NN42, June 2009
A Safari Towards Aid Effectiveness?
Priority for Basic Education and Sector-Wide Approaches ? Dual Dilemmas for Japan?
By Kazuhiro Yoshida, Hiroshima University
Email: yoshidak@hiroshima-u.ac.jpKeywords
Basic Education; Japan; Aid Architecture
Summary
Japan?s emphasis on basic education is not supported by globally used statistical evidence and its endorsement of the Paris Declaration is not practised in the form of full participation in sector-wide approaches. This short piece discusses views that are commonly held in Japan which are not necessarily known to the outside world.
The general perception towards Japan?s education aid is that it is not serious enough in prioritizing basic education and that it is not committed to the sector-wide approach. How much is this true and to what extent? Where is Japan?s education aid heading to?
Last year when UNESCO published its annual Global Monitoring Report, officials and practitioners of Japan frowned at the statement in the report: ?France, Germany and Japan have shown a relative neglect of basic education ---? (UNESCO 2008: 217). The GMR uses OECD-DAC statistics which report that Japan?s official aid to basic education was just 16% of its total aid to education in 2006 (commitment basis, OECD.Stats Extracts). Possible counter-arguments notwithstanding, it remains true that the figure is low. The statement was not welcomed because Japan in 2008 was specifically stepping up efforts to include basic education on the agenda for the G8 Summit in Hokkaido-Toyako and in the capacity of serving as one of co-chairs of EFA Fast-Track Initiative.
Statistically, it is worth underscoring that basic education has constantly been taking the largest proportion over the latest years in education sector technical cooperation by JICA [1] reflecting their conscious emphasis. Equally, the biggest part of various grant aid schemes under the management of Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) is dedicated to basic education. These are consistent with the emphasis given under the Basic Education for Growth Initiative launched by the government in 2002. The counterweights that give higher education the highest share of Japan?s total education aid stem from two sources: one is what is called the Monkasho scholarship program that maintains a steady and hefty size which has been larger than JICA-technical cooperation for the entire education sector, and another is loan operations that have tended to finance projects in higher education.
How then does Japan interpret all this? On the one hand, Japan highly values a balanced approach to education sector support and it has been applying it trying to make the best mix by using the strength of each aid instrument of grant aid, technical cooperation and loan aid. On the other hand, Japan attaches great importance to basic education to the extent that until early 1990s it kept a sharp distance from getting involved in substantive matters of basic education out of respect for the country?s ownership (see Saito, 2008, for example). It is possible that this old perception is still affecting some of policy makers and practitioners, despite the fact that Japan is fully committed to work toward achieving the MDGs and EFA goals. To sort out this ambiguity regarding Japan?s priority in education assistance, it needs to prepare a clear and consistent strategic framework that covers the entire education sector recognizing the needs of the country, discussions on the new aid architecture, and the comparative strength of Japan?s international assistance.
A practical issue is whether and how Japan can align its assistance to the discourse of the Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda for Action. For the new and anticipated strategy to be effective, Japan has to find breakthroughs to several difficult challenges. Japan?s preference for the balanced approach seems still tied to its aid instruments rather than following the sector-wide approach - Japan?s strong field-level experiences tend to favor the traditional project mode. Some of its domestic constituency asks for visibility of Japan?s contribution in the outputs/outcomes, often making harmonization and full-alignment (i.e. general budget support) very difficult. Demarcation of roles between MOFA and JICA that requires the former being responsible for policy issues and the latter for implementation may be preventing more active participation in policy dialogue within the donor community and with the country government.
A good sign is that key aid players in Japan are fully aware of these issues and are seriously discussing the future path for achieving better outcomes on the ground. The question is how much it will be able to satisfy its global and domestic partners.
References
Yasuo, S. (2008) Why International Cooperation for Basic Education Was a ?Taboo? in Japan? Journal of International Cooperation in Education Vol.11 No.2.
UNESCO (2008) EFA Global Monitoring Report 2009. Education for All- Overcoming inequality: why governance matters. Paris, UNESCO.
[1] Japan?s aid for total education can be classified by instrument into four categories: (i) grant aid (119), (ii) JICA-technical cooperation, (iii) Monkasho scholarship (ii+iii: 603), and (iv) loan aid (236). Amounts in brackets are on commitment basis for calendar year 2006, current US$ million (MOFA website).
Full contents of NORRAG NEWS 42.
Download the full issue of NORRAG NEWS 42 in pdf.
Not already a NORRAG member? Sign up for free here.