manuscript ponders the need to rethink the legitimizing role of the volunteer frame and its continued usefulness.
Aid Work, Horizontal Recognition, and the Neoliberal Approach to Non-Profit and Voluntary Activities
For the majority of researchers, “professions are regarded as essentially the knowledge-based category of service occupations which usually follow a period of tertiary education and vocational training and experience” (Evetts, Reference Evetts, Billet, Harteis and Gruber2014, p.33). The key significance of the expertise, knowledge, and skills acquired through education and/or training is enumerated by Carr (Reference Carr, Billet, Harteis and Gruber2014, p.8) as one of conditions of a profession that are frequently mentioned in the literature, alongside qualities such as the presence of a “moral or ethical code” to define professional duties. “Professionalization,” in turn, denotes “the process to achieve the status of profession” and this notion remains relevant in research on “newly emerging occupations,” with the issue of establishing uniformity in education and training—among other concerns—being prominent (Evetts, Reference Evetts, Billet, Harteis and Gruber2014, p.34). Finally, professionalism is understood, after Walker (Reference Walker2004), as “a set of attitudes or values that define how you relate to those for whom you provide services,” together with “an underlying basic body of scientific knowledge” and “systems to apply this knowledge.”
According to Roth (Reference Roth2015, pp.50–51), “aid work may be considered as a calling or vocation,” and “it constitutes meaningful work which is grounded in social justice (development), saving and protecting lives (humanitarianism) and human rights.” Whereas aid work is considered to be a value-driven enterprise in which altruism plays a significant role as motivating factor, over recent decades, branding, marketization, and professionalization have influenced and shaped the functioning of NGOs and work in aid-related positions (Roth, Reference Roth2015, p.63). Reacting to the changing operational environment of humanitarian practitioners, Slim (Reference Slim1995, p.110) argues that aid workers need to develop a broad range of capacities in order to perform their duties. Although his list of new skills constitutes an “ideal type” benchmark for the appraisal of humanitarian practitioners, Slim’s contribution accentuates the increase in necessary competences and expansion of the body of professional knowledge deemed important for the sector.
The efforts to establish “consistent occupational standards and the adoption of core humanitarian competencies” constitute a focal point of broader discussion on the professionalization of aid work, which also includes an increased focus on fundraising and prioritizing the employment of professional staff, rather than relying on volunteers (Roth, Reference Roth2015, pp.52–53). As noted by Walker (Reference Walker2004), knowledge and skills codified in standards/codes of conduct—alongside specific values (humanity, independence, and impartiality) and systems through which both are disseminated—are of key importance for fostering professionalism in the humanitarian sector. The international NGO community has pursued initiatives to improve humanitarian responses and to streamline knowledge and learning in humanitarian endeavors. The efforts of “global accountability communities” (GACs; Deloffre, Reference Deloffre2016) have resulted in the generation of common principles and regulatory mechanisms to improve effectiveness and accountability in humanitarian work (e.g., the Sphere Project, Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International, the CHS Alliance; Sphere, 2018). The proliferation of academic degrees in humanitarian studies—in addition to already existing and well-established tertiary opportunities in the field of development studies (see Cameron et al., Reference Cameron, Quadir and Tiessen2013; Potter, Reference Potter, Desai and Potter2014; White & Devereux, Reference White and Devereux2018)—further testifies to the increasing professionalization in the sector, promoted in formal education channels (Stibral, Reference Stibral2021). Whereas the above-mentioned trends are contested and have given rise to a number of concerns (e.g., James, Reference James2016; Srinivas, Reference Srinivas2009), they can all be understood in light of the demarcating parameters of a “newly emerging occupation” of the aid professional.
Although the fields of development and humanitarian aid remain separate engagement and intervention areas, the rise of new humanitarianism (Yamashita, Reference Yamashita2015; Adami, Reference Adami2021, see also Hilhorst, Reference Hilhorst2018 on resilience humanitarianism)—with its focus on empowerment of, and accountability to beneficiaries, among the others—and the debate on humanitarian-development(-peace) nexus (Lie, Reference Lie2020; Strand, Reference Strand and De Lauri2020; Weishaupt, Reference Weishaupt2020) demonstrate the existence of commonalities of interests and the need to pursue points of convergence between the two sectors and those working in them. Without diminishing the ongoing institutional, financial, and actor-centered challenges that the fostering of greater synergies between both sectors entails, the area of “disaster preparedness”—an important element in disaster risk reduction (DRR) agenda—“became an important bridge between humanitarian and development communities” (Thompson Reference Thompson, Wisner, Gaillard and Kelman2011, p.729). Similarly, the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals agenda “provide[s] a reference frame” for actors from both fields (Strand, Reference Strand and De Lauri2020, p.105). Although activities of humanitarian actors were separate from operations and debates in development sector—with the issue of accountability becoming a subject of increased interest among humanitarian community only in the 1990s—(Hilhorst et al., Reference Hilhorst, Melis, Mena and van Voorst2021, p.363), a contribution to advancing the qualities of transparency, accountability, and efficiency among NGOs and other aid organizations is an important aspect of the debates on professionalization and the professionalism of aid work (Roth, Reference Roth2015, p.52).
This set of characteristics is deemed indispensable for improving relationships with beneficiaries, donors, and other relevant stakeholders. Garnering acceptance, acknowledgment, and support from these outside audiences is crucial for the survival and development of NGOs. In other words, the professionalization of aid work contributes to fostering recognition of NGOs among pertinent audiences.
According to Heins (Reference Heins2014, p.5), “human autonomy and agency are not givens but are the results of a continuous and dynamic process of mutual recognition between persons and groups. Recognition is about constituting and performing inclusion, actorness, and membership.” For Heins (Reference Heins2008, p.10), NGOs are significant actors in the worldwide struggles over recognition “against basic forms of abuse […], the denial of human rights, and the denigration of ways of life.” Having said that, NGOs themselves are engaging in recognition-seeking. In his research, Heins (Reference Heins2014, p.9) distinguishes between horizontal and vertical recognition—as well as that which is purely intersubjective and that which is institutionally mediated. The former categories apply to “recognition between like-minded groups of persons” and “between groups and powerful institutions or authorities,” respectively. Pertinent to this article, Heins (Reference Heins2014, p.9) proposes that NGOs seek to secure horizontal recognition from potential donors, partners, and supportive representatives of official authorities.
Social movement theory reveals that public arenas are not merely “neutral backgrounds” but are populated by a variety of actors with which a given movement interacts (Rucht, Reference Rucht, Snow, Soule and Kriesi2007, location 3419). Among these, the general public—consisting of neutral bystanders, (potential) sympathizers, and adversaries—is an important reference group. Winning and broadening support among members of the public is crucial for the success of social movements (Rucht, Reference Rucht, Snow, Soule and Kriesi2007, location 3487, 3651–55, 3662). Likewise, the general public is a significant audience for NGOs and their activities. Donations from sympathetic members of general public are an invaluable source of (untied) income for NGOs, and supportive members of the public can lend backing to NGO campaigns or, ultimately, choose a career in the sector and engage in voluntary activities in support of specific causes. Hence, gaining and expanding horizontal recognition among the public by building supportive constituencies and transforming bystanders into sympathizers is vital for sustaining the operations of NGOs.
Finally, efforts undertaken to pursue further professionalization and professionalism among aid workers—and the fostering of horizontal recognition among the public toward NGO professionals—do not occur in a sociopolitical void. On the subject of the careers of non-governmental professionals, Lewis (Reference Lewis and Mosse2011, p.17) proposes that, “the identities of development professionals and activists can usefully be analyzed in the context of the dominant policy ideas and models within which their expertise is constructed and given value and meaning.” He further contends that the “three sectors” model—with its clear-cut division between government/public, business, and non-profit sectors and the focus on devolution of social services to non-state actors rooted in neoliberal economic thought—constitutes a crucial frame of reference when discussing the identities of those working in development. Whereas Lewis concerns himself with how the rigidness of the model obscures the messiness of the real-life experiences of development professionals, his observations have merit for analyzing the factors that shape public understanding of the professional identity of NGO practitioners in Japan.
Data Collection and Analysis
First, the article utilizes quantitative data gathered from surveys published by non-profit actors and the government. Documentary materials published by the Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation (JANIC) and Japan Platform (JPF) provide data on education, employment conditions, and organizational capacities and income within the NGO community to draw conclusions on the current conditions of professional development in the sector. Furthermore, opinion polls conducted by the Japanese Cabinet Office and concerning specified non-profit corporations and the social contributions of Japanese citizens provide information on public attitudes toward and awareness of non-profit organizations in Japan. The data compiled by the Japan Fundraising Association offer a further source of data on trends in donations in the country.
Second, the article utilizes information gathered through 12 semi-structured interviews with members of Japanese NGOs working in international cooperation sector (17 people). The interviews were conducted between 2015 and 2018. The interviewee group included informants that, at the time of interview, were the heads of the approached organizations, practitioners employed as office managerial staff, and (field) project managers. The sampling method included both snowballing and purposive sampling that utilized the NGO Guide (2016), published by JANIC, to select organizations to be approached. Japanese branches of large international NGOs (INGOs) and NGOs that had emerged domestically were represented in the interviewee group.
Methodologically, the article is informed by thematic analysis, defined by Nowell et al., (Reference Nowell, Norris, White and Moules2017, p.2) as “a method for identifying, analyzing, organizing, describing, and reporting themes found within a data set.” Inductive approach was adopted and upon close reading of the transcribed interviews and interview notes, focus was put on determining any recurrent themes pertaining to public perceptions of and attitudes toward NGOs, as reported by the interviewees, including the latter’s views on the extent of the validation for their professional identities among the general public. Subsequently, these were narrowed down to the categories of volunteer vs professional to capture specific concerns about misperceptions of the professional development and humanitarian work of NGO practitioners; “political” activism stigma, encompassing unease about political advocacy and the possible “anti-government” character of NGOs; and, finally, international focus drawback, which focuses attention on concerns over declining interest in international cooperation among the public, as reported by NGO practitioners. The relevance of these thematic categories was further explored by marshaling evidence from quantitative data sources in order to set the findings from the qualitative interviews against broader trends in public attitudes toward—and donations to—non-profits in Japan.
Professionalization and Professionalism Trends in the NGO Sector in Japan
Although estimates of the number of Japanese NGOs involved in international cooperation vary, it is believed that they number between 300 and 400 organizations (JANIC & Green Project 2016, p.3; JANIC 2016, p.5). The available data compiled by JANIC show that the number of salaried employees in the NGO sector has grown substantially over the years, reaching in 2015 67% among the surveyed NGO professionals (4165 people), as opposed to just 26% in 1990, with the ranks of unpaid staff in decline (1990: 74%, 2015: 33%). Furthermore, the majority of salaried staff were in full-time employment (2015: 52.1%), rather than in part-time work arrangements (2015: 14.7%). The majority of the surveyed NGOs (90.3% of 124 organizations) were utilizing volunteer labor, with domestic unpaid volunteers constituting the largest segment (JANIC 2016, pp.97–98, 107–108). To put these numbers into perspective, however, we need to bear in mind that the size of the Japanese NGOs, in comparison with their European and American counterparts, is undeniably modest, with an organization employing 20 professional staff members considered to be a large entity (JCIE, 2015, p.18). Among the 379 NGOs that reported having one and more employees, 81.3% (308 organizations) were employing fewer than nine salaried staff. Additionally, 146 of the 207 organizations that reported employing full-time salaried staff (70.5%) had fewer than nine such employees; and 162 of 172 NGOs (94.1%) had nine or fewer part-time salaried employees (JANIC 2016, pp.100–101).
The majority of the full-time paid employees in the Japanese NGO sector have a tertiary education, with 60% having graduated from the university and 33% holding a master’s degree from a Japanese or foreign university (on the basis of 347 responses). These numbers only slightly vary from the 2015 data, which were 57.1% and 36.6% (424 responses), respectively. International relations and development studies are increasingly cited as academic majors by respondents (JANIC & Green Project 2016, pp.29–30; 2017, pp.14–15). Hence, it appears that, over the past three decades, Japanese humanitarian and development NGOs have become a career destination for an increasing number of highly educated Japanese pursuing an interest in international affairs and development/humanitarian concerns.
Yet, a number of the challenges regarding institutional capacities and management practices have remained insufficiently addressed. Whereas the majority of NGOs recognize the importance of human resource development, most organizations are not able to sufficiently address their organizational needs in this respect due to a lack of time and resources (JANIC & Green Project 2016, p.11). Although internal and external training opportunities are provided within the sector, surveys among members of the NGO community reveal a demand for further capacity building, especially in the fields of fundraising, project/program management, marketing, and crisis/safety management (JPF 2014, pp.38–39, 43–44; JANIC & Green Project 2016, pp.12–13). Here, it should be noted that the Japanese chapters of the INGOs are visibly ahead of their homegrown counterparts in terms of fundraising and other organizational capacities, such as familiarity with international standards and codes of conduct, as well as the ability to provide relevant training for their staff (JPF 2014, p.12).
The small size of the Japanese NGOs means that they are often not in a position to appoint staff who could devote their time and efforts to working solely on narrow and well-defined areas, such as gender issues or fundraising. The limited human resources at the NGOs’ disposal necessitate that those working in a given organization must heavily multitask and are often “perpetually overextended.” As Japanese funders are reluctant to support overhead costs, including expenditure for personnel, the latter remain underpaid (JCIE 2015, p.19). The dearth of funds limits the ability of NGOs to invest in human resources development and to retain talent, which in turn impacts fundraising capacity and perpetuates this “vicious circle” (Interview, March 9, 2017). Consequently, the projection to outside audiences of an image of Japanese NGOs as experienced professionals becomes a challenging exercise.
The Japanese NGO community regularly takes steps to further develop the professional acumen of its members. For instance, the JANIC accountability self-check initiative (Yamaguchi & Matsuo, Reference Yamaguchi and Matsuo2011) aims to increase accountability and transparency among members of the sector. The Japan Quality & Accountability Network (JQAN), created in 2015, focuses on popularizing international standards and best practices in humanitarian and development fields among Japanese NGOs (JQAN, 2021). In 2018, the NGO community produced its own standards for safety and security (JaNISS, 2018), intended to improve safety management among Japanese actors. These measures testify to the ongoing process of professionalization and growing professionalism of Japanese international cooperation NGOs.
The Problem of Societal (Mis-)Recognition: Volunteer vs. Professional
The following comment was made by an experienced professional working in the humanitarian assistance sector, when asked to comment on the relationship between Japanese NGOs and the general public:
Usually the ordinary public does not understand what NGOs do and why do we need NGOs. Because they say “All the problems—the government should take care of it”. In Japanese we say, okami ishiki […] we have this perception that the government is going to do everything for us, so why do we need non-governmental organizations? “You guys are just volunteers doing what you want, with the time that you have, so just go ahead with your hobbies”. [...] So there is not really a perception of professional NGO workers in Japan and I think that is really one of the core problems.
(Interview, November 24, 2015 [Italics added])
This widespread societal belief that public-domain or public-service-related matters belong to the governmental sphere of activity—and a lack of understanding for NGO work as a profession—were also highlighted by other members of the NGO community. Some interviewees (Interview, June 3, 2016)—while noting that society’s reliance on the government and public sector to meet the needs of the people for many years has not been a bad thing—conceded that the talents of those working in civil society organizations and the role played by latter is not well understood in broader society. Another interviewee, though, expressed the view that society considers NGOs to be “inexperienced volunteers, amateurs.” Whereas she admitted that social attitudes toward NGOs have changed from those of 20 years ago, the level of progress achieved has not been dramatic. The interviewee linked this state of affairs with Japanese people’s “mindset”—that is, the expectation that social problems and challenges should be resolved by the government, as noted above. In her opinion, this has an adverse impact on NGOs because, if a given solution does not come from the government, or if the latter (or corporate bodies or academics) does not endorse or recognize the professionalism of the given organizations, then regardless of what the NGOs do, they appear to be amateurs and what they do does not seem to have value to ordinary Japanese citizens (Interview, March 8, 2017_2).
Another NGO professional summarized the views of their fellow countrymen on NGOs as:
Curious bunch of people who are willing to contribute their time and money for the causes in which the government should have the leading role and they are doing it for the very meagre salary […]. There are very few people who actually have, what I would call, “literacy” of what we do. There are even fewer people who would look at our organizations, NGOs, NPOs, as professional organizations that have an expertise and very clear-cut notions and views on […] what kind issue are to be solved and what needs to be achieved. We are sort of looked at as volunteers.
(Interview, June 8, 2016_2) [Italics added]
Finally, some interviewees felt that those working for NGOs who are willing to do something for no money or to risk their lives are seen as “strange” by the public (Interview, June 8, 2016_1). In other words, being an NGO practitioner is not understood as a socially recognized career path, but rather as a pursuit somehow deviating from “normal” employment in business and the public sector.
In addition to the above-mentioned observations made by members of the NGO community, the opinion poll data paint a complex picture of citizens’ approach to and engagement with non-profits. Three surveys conducted by the Cabinet Office between 2005 and 2018 on specified non-profit corporations found that the overwhelming majority of the respondents knew the term “NPO” (2005: 85.2%, 2013a: 89%, 2018: 89.2%), but the percentage of those who “have only heard the word”—rather than understood what it meant—was quite significant and, in fact, seemed to be increasing over the years (2005: 45.5%, 2013a: 69.3%, 2018: 67.5%). Hence, the polls’ findings seem to suggest a rather superficial level of familiarity with NPOs and what they are and do (Cabinet Office, Reference Nowell, Norris, White and Moules2005, 2013, 2018). A separate set of opinion polls conducted by the Cabinet Office on the social contributions of Japanese citizens found that the respondents’ interest in NPOs has remained rather low. For instance, in 2019, it oscillated at 38.2%, down from 43.8% in 2014 and 40.6% in 2015 (Cabinet Office, 2015, p.102; 2016, p.89; 2020, p.27). To compare, public interest in volunteer activities was much higher, at 58.3% in 2013 and 62.3% in 2014, although actual participation rates in such activities was significantly lower (Cabinet Office, 2014, p.3 [Outline section]; 2015, p.83).
Hence, what emerges from the presented empirical evidence is the unease of Japanese NGO professionals with having their work misrecognized and classified as “volunteering,” which they perceive as diminishing their expertise, capacities, and commitment, as well as the value of their professional engagement in addressing development and humanitarian issues. A further concern is the problem of a legitimacy deficit in the eyes of the public: in effect, the necessity of having one’s being validated by one of the socially recognized actors within government or the business community. When this is placed against the background of the general public’s limited understanding of and lack of interest in NPOs, as indicated by the opinion poll data, it is clear that the need to foster greater awareness of the intricacies of the work in the development and humanitarian NGO sector poses a challenge.
The Problem of Societal (Mis-)Recognition: “Political” Activism Stigma
In addition to the volunteer vs. professional conundrum delineated above, another factor contributing to misperceptions of the sector and those who work in it is the (alleged) “political” character of the NGOs and their work, which is understood in terms of “anti-government” activity, as this was indicated as a possible source of unease among certain sections of the public. More specifically, it was speculated that elderly citizens may perceive NGOs and their work through the prism of the contentious leftist and anti-government movements of the 1960s (Interview, March 9, 2017). This particular perception is rooted in the highly politicized anti-security treaty (ANPO) struggle (Sasaki-Uemura, Reference Sasaki-Uemura2001). References to the “political” aspects of Japanese NGOs’ activities were also made in the context of public donations, with one interviewee voicing the opinion that Japanese people are not eager to donate to causes that are considered to be “political.” There is, for instance, a preference for donating toward aiding victims of natural disasters over victims of man-made disasters, including wars such as the conflicts in Afghanistan and Syria, which was explained in terms of the latter being obviously “political” issues (Interview, June 8, 2016_1).
Strongly related to this is the matter of advocacy as a legitimate and desirable pursuit for NGOs. One of interviewees suggested that, while the public may have come to terms with NGOs engaging in project implementation work in the field, there is limited understanding that these actors also undertake advocacy endeavors. Therefore, mobilizing the public for policy change is a difficult task. Admittedly, however, advocacy work constitutes a new field of engagement for Japanese NGOs, too, with many organizations having neither dedicated staff nor the financial resources to pursue this type of activity. Moreover, it seems that, even today, the notion of participating in policy advocacy evokes hesitant reactions within the NGO community itself, as it potentially implies “being political” (Interview, February 12, 2016). Hence, it could be argued that the erroneous perception among certain parts of the public of NGOs as “politicized” actors may have promoted caution among NGOs when considering embracing advocacy as a part of their professional identities, in addition to the lack of financial and human resources. Therefore, practitioners have pointed toward another dimension of somehow skewed societal perceptions of their work that pose a challenge for the sector in seeking and securing horizontal recognition among the general public.
The Problem of Societal (Mis-) Recognition: International Focus Drawback
Finally, the diminishing public interest in international cooperation issues was described as coloring the relationship between the general populace and the NGO community. Members of the latter felt that the general public was not interested in topics such as ODA, low-income countries, and MDGs or SDGs, although it was noted that connecting global themes with domestic problems is one way of fostering such interest. The economic challenges of the 1990s and the increasing poverty rates in Japan in the post-2007/2008 environment were cited as one possible reason for the public’s prioritizing of domestic issues. Additionally, a lack of education in IR, international cooperation, and NGO-related themes among middle-aged and older people was said to limit the public’s understanding of NGOs. However, as summed up by one of the interviewees, in the modern world, with countless learning tools and channels to hand, “lack of knowledge means lack of interest” (Interview, December 10, 2015; March 10, 2017; June 19, 2018 and June 21, 2018).
The opinion poll data indicate the presence of field-specific challenges, noted by the practitioners, in terms of participation in activities and donations. The 2018 survey on specified non-profit corporations revealed that, in relation to the fields of mutual support activities in which respondents would consider engaging, interest in international cooperation was low (9.1%, multiple answers question (MAQ)), trailing far behind child and youth cultivation and child-rearing support (40.7% (MAQ)), welfare and long-term care support (35% (MAQ)), and disaster relief (34.6% (MAQ); Cabinet Office, 2018, p.17). Furthermore, the opinion polls on citizens’ social contributions confirmed that the international cooperation field is not a prominent choice among those who engage in voluntary activities (9.2% (2013), 4.3% (2014), 4.8% (2015), 5.5% (2016), and 3.5% (2019) of MAQ responses in reports published between 2014 and 2020 [Cabinet Office, 2014, p.10 (Main report section); 2015, p.85; 2016, p.70; 2017, p.6; 2020, p.12]).
Similarly, the data on donation culture and trends in Japan have shown that humanitarian and development-oriented NGOs face an uphill battle. The reports prepared by Japan Fundraising Association (JFRA, 2016a; 2016b and 2017) have demonstrated that Japanese private donors have a clear preference for donating to community chest association and neighborhood councils and associations, rather than organizations working in fields such as emergency disaster relief, international cooperation and exchange, nature and environmental conservation, and rights advocacy and support, the exception being the Japanese Red Cross Society (JRC).
Thus, the decreasing public interest in international cooperation and development-related issues abroad constitutes an additional difficulty for fostering support among an (allegedly) uninterested and reluctant audience.
The Challenge of Borantia Frame for NGO Practitioners
The previous sections have shown that Japanese development and humanitarian NGOs continue to encounter a significant challenge to securing horizontal recognition among the general public, which does not fully recognize what NPOs do; whose interest in NPOs in general, and international cooperation in particular, seems to be decreasing; and which demonstrates a clear preference for donating to domestic and local community-oriented causes and actors or exceptionally well-established “household name” entities such as the JRC. Under those conditions, the transformation of bystanders into sympathizers to expand domestic constituencies for international cooperation NGOs constitutes a demanding task. This section considers a dominant state-sanctioned vision of volunteering in Japan as a significant determinant in shaping public perceptions and understanding of development and humanitarian NGOs and other non-profits. It is proposed that the borantia frame helps to explain the continuing lack of recognition among the public for the knowledge-based professional engagement encountered by NGO practitioners.
Whereas the activism of various non-profit and non-governmental groups in Japan did not originate with the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake that struck the Kobe region in January 1995, this event was nevertheless a landmark moment in the history of the non-profit sector in Japan, aptly captured by the term “borantia kakumei” (volunteer revolution; Avenell, Reference Avenell and Kinnia2013, p.35). The term borantia has been present in discourse on social welfare since the 1960s and was introduced to Japanese dictionaries in the 1970s, with one providing a definition of a volunteer as “a person who is involved, without pay, through self-motivation, in public works.” State agencies underlined qualities such as the unpaid character of the work, its “public spirited”-ness, and its being “freely chosen” as important features of volunteering. With the passage of time, the term gained new dimensions and came to encompass pursuits that are “progressive, advanced, and dedicated to the improvement of society,” as well as being “imaginative,” but it was in the aftermath of the Kobe disaster that the term borantia gained “a central place in public culture” (Nakano, Reference Nakano2005, pp.1–3). Avenell (Reference Avenell and Kingston2012, p.55) explains that, “the event transformed the image of volunteering from obscure activity by an exclusive group of altruists to something ordinary people could easily participate in [and] helped to raise the profile and social legitimacy of volunteering.” Ultimately, the wave of public support for non-profits led to the passage of the “NPO Law” in 1998, which simplified the path to securing legal status for Japanese NPOs.
Researchers of the subject have offered critical assessments of post-1995/98 volunteerism in Japan. Ogawa (Reference Ogawa2004, p.93), for instance, argues that “[V]olunteerism institutionalized under the NPO Law serves the state, in particular, the neoliberal state, which pursues small government with an emphasis on market rationality.” The various levels of government, including the educational system, have actively produced and reproduced a “volunteer subjectivity” rooted in the discourse promoting self-responsibility and active engagement in resolving the challenges that face modern Japanese society as a crucial constitutive part of “good citizenship.” This has served to mobilize volunteers to address social problems through service delivery on behalf of the state, establishing the parameters of desirable civic engagement (Ogawa, Reference Ogawa2004). Another important feature of volunteer subjectivity is that it should be apolitical, with Ogawa (Reference Ogawa2009, p.112) reflecting that, “those people advocating thoughts different from the dominant political voice are labelled ‘people in anti-establishment groups’ but not as ‘volunteers,’” a language often found in media discourse. In a similar vein, Avenell (Reference Avenell2010, p.91) represents volunteering in Japan in terms of “a sphere of activity institutionally and ideationally shaped by a pervasive state vision wherein volunteers are expected to be selfless, apolitical subjects engaged in social issues (kadai) formulated, sanctioned and nurtured by the state.” Such critical voices highlight the consequences of the dominant macro-discourse that orders the world of volunteering and non-profit activities in Japan. On a broader level, the rise of apolitical volunteering can be considered in the context of the depoliticization of citizenry and de-legitimizing conflict in the public sphere in contemporary Japan (see Tsukada, Reference Tsukada2015; Chiavacci & Obinger, Reference Chiavacci, Obinger, Chiavacci and Obinger2018; Pope, Reference Pope2021).
A neoliberal ideology and an eagerness to shift responsibility for the provision of welfare services to non-state actors has substantially influenced the Japanese government’s motivation to expand space for non-profits and shaped desirable forms of civil engagement that would be conducive to governmental interests. This process, in turn, has produced a particular dominant frame, privileging apolitical volunteering as a desirable form of civic participation and addressing socio-economic challenges in communities, rather than other possible forms of engagement with these issues in domestic or even global arenas, including advocacy and international development and humanitarian work. This broader frame has shaped public expectations and views of non-profits. As indicated by Ito (Reference Ito2017, p.90), despite the existence of both volunteer and professional non-profits in the country, previous research has shown that Japanese NPOs are often understood by the public opinion as belonging to the former category, being rather small in size, and being involved in social welfare provision.
Consequently, the activities of professional NGO practitioners are conducted within this major frame of reference, which functions as a dominant lens through which perceptions of their identities and work are mediated. As observed by one interviewee, a large part of the societal acceptance of NPO/NGO activities is derived from their volunteering work. The image of them as volunteer organizations that dispatch volunteers is “easy for people to understand and accept […] [B]ut when we claim that we are professional organizations, then they will say ‘What is so professional about sending volunteers?’” (Interview, November 24, 2015).
The drawing of analytical focus to the borantia frame as a notable explanatory factor does not lessen the responsibility of NGOs to actively foster understanding among the wider public. This should be pursued more vigorously by implementing effective measures to connect with, educate, and appeal to citizens (Hernon, Reference Hernon2016; Interview, March 8, 2017_1). Moreover, it requires further institutional growth and the development of the organizational capacities of NGOs, with each organization needing to demonstrate that it is a professional entity that contributes toward making a difference in the world in an accountable manner and which makes full use of its donations (Interview, June 8, 2016_2), hence focusing on improving both upward and downward accountability (Interview, March 8, 2017_1). Nevertheless, in the public milieu, efforts undertaken by NGOs to promote their work, gain trust, and facilitate understanding among the general public—that is, to secure horizontal recognition—are conducted against the backdrop of the borantia frame’s influence.
Conclusion
This article investigated the relationship between Japanese development and humanitarian NGOs and the general public, with a special emphasis on the level of societal recognition for the former as professional actors. The article proposes that, despite the increasing professionalization and professionalism in the sector, the activities of NGO practitioners are frequently misrecognized as volunteering. Furthermore, concerns about anti-government and “political” undertones to NGO activities indicate a limited acceptance among sections of the public for the advocacy function of NGOs. These misperceptions are coupled with a limited understanding of non-profits among the general public, as well as a lack of interest in international cooperation, as reflected in donations and volunteering trends; and this constitutes a considerable challenge to fostering horizontal recognition and building domestic constituencies for development and humanitarian NGOs. Therefore, in order to maintain their activities, to develop their professional acumen further and secure sustainability for the sector, the NGO community must improve horizontal recognition among a public that has generally not embraced the concept of the professional NGO worker as a career path and tends to perceive such endeavors in terms of volunteer activities, has a preference for donating to domestic and local issues, and prefers to sidestep politically sensitive issues.
The article contends that the dominant approach to volunteering in Japan—promoted by the government in the public sphere in the post-1995/1998 climate—is hindering the process of strengthening and expanding horizontal recognition among the public of professional development and humanitarian NGOs. It privileges apolitical and social services-oriented volunteer engagement as a desirable form of civic contribution for tackling a variety of societal issues, de-emphasizing other possible modes of involvement in non-profit enterprise. The borantia frame has been the prevalent lens through which the activities and identities of NGO practitioners in Japan are perceived and interpreted, hindering the process of institutionalizing the idea of professional NGO practitioners as legitimate knowledge-based workers in the public sphere.
The findings of this article contribute to the wider debate on the state and future of the non-profit sector in Japan. Strengthening the collaboration with the government—and other stakeholders, such as business and academic circles—is important for the growth of humanitarian and development NGOs community in Japan. Yet, these interactions—similar to the outreach and fundraising activities of NGOs—are conducted within the broader borantia frame. The refashioning of the latter is needed, so that it better reflects the multitude of forms of possible engagement in non-profit enterprises (not only the specific state-preferred type), including the choice to pursue a legitimate professional career in the sector that increasingly requires specialized skillsets, experience, and education. Popularizing such an image of NGO professionals and normalizing non-profit work may, in turn, have a positive influence on the level of horizontal recognition of international cooperation NGOs discussed in this article and other non-profits.
Notes
The 1998 Law to Promote Specified Non-profit Activities introduced the term of “specified non-profit corporation” (tokutei hieri katsudō hōjin) to denote non-profit organizations (NPOs) that were registered and obtained official status. NGOs are understood to be specified non-profit corporations that engage in international cooperation activities. Consequently, the Cabinet Office opinion polls use the “NPO” or “NPO hōjin” wording.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to members of Japanese NGO community for their contributions to this research. Furthermore, I would like to express my thanks to participants of 2021 European Association for Japanese Studies conference for their comments on the earlier version of this paper.
Funding
Open Access funding provided by University of Turku (UTU) including Turku University Central Hospital.
Declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that she does not have conflict of interests.
Open access
