Abstract
This article compares the policy measures taken by the EU, the UK, and Japan concerning the accepting of nurses from overseas, in order to examine the consistency between regulatory purposes, means/policies, and outcomes.
As for the EU, the Treaty establishing the EU defines its purpose as promoting free movement of people, goods, capital and services. Thus, the EU promotes intra-EU mobility of nurses under the condition that the qualifications of nurses in its member states meet the minimum standards defined in the EU directive. The UK successfully managed the rules for migration, registration as nurses, and proving applicants’ language skills: it increased/decreased the inflow of oversea nurses as it intended.
While we can find consistency between regulatory purposes, regulatory behaviors, and outcomes in the case of the EU and the UK, we cannot find such consistency in Japan’s case. The government administration and ministries do not officially admit that they recruit nurses from overseas due to staff shortage, although hospitals face staff shortages and have high demand for employees. The arrangement which is set in the EPA embodies such ambivalent and conflicting interests, which leads to the imposition of additional burdens on hospitals.
