The State of Neoliberalism Criticisms in Japan: Why the Discussion on Cosmopolitanism Does Not Gain Steam in Japan

As economic globalisation progresses, a wave of neoliberalism is sweeping across the world, demanding states and societies to render a variety of modifications. Such a phenomenon has been analysed, described, and criticised extensively worldwide. Japan is no exception; criticisms toward neoliberalism are said to be forming a major trend in Japan.

However, such critiques are slightly different from those toward neoliberalism in other parts of the world. Worldwide criticisms toward neoliberalism often lead to discussions on global transformation and cosmopolitanism, whereas such a connection is almost never made in Japan. For example, David Harvey, the author who dissects neoliberalism in his worldwide bestseller A Brief History of Neoliberalism, expresses in Cosmopolitanism and the Geographies of Freedom published in 2005 his empathy with De Sousa Santos’ (2005) idea of ‘subaltern cosmopolitanism’ – Harvey finds hope in the movement to form a cosmopolitan solidarity by amplifying the voices of the victims of neoliberalistic globalisation that exists worldwide. Urlich Beck (2008) also criticises the trend, stating that state politics are reduced when the state neoliberalistically prioritises adaptation to global market competitions; he argues that becoming cosmopolitan is the realistic future for states.

As seen from the above, a global trend is seen in the inclination to progress from criticising neoliberalism to promoting a cosmopolitan transformation. However, neoliberalism criticisms in Japan rarely lead to the discussion of cosmopolitan transformation. One of the reasons for such a difference is that neoliberalism criticisms in Japan are rarely discussed solely in a global context because they have historically evolved as arguments of inequality which often focus on changes in the socioeconomic structure in Japan. Therefore, this report will provide an overview of neoliberalism criticisms in Japan, describe their characteristics, and explain why the criticisms have strong national characteristics without having been placed in the context of cosmopolitanism.