Might be off topic but I live to think about how well Japan has leveraged tourism. Eight years ago Japanese tourism was near 100% domestic. Japanese would visit mountains, onsen, and rural family. The idea that foreigners might be interested seemed absurd.
Yet around the time of the great earthquake the Abe government say tourism as a possible plug for the massive negative current account balance. The shutdown of nuclear reactors left Japan importing vast volumes of fossil fuels. Tourism leveraged existing capital, the hotels shrines and transport networks japan has always had, while bringing foreign money.
Since then Japan has been signing visa free travel treaties with every non-hostile nation imaginable. As a side effect the Japanese passport is now the most "powerful" passport in the world.
Tokyo and Osaka can handle the foreign hordes no problem, but Kyoto has could not. It is as if Japan has sacrificed the old capital to supply the rest of the nation with fuel.
The government is still playing a 40% increase over the next many years. It will be interesting to see how Kyoto manages, and if other tourist destinations can arise.
> Eight years ago Japanese tourism was near 100% domestic.
Nope, calling bull on this. Not by a long shot. Japan has been a major international tourist destination, particularly in the winter for at least 20 years.
Well, the graph on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_Japan
does seem to suggest in 2017 there were 20 million more foreign tourists in the year compared with 2010, an increase of about 250%.
The Japanese passport is powerful, but I wouldn't call it the most powerful at all[0]. There are many countries that are on par (e.g. South Korea, The Netherlands, Denmark) and multiple ones more powerful (e.g. United Arab Emirates, Germany, Finland).
I agree that it shouldn't be called the most powerful, but there's an insignificant difference between the top 20-30 countries on this list which makes it rather meaningless (IMO) to compare between them. Some random country that few people actually visit might open up visa-free travel to some on the list which will shoot them up a few places.
Anyways, I like the Nationality index (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quality_of_Nationality_Ind...) which takes into account freedom-of-movement with economic and quality-of-life factors, so it isn't just a count of visa-free travel agreements. This seems like a better measure of the power or value of a specific citizenship.
Almost 10 years ago I was living in Japan as a student and I saw a shitload of tourists constantly. Japan has been a major Australian tourist destination ever since flight became common, also the reverse.
While it’s true that since it’s more accessible, certain places have more tourists than they can handle, Japan has not been “closed” in the way you’re describing for hundreds of years.
Visa is mainly economical. If it is likely for a person to come as tourist but stay for economical reasons, visa is needed. So you can give rich countries visa free treatment because their people are unlikely to stay, and you want to keep people from poor countries in check with visa requirements.
Yet around the time of the great earthquake the Abe government say tourism as a possible plug for the massive negative current account balance. The shutdown of nuclear reactors left Japan importing vast volumes of fossil fuels. Tourism leveraged existing capital, the hotels shrines and transport networks japan has always had, while bringing foreign money.
Since then Japan has been signing visa free travel treaties with every non-hostile nation imaginable. As a side effect the Japanese passport is now the most "powerful" passport in the world.
Tokyo and Osaka can handle the foreign hordes no problem, but Kyoto has could not. It is as if Japan has sacrificed the old capital to supply the rest of the nation with fuel.
The government is still playing a 40% increase over the next many years. It will be interesting to see how Kyoto manages, and if other tourist destinations can arise.