Steve Richard Entrich

Shadow education has become a prominent feature of educational systems worldwide, yet its consequences for educational inequality remain contested. While some perspectives view shadow education as a universal mechanism for enhancing academic achievement and educational opportunities, others emphasize its role in reproducing social inequalities. This study examines how the relationship between shadow education, university admission, and educational stratification varies across institutional contexts. Drawing on nationally representative panel data from Germany, Japan, and the United States, we analyze patterns of participation in shadow education and its associations with academic achievement and transitions to higher education. The findings reveal substantial cross-national variation. In Germany, shadow education is used primarily as a compensatory resource and shows little association with academic achievement or university admission. In contrast, shadow education is positively associated with university entry in both Japan and the United States, where admissions systems rely more heavily on competitive selection and standardized testing. Although participation in shadow education is socially stratified—particularly in Japan and the United States—additional analyses provide little evidence that its returns differ systematically across socioeconomic groups. Instead, educational inequalities arise mainly through unequal access to shadow education rather than unequal benefits from participation. These results highlight the importance of institutional contexts in shaping the role of shadow education and demonstrate that its implications for educational inequality are contingent rather than universal.

Over the past three decades, the internationalization of education has become a central component of Japan’s response to economic restructuring, demographic decline, and intensifying global competition. Since the late twentieth century, policymakers have increasingly promoted kokusaika as a strategy to enhance global competitiveness, cultivate internationally oriented human resources, and position Japan more effectively within a global knowledge economy. As the contributions of this volume illustrate, these efforts have translated into a wide range of initiatives, including the expansion of study abroad programs, the promotion of English-language education, the internationalization of university curricula, and the recruitment of international students and skilled migrants. However, the volume’s contributions also show that the expansion of internationalization indicators—such as student mobility numbers, English-medium programs, or international rankings—does not necessarily imply deeper institutional transformation. Following Okano’s (2018) distinction between policy rhetoric and institutional practice, internationalization in Japan often remains fragmented, selective, and unevenly embedded across educational sectors and organizations. While mobility and recruitment targets have expanded considerably, more fundamental questions concerning institutional openness, governance cultures, inclusion, and academic autonomy remain unresolved.

In the fields of Japanese studies, education, sociology, and migration studies, the internationalization of education and international student mobility (ISM) have become highly timely topics. Since the collapse of the economic bubble in the early 1990s, Japan has faced prolonged economic stagnation, demographic contraction, and rising social inequality. Once widely portrayed as a sōchūryū shakai—a “general middle-class society”—Japan is today more commonly described as a kakusa shakai, a “gap society” characterized by widening disparities, labor market insecurity, and increasingly uneven life chances (Chiavacci, 2008; Chiavacci & Hommerich, 2017).

International student mobility (ISM) has expanded dramatically over the past decades and has become a defining feature of the globalization of higher education ( UNESCO, 2025 ). Governments, universities, and employers increasingly regard cross-border educational experiences as a means of fostering transnational human capital (THC), defined as the knowledge and skills enabling individuals to operate across national contexts ( Gerhards & Hans, 2013 ; see also the Introduction by Entrich & Hennings in this volume). At the individual level, ISM is associated with personal development, intercultural and language competencies, as well as greater well-being ( Nissen et al., 2022 ; Rehman et al., 2025 ; Waters et al., 2011 ), and potential labor market advantages such as improved employability, income, and career prospects ( Di Pietro, 2022 ; Netz, 2021 ; Waibel et al., 2017 ; Yokota et al., 2018 ). At the societal level, internationally mobile graduates are expected to contribute to economic competitiveness by strengthening globally oriented workforces ( Gerhards et al., 2017 ; Ogden et al., 2020 ; Smith & Samuell, 2024 ).

This book provides a comprehensive interdisciplinary analysis of the internationalization of education in Japan, examining how national efforts to cultivate

Since the 1990s, Japan has pursued internationalization (kokusaika) as a key strategy to address economic stagnation, demographic decline, and growing labour shortages. This introduction situates the special issue within these broader transformations by conceptualising the internationalization of labour as a multi-layered and contested process. It highlights two central and interrelated policy trajectories: the internationalization of education aimed at fostering transnational human capital, and the selective expansion of labour migration. While both strategies have increased cross-border mobility and diversified Japan’s workforce, their implications for labour market structures, social integration, and inequality remain debated. Drawing on a macro–micro–macro framework, the introduction emphasises how institutional reforms shape individual opportunities and trajectories, which in turn aggregate into broader societal outcomes. It reviews existing research on international student mobility, highly skilled migration, and migrant incorporation, identifying persistent tensions between policy ambitions and institutional realities. The special issue brings together interdisciplinary contributions from sociology, economics, education, and migration studies, combining quantitative and qualitative approaches. Rather than offering a single narrative, it explores how internationalization unfolds across different groups and contexts, with particular attention to social, ethnic, and gender inequalities. In doing so, it advances the understanding of how global mobility intersects with Japan’s distinctive institutional setting and contributes to ongoing debates on labour internationalization beyond Western contexts.

As transnational human capital gains importance in Japan’s globalizing economy, international student mobility (ISM) is widely promoted as a means of improving career prospects. Yet, existing research has focused predominantly on economic returns, largely neglecting broader individual outcomes and gender inequalities. This study examines the associations between ISM, labour market outcomes, and life satisfaction among Japan’s post-ice-age generation, i.e. cohorts entering the labour market after 2004. Using longitudinal data from the SSJDA Panel (2021–23), we examine differences in the associations between ISM and earnings, employment, and subjective well-being. Results indicate that ISM of substantial duration (but less than 1 year) is associated with employment in larger firms and access to managerial positions among both men and women. However, these associations are stronger for men. While ISM is positively associated with higher earnings and life satisfaction among men, comparable associations are not observed among women. The findings suggest that although ISM may facilitate career advancement and organizational mobility, its benefits remain shaped by persistent gender inequalities in Japan. At the same time, ISM is associated with more gender-egalitarian work and family orientations. Overall, the study highlights both, opportunities and limitations of ISM as a resource for social advancement within a gendered institutional context.

In an attempt to internationalize higher education to keep up with global standards, in 2014, Japanese policymakers launched their most significant program yet, the “Top Global University Project” (TGUP). In the following, the number of Japanese students spending part of their studies abroad significantly increased. However, funding was provided to very few selected universities (37 of 781 universities in 2014) implying that opportunities to study abroad differ notably across TGUP and non‐TGUP funded universities and hence major differences in participation rates across these universities are likely. Furthermore, past research showed that students from families with advantaged socioeconomic status (SES) are generally more likely to study abroad than lower‐SES students in numerous countries including Japan. It remains unclear whether the implementation of state programs such as TGUP may reduce social inequalities or exacerbate them. We examine both issues using data from three iterations of the largely unexploited Japan Campus Life Data ( N = 41 654 students nested in N = 51 universities). Results from our multi‐level trend analysis indicate that (1) TGUP funded universities show higher study abroad participation among its students, but no steeper growth rates than universities without TGUP funding; and (2) the SES‐gap in the likelihood of studying abroad of students at TGUP universities significantly increased from 2013 to 2017. Our results indicate that the TGUP falls short of expectations in terms of growth in study abroad participation, while at the same time horizontal inequalities in study abroad seem to have widened at TGUP‐funded universities.

This article examines data collection and analysis on the outcomes of students with special educational needs (SEN), comparing Germany, Italy, and Ireland. Stemming from both academic research and accountability mechanisms, the paper provides an overview of the available data on students with SEN internationally and, more specifically, in the three national contexts. The findings highlight common barriers relating to data collection and analysis, but also significant challenges to transnational comparison, due to different categorization systems and scarcity or limited disclosure of data. Interestingly, the article suggests that data availability, or its absence, does not seem to significantly impact policy development in inclusive education. Focusing on student outcomes, the article discusses the limitations of different types of assessment for students with SEN, including standardized testing, and suggests the need for holistic and longitudinal assessment methods and studies, addressing both special and mainstream school environments.