Paragraph 1: main argument (and how it is supported – evidence etc)
XXXXXXXXXXwords
Paragraph XXXXXXXXXXwords) : Relating it to the context. Show the reader what the contribution of the article/chapter is to the
oader scholarship.
· How does this article allow us to understand violence/crime/protest in Asia?
· Why it is useful? How is it different? How is it the same?
· What does it tell us we didn’t know before ?
· Does that make us think differently / new understanding about violence/crime/protest/underside?
Ideas that can be discussed in the review:
· How is crime/violence/protest described in this article? What role does it play? Is it central, or peripheral?
· Does the article focus on what prompts it, or its manifestation, or what its outcomes are? Why?
· Does the article focus on agents, or victims? Are these interchangeable or not? Why?
· Does the article connect violence/crime/protest to particular institutions/cultural forms/events?
· How do the authors themselves reflect on their contribution to scholarship? Do they make a point about their own contribution to scholarship and is it about these topics or about something else?
· Is there a comparison or a contrast you can make to an earlier article, or a concept that was discussed in the lesson in week 2? For example does it match with the WHO’s definition of violence?
· Is there any moralising going on in the article? Why? Do you think that is appropriate? (It can be – don’t reject out of hand, just think about what it means)
Paragraph 1: main argument (and how it is supported – evidence etc)
XXXXXXXXXXwords
Paragraph XXXXXXXXXXwords) : Relating it to the context. Show the reader what the contribution of the article/chapter is to the
oader scholarship.
· How does this article allow us to understand violence/crime/protest in Asia?
· Why it is useful? How is it different? How is it the same?
· What does it tell us we didn’t know before ?
· Does that make us think differently / new understanding about violence/crime/protest/underside?
Ideas that can be discussed in the review:
· How is crime/violence/protest described in this article? What role does it play? Is it central, or peripheral?
· Does the article focus on what prompts it, or its manifestation, or what its outcomes are? Why?
· Does the article focus on agents, or victims? Are these interchangeable or not? Why?
· Does the article connect violence/crime/protest to particular institutions/cultural forms/events?
· How do the authors themselves reflect on their contribution to scholarship? Do they make a point about their own contribution to scholarship and is it about these topics or about something else?
· Is there a comparison or a contrast you can make to an earlier article, or a concept that was discussed in the lesson in week 2? For example does it match with the WHO’s definition of violence?
· Is there any moralising going on in the article? Why? Do you think that is appropriate? (It can be – don’t reject out of hand, just think about what it means)
someTitle
4
CIVIL SOCIETY AND THE TRIPLE
DISASTERS
Revealed strengths and weaknesses
Kawato Yūko, Robert Pekkanen, and Tsujinaka Yutaka1
The triple disasters—9.0 earthquake centered in Tōhoku, the massive accompanying
tsunami, and the Fukushima nuclear accident—that rocked Japan on March 11,
2011 tested the country as nothing has since the end of World War II. Both the
strengths and the weaknesses of Japan’s civil society were on display during the
crisis. The vitality of Japan’s local civil society groups greatly mitigated the painful
eff ects of the triple disasters, and there can be no doubt that many owe their lives
to these groups, directly or indirectly. At the same time, the inability over many
years of civil society groups to act as eff ective monitors or checks on state action
also arguably contributed to the magnitude of the nuclear catastrophe, by failing to
spur improvements in safety practices.
We understand civil society to be the organized non-state, non-market sector
that exists above the family and individual. This includes nonprofi t organizations
(NPOs) as well as community groups like neighborhood associations and volunteer
fi refi ghter groups. On one hand, activities of community groups before the disaster
improved preparedness and created social capital that facilitated the response to the
disaster. NPOs outside of the aff ected area had developed expertise through past
disasters and rushed to provide relief. On the other hand, a weak advocacy role of
civil society in Japan may have been a contributing factor in the nuclear disaster by
providing an ineff ectual check on an e
ant nuclear industry. The state and electric
power companies closely collaborated to implement an expansive nuclear energy
policy while marginalizing civil society in their decision-making. The state and
power companies also off er signifi cant compensation to local communities that
accept nuclear plants, making local advocacy and protest mobilization diffi cult.
The confi guration of Japan’s civil society and its relationship to the policy-making
process hampered eff ective contestation of nuclear policy.
This chapter fi rst describes the general characteristics of Japan’s civil society to
explain why civil society organizations could not act as eff ective watchdogs to help
Natural Disaster and Nuclear Crisis in Japan : Response and Recovery after Japan's 3/11, edited by Jeff Kingston, Taylor & Francis
XXXXXXXXXXGroup, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http:
ebookcentral.proquest.com/li
monash/detail.action?docID=957051.
Created from monash on XXXXXXXXXX:40:14.
C
op
y
ig
ht
©
2
01
2.
T
ay
lo
&
F
a
nc
is
G
o
up
. A
ll
ig
ht
s
e
se
v
ed
.
Civil society and the triple disasters 79
prevent the nuclear accident. Second, we will discuss how community organizations
provided a strong foundation for immediate response to the earthquake and
tsunami. We will also highlight the activities of NPOs from outside Tōhoku. This
chapter concludes with a discussion about how the general characteristics of NPOs
are likely to shape their participation in the recovery eff orts, and how NPO
esponse to the disaster will (or will not) change policy and policy-making process
in the future.
Japan’s civil society
In comparative perspective, most civil society organizations in Japan are small, local
organizations.2 They have four defi ning characteristics. First, they have small
membership. According to the Cabinet Offi ce’s survey of 2,345 NPOs in 2010, 67
percent of the NPOs had less than 20 members, and only 11 percent had more
than 100 members. Second, most NPOs have a small number of professional staff .
In the aforementioned survey, 50 percent of the NPOs said they had less than 20
staff . Third, most organizations have small budgets. The survey showed that in the
previous year 54 percent of the NPOs had income of less than ¥10 million (about
$123,000), while only 13 percent had income of more than ¥50 million ($616,000).
Finally, most organizations have a small area of operation. Thirty-nine percent of
the NPOs responded that they engage in activities within one city, town, or
village, and 40 percent said they work in multiple communities within one
prefecture. Only 7 percent engaged in nationwide activities (Cabinet Offi ce 2011:
3–7). Many small local groups, and a few large professional advocacy groups, make
up Japan’s civil society.
There are four main reasons for this. First, beginning with the Civil Code of
1896, the state has encouraged the growth of organizations that serve the “public
interest,” instead of advocacy organizations that challenge the state and its policies
(Pekkanen XXXXXXXXXXThe Special Nonprofi t Organization Law of 1998 liberalized the
conditions under which NPOs could form and operate, but this law did not lead
to a fundamental change in the type of organizations that compose Japan’s civil
society or the state-civil society relationship (Kawato and Pekkanen XXXXXXXXXXLegal
status is easier for many groups to acquire, but government red tape continues to
handcuff groups. Onerous reporting requirements and the limitations on charging
for overheads hamper the growth of nonprofi t organizations in the country. The
eporting requirements vary by organization, but it might be surprising for the
American reader to know just how time-consuming they are. For example, even
an organization that employs a very small number of staff might have to devote six
months of one staff person’s time to completing just the annual reporting duties.
This burden is compounded by the fact that many Japanese government contracts
do not permit the charging of overheads by the organization, paying only for actual
project work.
Second, most NPOs remain local and small because they have few opportunities
to participate in policy-making at the national level, except for some organizations
Natural Disaster and Nuclear Crisis in Japan : Response and Recovery after Japan's 3/11, edited by Jeff Kingston, Taylor & Francis
XXXXXXXXXXGroup, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http:
ebookcentral.proquest.com/li
monash/detail.action?docID=957051.
Created from monash on XXXXXXXXXX:40:14.
C
op
y
ig
ht
©
2
01
2.
T
ay
lo
&
F
a
nc
is
G
o
up
. A
ll
ig
ht
s
e
se
v
ed
.
80 Kawato Yūko et al.
that work closely with the state (Tsujinaka 2002; Tsujinaka and Pekkanen 2007).
According to Pha
(1990), the limited access reduces civil society organizations’
incentive to increase staff and other organizational resources for advocacy.
Furthermore, a relatively greater access to local governments has reinforced NPOs’
tendency to work locally.
Third, many organizations remain small and local because they are short of
funds. A series of reforms in the last decade has enabled individuals and corporations
to obtain tax privileges for donating to NPOs with special certifi cation from the
National Tax Agency, including a major revision in June 2011. However, the
number of certifi ed NPOs is still vanishingly small at 223 out of over 42, XXXXXXXXXX
percent) and donations remain only a minor portion of organizational revenue on
average. In addition, the state prioritizes funding to organizations that it considers
important, like social welfare corporations and cannot fund all organizations that
wish to receive funding. Private foundations have not been an important source of
funding for NPOs. Corporate foundations that tend to be politically and socially
conservative are not enthusiastic about funding advocacy organizations either
(Reimann 2010: Ch. 2). With limited funding, NPOs face challenges in expanding
membership,