[Blog]Part 2: Quantitative Management Abroad — Caps, Allocation, and Administration

2026-01-14

Quantitative management does not simply mean reducing numbers. In practice, overseas systems combine multiple elements: overall intake targets, allocation among migration categories, regional or sectoral steering, and transparent administrative operation.

Australia: Planned Intake Levels

Australia publishes annual migration program planning levels that specify total intake and the balance between skilled and family streams (Migration Program planning levels). This visibility allows employers and policymakers to align labour demand, training, and infrastructure planning. However, intake adjustments during economic downturns often become politically contentious.

United Kingdom: De Facto Control via Thresholds

The UK formally operates a points-based system, but in practice adjusts inflows by raising eligibility thresholds such as minimum salary requirements (Review of salary requirements). While this approach appears “quality-focused,” it can exacerbate labour shortages in lower-wage sectors and disadvantage small or regional employers.

Canada: Targets Combined with Priority Categories

Canada sets multi-year immigration targets while using category-based Express Entry draws to prioritize certain skills and French-language proficiency. The francophone draws aim to support minority language communities, but their scale and lower cut-off scores have sparked debate over transparency and perceived fairness (Express Entry invitation history).

Implications for Japan

If Japan moves toward quantitative management, the key issue is not merely total numbers but allocation and operational clarity. Clear objectives, reliable data on inflows and outflows, advance notice of rule changes, and transparent processing standards are essential. Without these, numerical control risks producing uncertainty for employers and migrants alike. In Part 3, we turn to language criteria and how they are used internationally.