[Blog]Is the “Migration Match Index” Applicable to Japan?

2025-11-25

This article examines whether the analytical model presented by the Niskanen Center—specifically the “Migration Match Index (MMI)” described in the original report—can be effectively applied to Japan’s migration policy, regional revitalization strategies, and demographic challenges. The MMI, which assesses all 3,143 U.S. counties across 16 indicators such as labor demand, housing availability, cost of living, and population structure, aims to identify regions where migrants and local economies are most likely to benefit from each other.

Understanding the Core Concept of MMI

At its heart, the MMI is an attempt to answer the question: “Where would the arrival of migrants generate the greatest mutual benefit for both the region and the migrants themselves?” The baseline model highlights counties that simultaneously exhibit tight labor markets, sufficient housing vacancy, manageable rent burdens, and advanced population aging. As a result, 484 counties were identified as suitable for migrant settlement. The key point is that the model does not simply map where migrants want to go, but where they should go in order to address structural mismatches between demographic trends and economic needs.

Japan’s Data Environment and Compatibility

Japan possesses robust statistical infrastructure at the municipal level: demographic trends, age structures, foreign resident numbers, job-offer-to-applicant ratios, and industry-specific employment data are all regularly published by national ministries and prefectures. This means that the conceptual foundation of MMI—quantifying regional characteristics and visualizing mismatches—is fully compatible with Japan’s data environment. By combining datasets from the Statistics Bureau, the Immigration Services Agency, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, and municipal open-data sources, one could identify regions with severe labor shortages, rapid aging, declining populations, or existing multicultural experience.

Institutional Constraints Unique to Japan

However, Japan’s immigration framework differs significantly from the U.S. system. Whereas the United States has greater flexibility in designating refugee or migrant resettlement locations, Japan’s residency system ties immigration status to individual activities, employers, and contracts. As such, Japan cannot simply allocate migrants to specific municipalities based on an index score. A realistic application of a Japan-adapted MMI would therefore be as a policy intelligence tool to highlight where foreign resident support systems, housing strategies, or regional revitalization investments should be prioritized—not as a direct mechanism for distributing visas.

Additional Indicators Needed for a Japan-Specific Model

While MMI focuses largely on labor, housing, cost of living, and demographic structure, a Japanese version would require a deeper dive into settlement infrastructure and social support systems. Indicators deserving inclusion would likely include the availability of Japanese-language education resources, local school capacity to support foreign children, multilingual medical services, municipal consultation centers, volunteer interpreter networks, and the existence of multicultural coexistence plans or ordinances. Furthermore, the history of administrative challenges or violations involving foreign residents could signal the strength of local governance. Integrating these factors would transform MMI from a labor-matching tool into a comprehensive “settlement and coexistence readiness” index.

Choosing the Right Geographic Scale for Japan

MMI uses U.S. counties as its unit of analysis, but Japan’s administrative geography is more complex. Prefectures are too large and municipalities too small to fully reflect functional living spheres. Commuting zones, school districts, and medical service areas often overlap in ways that do not align with municipal borders. Designing a Japan-specific MMI would therefore require the use of functional regions, possibly constructed using GIS analysis or mobility data. This step would be essential for producing realistic and policy-relevant results.

Accounting for “Social Acceptability”

As the original report acknowledges, no model can fully capture cultural, political, or emotional dimensions of immigrant acceptance within communities. Japan faces the same limitation. A municipality may have a low population, excess housing, and severe labor shortages—yet residents may remain hesitant about foreign newcomers. Conversely, communities with long-standing foreign populations may exhibit strong informal support systems not visible in data. A Japanese MMI would therefore need to incorporate qualitative assessments or complementary surveys to avoid over-reliance on quantitative indicators alone.

Potential Impact on Japanese Policy Debates

Despite these challenges, the analytical lens offered by MMI could significantly improve Japan’s often abstract debates on foreign labor and migration. Instead of vague claims such as “local areas need migrants” or “foreigners are already increasing too much,” policymakers could point to data-driven assessments of which regions have structural capacity and genuine need. Municipal governments could use such insights to communicate policy priorities to residents, while companies could use them to evaluate recruitment and retention strategies across regions.

A Tool, Not a Silver Bullet

It is essential, however, not to overestimate what such a model can accomplish. Human mobility is influenced by personal networks, community ties, religious institutions, career aspirations, and serendipity—factors that lie far beyond what any model can quantify. MMI should thus be seen as a starting point for discussion, not a deterministic map of where migrants “should” go. Combining MMI-style indicators with qualitative research and close dialogue with local communities is crucial.

Conclusion: A Japanese MMI Is Worth Creating—If Thoughtfully Designed

In sum, the Migration Match Index presents a valuable conceptual framework for understanding the alignment between regional needs and migrant potential. But importing it wholesale into Japan would be misguided. Instead, the model should be adapted to Japan’s unique institutional structures, demographic pressures, and multicultural support realities. If Japan can build an index that integrates labor needs, housing conditions, cost of living, Japanese-language support, school and medical readiness, and community acceptance, it could shift migration-related discussions from emotion-driven reactions to evidence-based policymaking. In this sense, the MMI framework offers valuable inspiration for Japan as it confronts its long-term demographic challenges.