Correspondence: Ali M. El-Agraa, Faculty of Commerce, Fukuoka University, Nanakuma, Jonan-ku, Fukuoka 814-0180, Japan. Tel: +81 92 871 6631; Fax: +81 92 864 2938; E-mail: elagraa@fukuoka-u.ac.jp
URL: http://www.fukuoka-u.ac.jp/ali/index.html

¹is Professor of Economics, International Economics, International Economic Integration and EU Studies in the Faculty of Commerce and its Graduate School, Fukuoka University, Japan. He holds both a doctorate (PhD) and higher doctorate (DSc) from, respectively, the University of Leeds, UK and Kyushu National University, Japan. His general academic field is International Economics, with more than 20 books and numerous articles in international professional journals. He is entered in the first edition of Who's Who in European Integration Studies and was Senior International Consultant for the United Nations on regional integration during 2001 and General Consultative Advisor to the Anglo-Japanese Economic Institute in London until 2002.

Received 22 February 2008; Revised 22 February 2008.

Abstract

A leading Japanese expert claims that Japan has a generous pensions programme and the OECD, in a just published major report, finds that the Japanese and British pension systems perform fairly close to each other, with Britain offering a relatively better net replacement rate while Japan affords better net pensions wealth. Having been part of the British and then the Japanese university pension systems for two decades, the author's experiences show these revelations cannot be taken at face value. This paper therefore offers a straightforward comparison of what is being provided for British and Japanese academics, but its conclusions can be generalised to the two nations' entire public pension provision systems since what academics are afforded are commensurate with those for the respective civil servants, including the national pensions to which every one is entitled; truly personal pensions obviously fall outside our remit. This paper finds that Japanese academics fare less well relative to their British counterparts in practically every aspect of the provisions for their retirement: they pay higher premiums and receive no tax-deductions on them; their employers do not contribute as much towards their pension arrangements; they receive lower annual national pensions and much lower employer-provided ones; they receive slightly lower lump sums; their dependents fare less well; they have to cover 30 per cent of their medical costs while the British are not charged at all and they are denied the right to make their own arrangements.