This special issue explores the current status and future prospects of Japan's international development studies, with reference to the personal experiences and perspectives of Japanese and non-Japanese international students as learners. The auto-ethnographic approach adopted in the papers in this special issue elucidates the manner in which the multiple positionalities of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean students, who pursued their studies abroad across disparate temporal and spatial contexts, inform their experiences as learners. In this way, the special issue aims to propose a framework for rethinking the field of Japan's international development studies from the perspective of the learner. Therefore, the special issue highlights the necessity of acknowledging the significance of individual experiences (i.e. particularity/specificity) within the academic field.

This paper examines the meaning and significance of studying and researching international development in and through Japan as a critical and self-reflective academic and pedagogical practice. This is achieved through the autoethnographic approach, which enables researchers to analyse and interpret the author's personal experience within the context of wider socio-cultural and political-economic structures. In order to gain insight into the emergence of individual experiences and their significance within a larger context, this paper presents and analyses a series of personal experiences of the author across three distinct time-spaces. The initial period under examination is that spent in Japan between the late 1990s and the early 2000s. The second period under consideration is that spent in the United Kingdom between the 2000s and the 2010s. The third period is that spent in South Korea and Japan between the mid-2010s and the present. The objective of analysing the experiences in the UK and South Korea is to highlight the necessity of examining the author's experience from both a Japanese and an international perspective. This allows for a more objective and reflective examination of the author's personal experience in Japan within the context of the international political economy, as well as the demonstration of the significance of studying and researching international development through Japan as method. While the author's personal experiences in diverse time-spaces cannot be directly compared to those of other international students, they can nevertheless contribute to a nuanced understanding of (both the positive and negative aspects of) studying international development in and through Japan.

This paper aims to investigate a former international student's personal experience of learning international development studies, overseas study and life, and academic experience in Japan to understand how these experiences are shaped by the relationship between the author self and others before and after life in Japan. Moreover, it showcases conflicts of international development studies in Japan by analyzing how the author self (as a Chinese student in China and Japan) interacted with others in China and Japan. These conflicts include Japan-China relations and the lack of understanding of Japan's support for China, the war and the adoration of Japan's development experience, the role of education in catch-up development, and the rise of China and the nature of international development. Using an autoethonography approach, the paper first presents the author's internal conflicts before and after coming to Japan. Then, it reviews personal experience of exploring the author self from China to Japan and the adventure in the field of international development studies. By contrasting the conflicts to the experiences of studying international development studies, the paper discusses the resolutions and limitation in studying, researching, and teaching international development studies in Japan. The findings indicate the author's significant academic growth, particularly in his ability to bring about the ‘transformation of education’ as a researcher, which was the initial intention of his visit to Japan. This achievement was of great significance for him to study international development in Japan. Moreover, the adventure of studying international development studies in Japan enabled the author to critically reflect on the achievements and limitations of international development studies in Japan and beyond. Finally, the paper addresses the importance of the recognition of the knowledge mobility from one-way (the developed to the developing) to two-way (mutual direction of knowledge sharing and co-creating) in Asia.

Drawing on post-colonial theory, including the “in-between space,” this paper examines the author's experience of studying for a doctoral degree in a “reverse direction” from the Global North in Japan to the Global South in China as a reference to discuss the significance and challenges of studying international development in Japan. In the global higher education system, the presence of the West, especially the U.S., is still dominant, and China, an emerging “semi-peripheral” power, has been absorbing Western knowledge with a great sense of inferiority. The author has received a catch-up doctoral education with limited fundamentals and formality under the academic community of “Shi Men” and the norma- tivity of Western disciplines. Ultimately, he has been actively using theories and research methods originating from the West to advance his doctoral research using China as an “experimental field” to achieve academic results, and thus, he has failed to “decolonize” the knowledge. The author reaffirms the significance of studying international development in Japan, such as the high degree of freedom of academic research and the uniqueness of Japan, which is not enslaved by the West. Meanwhile, he also highlights a lack of contribution to global knowledge production as Japan's challenge.

This paper aims to analyze the author's experience of conducting research and volunteering in refugee reception facilities in Italy, employing autoethnography as a methodology-with the concept of “inbetween” as a key analytical lens. The author was engaged in both research and assistance while conducting a study on the reception of the so-called “Mediterranean refugee crisis” during his master's degree program. During that period, the author found himself situated within a complex “in-between” space, oscillating between the dual perspectives of “Italian and Japanese” academia, the divergent point of view of “research and assistance,” and the contrasting positions of “host society and refugees.”

In the article, the author discusses the following experiences; the feeling of not being included in Italian academia despite being a full-time student at a local university, his own involvement as an aid provider in “disciplining refugees through aid” which he criticized from a research perspective, his struggle to act as an “ideal role model,” and the possibility of being neither a member of “host society” nor a “refugee.”

This “betwixt and between” position gave rise to internal conflicts for the author, yet simultaneously, it afforded opportunities that could not be accommodated within the confines of dichotomous categories.

By employing an autoethnographic approach to reflect on his own research experiences, the author is rediscovering the structures of discrimination and his own perspective on refugees, which he thinks is inconsiderate during his stay in Italy. The author presents his own experience as a case study to stimulate discussion, with the aim of promoting a more critical examination of the researcher's own position, which he believes will enhance the development of research in Japan.

This special issue initially set out to re-evaluate the growing importance of particularity/specificity in international development studies by exploring personal experiences of international students. In the course of this process, it has become evident that their experiences resonate with some of the existing scholarly debates in international development studies, but more significantly, with the emerging debate on pluriverse and pluriversal development. It is the aim of this postscript to make a modest contribution towards examining the potential of international development studies for pluriversal co-existence. In this regard, the paper draws upon three key findings/messages derived from the authors' experiences, emphasising the significance of: (1) a thorough exploration of personal experience and positionality, rather than dismissing them as ‘unscientific practice’; (2) the plurality of realities manifested in each author's personal experience; and (3) the potential basis for solidarity and coexistence (and even co-becoming) through such plural experience.

This is to compile this author's comments directed to presentations made at the session “Inquiring the essence of ‘Japanese-style’ international cooperation,” at the 25th JASID Spring Conference, Utsunomiya University, June 15, 2024. Inaba (2024), Matsumoto (2024), Ohno (2024) and Okitsu and Takayama (2024) were presented at the session. Since Inaba (2024) is a criticism to the Japanese-style cooperation, this author discussed the rest of presentations. The following is a summary of this author's comments at the session.

First, Matsumoto (2024), Ohno (2024) and Okitsu and Takayama (2024) have a common and some different reference countries / regions in order to characterize ‘Japanese-style.’ The three articles envisage the West as a common reference area to compare with Japan. Matsumoto (2024) has an additional reference country, which is China, in mind, to let Japan stand out among other donors. Meanwhile, Ohno (2024) emphasizes a similarity between Japan and developing countries with respect to a common effort to import advanced technology and knowledge of the West by the translative adaptation.

Second, any new concept of Japanese-style cooperation should be associated well with discussions to establish the Japanese-style of society, culture, politics, economy, industry, and firms, which are dated back to World War II with reference to Benedict (1946) and Patrick and Rosovsky eds. (1976) among others. The articles of this special feature are yet to do so fully.

Third, meaningfulness and validity of the translative adaptation which is argued as a strength of Japan's cooperation in Ohno (2024), has to be examined with more practical examples, since there are some successful cases of technical adaptation with no support of donors.

Fourth, features of Japan's infrastructure building cooperation, which are raised in Matsumoto (2024) as those of ‘Japanese-style,’ distinguishing from those of the West, appear common with China's ‘Belt and Road Initiative.’ Therefore, they are recognized as those of ‘Chinese-style’ as well.

A final remark is that only the Japanese are interested in what the Japanese-style cooperation is. It is notable that recipients want what they need, not what Japan wants to offer.

The term “Japanese-style” cooperation has frequently been used in the context of emphasizing Japan's unique international contributions. Nevertheless, its meanings are diverse and there is no single definition. This paper examines the characteristics of “Japanese-style” cooperation from the perspective of industrial development. Industrial development is an area in which Japan's unique development philosophy and approach are evident. As the first non-Western latecomer to successfully industrialize, Japan aggressively absorbed foreign knowledge in the process of catching up. As a result, it has fostered a unique perspective on “how” of learning to industrialize. This perspective and methodology are strongly reflected in Japan's development cooperation.

This paper first reviews the existing literature in the fields of development economics, international development cooperation, and knowledge creation theory, in light of how “Japanese-style” development and cooperation have been discussed in relation to industrial development. Next, it presents “translative adaptation” as a perspective that is closely related to the above and that Japan should actively disseminate to developing countries and the international community, to promote learning and sharing knowledge for development. Translative adaptation means that a latecomer country selectively adopts and adapts foreign technologies and systems to fit its own capabilities and societal characteristics, rather than importing them in their original form. The paper then examines three examples of Japan's industrial development cooperation from the perspective of translative adaptation: policy dialogue, Kai- zen promotion in Africa, and industrial human resource development in Thailand. Finally, in light of changes in the international development environment, it offers recommendations and challenges for upgrading Japan's intellectual cooperation.

In the recent trend of increasing development cooperation by emerging countries and strengthening national security by the Japanese government, it is worthwhile to analyze the characteristics of the infrastructure cooperation that Japan has implemented as one of the main pilar of its Official Development Assistance and to consider adding new value to it.

Based on the existing literature and the comparison with other development cooperation agencies, this paper examines Japan's distinctive forms of cooperation, including the large proportion of economic infrastructure, the possibility of consistent cooperation through each stage of development, the ability to contribute to cross-border development, the establishment of system of cooperation among various organizations, the use of Japan's unique knowledge, and infrastructure export as a national policy.

In addition, as a way of infrastructure cooperation that maintains a comparative advantage in the development cooperation market and contributes to Japan's national security, the following points are discussed: how to promote ‘high quality infrastructure’ cooperation, contributing to Japan's overall security, support of cross-border development that contributes to regional stability, and implementation of ‘impact infrastructure’ that has a multidimensional effect.

As a final remark, the author stressed that although new value attachments are necessary, an overemphasis on the strategic nature of cooperation may undermine developing countries' trust and sense of security in Japan.

Japan is not an “emerging donor country” such as China, Turkey, or South Korea, and on the other hand, it differs from Western countries that are mainstream “traditional donor countries.” In this context, Japan has sought its identity in international cooperation through “Japanese-style cooperation,” which is “unique to Japan” and “only Japan can do.” However, there is no concrete evidence that this “Japanese-style cooperation” is clearly different from the cooperation of other countries and that it is superior enough to be chosen by recipient countries. In fact, there is no such thing that “only Japan can do,” and if there were such a thing, it would not be transferable to other countries, so while it may be something to brag about, it would not be an object of assistance.

On the other hand, Japanese society has experience in taking a pragmatic approach to the challenges facing the world and leading it to solutions. It is possible to universalize this experience not as a methodology that “only the Japanese can do,” but as a methodology that can be practiced by anyone and shared with people in the Global South. This kind of experience is possessed not only by governments and private sector, but also by civil society, and sharing civil society's experience with developing countries is vital for the development of Japan's development cooperation through “co-creation” with developing countries.

However, Japan's international cooperation has consistently marginalized civil society. The implementation rate of Japanese ODA by civil society is only 1% of the total amount of ODA, which is less than one-tenth of the OECD average. Japan's ODA and civil society “partnership” schemes are inflexible in their use of funds, making innovative activities difficult. There is also little cooperation with civil society in the Global South. Japan has been advocating “human security,” and it is a great loss not to be able to use the power of civil society in community empowerment, an important element of this security. The marginalization of civil society, which can even be called a “characteristic of Japanese-style cooperation,” needs to be changed as soon as possible.

This paper explores the ethical issues and potentialities of EDU-Port Japan, a public-private platform launched in 2016 by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) to export “Japanese-style of education” to emerging and developing countries.

We evaluate the ethical dimensions of this initiative through the lens of Noriyuki Hashimoto's concept of ethics in international educational development (Hashimoto 2019). Drawing on post-colonial scholarship, Hashimoto (2019) contends that ethicality of the EDU-Port can only be realized when the full scope of “Japanese-style of education” —both its positive and negative aspects—is transparently disclosed. Furthermore, he argues that the act of transferring Japanese education abroad must reject the cultural imperialism that perpetuates notions of superiority and the false universalization of self, allowing instead a space for self-doubt (toinaoshi).

Our analysis revealed that, in addition to the official objectives of contributing Japanese economic growth and enhancing soft-power, EDU-Port policymakers intended to use EDU-Port as a means of renewing self-understanding and practicing self-doubt. While these intentions align with what Hashimoto (2019) describes as practices of ethicality, our investigation suggests that the label of “Japanese-style education” is often used arbitrary and superficially within EDU-Port pilot projects, functioning as a “floating signifier.” This selective presentation serves to highlight the “goodness” of Japanese education while downplaying its negative aspects, thereby bolstering brand-nationalism. Many pilot project implementers experienced false universalization of self during education transfer, with only a few experiencing self-doubt and learning from the “Other,” during the first phase (2016-2020) .

Finally, we argue that EDU-Port should be transformed to be truly horizontal and mutual learning initiative, embracing an alternative approach to educational development, that builds on Japan's traditional of field-based assistance while overcoming brand nationalism.

The paper explores the role of public-private partnerships in advancing ICT-based social development in emerging countries, with a particular focus on export of TV Digital infrastructure to Brazil. Given the challenges posed by Japan's declining population and the global surge in demand for digital infrastructure, leveraging public-private partnerships is critical for sustainable societal development. This study highlights the Japanese government's initiative to promote the export of ICT infrastructure as a key driver of economic growth. However, the complexities of public-private partnerships in exporting ICT infrastructure are significant. This paper specifically examines the delayed entry of Japanese companies into the Brazilian market, despite strong governmental cooperation, through the case of TV Digital infrastructure implementation in Brazil. By employing the Value Creation Framework and the 3 S model, the study identifies strategic approaches for engaging both public and private stakeholders in South America and outlines methods for generating sustainable value post-project acquisition.

The paper not only addresses a project aligning with the priorities of the Brazilian government and involves a major Japanese corporate entity but also argues for the necessity of additional case studies. This will aid in developing a more generalized and actionable framework for public-private partnerships, given the diversity of the entities involved and the scope of ICT infrastructure projects.