To offset the costs of perceived over-tourism, city governments and local merchants are experimenting with various upfront pricing models that raise suspicions of discrimination against foreigners.
Thank you for this very informative and thoughtful piece. I really admire your ability to discuss sensitive topics without sounding preachy at all. My country also imposes a dual fee structure for landmark historical sites such as the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul. I, to some extent, understand the reasoning behind it - though I have concerns about whether the government effectively directs those funds toward conservation efforts. Similarly, New Zealand also employs a dual-fee system for its Great Walks, where the visitors pay almost double the daily hut fee applicable for citizens/residents on the understanding that the residents already support those walks/national parks through tax. The daily hut fees are directly collected by the New Zealand Department of Conservation, which in return does a tremendous job maintaining the national parks/huts.
First of all, thank you for your generous compliments. I am glad you got the impression that my desire was to list the facts and offer a straightforward, reasonable solution. There are many ways to implement such an initiative, but the common thread is the need for clear communication. You cited a great example from New Zealand. If I were to visit one of those trails, the message from the government would seem logical and therefore accepted without question. I hope Japan takes a similar approach, although if history is any guide, it probably won't and we'll end up with a fragmented response.
Also, I have been to your country once and loved the people, the tremendous history, and the wonderful food! I look forward to visiting again in the future.
You touch on one of the biggest problems. If Japan levies a big airport tax of some sort (it should), no one trusts the government to equitably get those billions of bucks into the hands of the ramen and okonomiyaki shops actually grappling with the load. The dough will either go to crooked Dentsu people or be sunk into more useless projects that nobody wants.
Note: still feeling creeped out by the AI pics. I will have disturbed dreams tonight. (Oh but I thought the miso soup looked kind of decent.)
Thank you for reading and sharing your perspective. Yes, Japan's central government does not have a very good track record when it comes to allocating financial resources equitably. The Olympic scandal involving Dentsu's "old boy club" that you mention is a good example. Rather than creating an entirely new mechanism for applying for such funds, as has been suggested, a temporary tax credit for companies could be a cost-effective and efficient way to distribute the money.
Sorry if your eyes are subconsciously searching for the slightly off details of an AI-generated image. It's hard not to. It is kind of fun, though, to tweak the prompts to create a scene that is a little closer to your imagination. I'll try not to overdo it.
I couldn’t put my finger on it, but I think I now got it. The AI Japanese look starving. Kind of like (albeit) Uniqlo dressed Great Leap Forward Chinese people. And quite agrarian. I wonder if AI understands, “less leathery, less desperate.”
Haha! Your comment made me think of Pearl Buck's novel The Great Earth! Maybe the AI generators were hardwired based on elements of that book.
In any case, Uniqlo's logo is one of the few corporate logos that seems to make it through the prompt-to-image algorithm every now and then. What's up with that?
Another thought provoking article, Mark! An entry fee at the airport seems best. I don’t like the idea of charging foreign tourists much more at each restaurant etc.
Thanks for the positive feedback. I didn't realize that the equivalent of an exit tax already exists. A reader pointed this out. It probably doesn't apply to permanent visa holders. In any case, it's only 1,000 yen.
Personally I think Japan should charge something like $100 for the visa waiver program (visa on arrival) for short term visitors, and for tourist visas. This would be the easiest solution to implement, and most tourists would not even notice this kind of fee.
Assuming around 30 million tourists, that would bring in new revenue of around 3 billion dollars a year.
Thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts. As you know from the world of personal finance, the simplest solution is often the best. So your suggestion has merit. Collecting the money up front would also help ensure compliance. However, a flat fee versus charging by the length of the trip could result in money being left on the table.
Very informative article, as always! I believe there is already a 1,000 yen tourist exit tax for those leaving the country, and the 3,000 yen visa fee for a single entry (depending on your passport) can also acts as a "tourist tax". Not all tourists visiting Japan come from countries with higher purchasing power than locals, so a fair implementation might involve categorizing tourists based on their country? However, this would be quite difficult to implement and would drive away many. The way most tourist destinations do is a locals' discount, which usually takes the form of a 20% off rather than 4x the current price for tourists.
Thank you for reading and sharing this knowledge and your opinion.
You're right that Japan already has an exit tax for tourists, but it's called the "International Tourist Tax." It's a small levy to help improve the country's tourism infrastructure.
The tax is only 1,000 yen ($6.33) per person leaving Japan. It is usually paid to the airline or cruise line one uses to leave the country. It may already be included in ticket prices.
So, as you suggest, perhaps this tax, which seems low, could be adjusted based on the length of the overall stay in Japan. It might be difficult and confusing to change it based on country of origin. I also wonder how the government channels the revenue to the tourism sector. The proverbial "devil is in the details," no doubt!
This is my big problem with this: "As a long-term permanent resident of Japan, I also do not want to have to constantly show my ID everywhere I go in Japan. Even now, it is a hassle to explain to hotel clerks, who often demand to see my passport, that I would prefer not to have my resident zairyu card photocopied when I check in."
I can see it's going to be a hassle having to explain the difference between a foreign tourist and a resident of Japan. Bigger hotel chains will no doubt understand the difference, but I can imagine many places won't do so. I've booked an AirBnB type place for my summer holiday in Okayama, and the owner has already sent me a message that assumes I'm a foreign tourist. I can see I will have to explain that he doesn't need a copy of my passport etc etc. This kind of thing will only increase with these double pricing rules.
As an aside, what's AI's deal with Japanese people wearing open-necked denim shirts?
Thanks for reading and sharing your concerns about Airbnb-type accommodations. This could be another argument for charging a foreign visitor at the airport or port rather than at "check-in."
Yes, it is difficult to control the parameters of how AI image generators currently display prompt results. Sorry for the distraction.
The optics on this are terrible. The Japanese already have a reputation for being xenophobic and dual pricing is only going to reinforce that reputation. I'm assuming the Japanese do not want that reputation.
If the problem really is that certain places/attractions are receiving too many visitors, then surely the answer is to adjust prices? Airlines and hotels, for example, have no problem adjusting prices in response to rising and falling demand from day to day and quite rightly they do not discriminate based on country of residence. Why can't other businesses allegedly affected by "over-tourism" (what a ridiculous phrase!) do the same? Higher prices on public holidays and other times of high demand, and lower prices perhaps in winter - except in Hokkaido when prices in winter will be higher than summer? Is it really that complicated? Given the precarious position of the yen, giving Japanese residents preferential treatment makes no sense at all.
Thank you for reading and sharing your perspective. While simply relying on supply and demand may be an option, and has certainly led to price spikes in certain categories (e.g. Kyoto accommodation), many domestic travelers feel priced out. Other countries have selectively implemented certain tactics that seem to be working to spread the wealth more equitably.
I lack neither knowledge nor empathy. I just think that the Japanese have bigger problems, which foreign earnings from tourism could go some way to ameliorating. The Japanese appear to see tourism as a problem rather than the opportunity it is. I do, however, lack empathy for people who fail to adapt and who fail to grasp the opportunities available to them.
There should be a 3rd tier of pricing for AI generated non-residents :-)
金持ちしか旅行できないようにするんですかね。別にコスト掛けなくてもポイ捨てしなくて、時間守ってルール守ればいいだけなんですけどね。
それはいいアプローチだと思います。
Thank you for this very informative and thoughtful piece. I really admire your ability to discuss sensitive topics without sounding preachy at all. My country also imposes a dual fee structure for landmark historical sites such as the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul. I, to some extent, understand the reasoning behind it - though I have concerns about whether the government effectively directs those funds toward conservation efforts. Similarly, New Zealand also employs a dual-fee system for its Great Walks, where the visitors pay almost double the daily hut fee applicable for citizens/residents on the understanding that the residents already support those walks/national parks through tax. The daily hut fees are directly collected by the New Zealand Department of Conservation, which in return does a tremendous job maintaining the national parks/huts.
First of all, thank you for your generous compliments. I am glad you got the impression that my desire was to list the facts and offer a straightforward, reasonable solution. There are many ways to implement such an initiative, but the common thread is the need for clear communication. You cited a great example from New Zealand. If I were to visit one of those trails, the message from the government would seem logical and therefore accepted without question. I hope Japan takes a similar approach, although if history is any guide, it probably won't and we'll end up with a fragmented response.
Also, I have been to your country once and loved the people, the tremendous history, and the wonderful food! I look forward to visiting again in the future.
Happy to hear that you have been to Turkey and enjoyed your time there. I really love Japanese food but still crave Turkish food every single day ☺️
You touch on one of the biggest problems. If Japan levies a big airport tax of some sort (it should), no one trusts the government to equitably get those billions of bucks into the hands of the ramen and okonomiyaki shops actually grappling with the load. The dough will either go to crooked Dentsu people or be sunk into more useless projects that nobody wants.
Note: still feeling creeped out by the AI pics. I will have disturbed dreams tonight. (Oh but I thought the miso soup looked kind of decent.)
Thank you for reading and sharing your perspective. Yes, Japan's central government does not have a very good track record when it comes to allocating financial resources equitably. The Olympic scandal involving Dentsu's "old boy club" that you mention is a good example. Rather than creating an entirely new mechanism for applying for such funds, as has been suggested, a temporary tax credit for companies could be a cost-effective and efficient way to distribute the money.
Sorry if your eyes are subconsciously searching for the slightly off details of an AI-generated image. It's hard not to. It is kind of fun, though, to tweak the prompts to create a scene that is a little closer to your imagination. I'll try not to overdo it.
I couldn’t put my finger on it, but I think I now got it. The AI Japanese look starving. Kind of like (albeit) Uniqlo dressed Great Leap Forward Chinese people. And quite agrarian. I wonder if AI understands, “less leathery, less desperate.”
Haha! Your comment made me think of Pearl Buck's novel The Great Earth! Maybe the AI generators were hardwired based on elements of that book.
In any case, Uniqlo's logo is one of the few corporate logos that seems to make it through the prompt-to-image algorithm every now and then. What's up with that?
Another thought provoking article, Mark! An entry fee at the airport seems best. I don’t like the idea of charging foreign tourists much more at each restaurant etc.
Thanks for the positive feedback. I didn't realize that the equivalent of an exit tax already exists. A reader pointed this out. It probably doesn't apply to permanent visa holders. In any case, it's only 1,000 yen.
Personally I think Japan should charge something like $100 for the visa waiver program (visa on arrival) for short term visitors, and for tourist visas. This would be the easiest solution to implement, and most tourists would not even notice this kind of fee.
Assuming around 30 million tourists, that would bring in new revenue of around 3 billion dollars a year.
Thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts. As you know from the world of personal finance, the simplest solution is often the best. So your suggestion has merit. Collecting the money up front would also help ensure compliance. However, a flat fee versus charging by the length of the trip could result in money being left on the table.
Very informative article, as always! I believe there is already a 1,000 yen tourist exit tax for those leaving the country, and the 3,000 yen visa fee for a single entry (depending on your passport) can also acts as a "tourist tax". Not all tourists visiting Japan come from countries with higher purchasing power than locals, so a fair implementation might involve categorizing tourists based on their country? However, this would be quite difficult to implement and would drive away many. The way most tourist destinations do is a locals' discount, which usually takes the form of a 20% off rather than 4x the current price for tourists.
Thank you for reading and sharing this knowledge and your opinion.
You're right that Japan already has an exit tax for tourists, but it's called the "International Tourist Tax." It's a small levy to help improve the country's tourism infrastructure.
The tax is only 1,000 yen ($6.33) per person leaving Japan. It is usually paid to the airline or cruise line one uses to leave the country. It may already be included in ticket prices.
So, as you suggest, perhaps this tax, which seems low, could be adjusted based on the length of the overall stay in Japan. It might be difficult and confusing to change it based on country of origin. I also wonder how the government channels the revenue to the tourism sector. The proverbial "devil is in the details," no doubt!
This is my big problem with this: "As a long-term permanent resident of Japan, I also do not want to have to constantly show my ID everywhere I go in Japan. Even now, it is a hassle to explain to hotel clerks, who often demand to see my passport, that I would prefer not to have my resident zairyu card photocopied when I check in."
I can see it's going to be a hassle having to explain the difference between a foreign tourist and a resident of Japan. Bigger hotel chains will no doubt understand the difference, but I can imagine many places won't do so. I've booked an AirBnB type place for my summer holiday in Okayama, and the owner has already sent me a message that assumes I'm a foreign tourist. I can see I will have to explain that he doesn't need a copy of my passport etc etc. This kind of thing will only increase with these double pricing rules.
As an aside, what's AI's deal with Japanese people wearing open-necked denim shirts?
Thanks for reading and sharing your concerns about Airbnb-type accommodations. This could be another argument for charging a foreign visitor at the airport or port rather than at "check-in."
Yes, it is difficult to control the parameters of how AI image generators currently display prompt results. Sorry for the distraction.
The optics on this are terrible. The Japanese already have a reputation for being xenophobic and dual pricing is only going to reinforce that reputation. I'm assuming the Japanese do not want that reputation.
If the problem really is that certain places/attractions are receiving too many visitors, then surely the answer is to adjust prices? Airlines and hotels, for example, have no problem adjusting prices in response to rising and falling demand from day to day and quite rightly they do not discriminate based on country of residence. Why can't other businesses allegedly affected by "over-tourism" (what a ridiculous phrase!) do the same? Higher prices on public holidays and other times of high demand, and lower prices perhaps in winter - except in Hokkaido when prices in winter will be higher than summer? Is it really that complicated? Given the precarious position of the yen, giving Japanese residents preferential treatment makes no sense at all.
Thank you for reading and sharing your perspective. While simply relying on supply and demand may be an option, and has certainly led to price spikes in certain categories (e.g. Kyoto accommodation), many domestic travelers feel priced out. Other countries have selectively implemented certain tactics that seem to be working to spread the wealth more equitably.
"allegedly affected by "over-tourism" (what a ridiculous phrase!)"
I think you either lack knowledge of, or empathy for, people whose quality of life is steadily being eroded by, yes, over-tourism.
I lack neither knowledge nor empathy. I just think that the Japanese have bigger problems, which foreign earnings from tourism could go some way to ameliorating. The Japanese appear to see tourism as a problem rather than the opportunity it is. I do, however, lack empathy for people who fail to adapt and who fail to grasp the opportunities available to them.
Happy to leave my previous comment for posterity.
Of course you are.