Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The long-running debate about who governs Japan has been given a new twist by
`rat-choicers' who argue that Japan has been governed for the last thirty years or
more neither by bureaucrats nor by a `conservative coalition' of bureaucrats,
politicians and businessmen but by the Liberal Democratic Party alone. This article
examines their arguments and sets them in the context of other competing and
conicting explanations. It is argued that more relevant and researchable questions
are what is governed and how, an approach calling for a more nuanced analysis of
policy making in order to observe the impact on dierent policies and policy-
processes of the role of the state and its institutional structures and their embedded
`collective identities'.
1
For a critical discussion of gaiatsu and its limitations, see L. J. Schoppa, Bargaining with Japan:
What American Pressure Can and Cannot Do (New York, Columbia University Press, 1997).
# Political Studies Association, 1999
Review Section 941
2
C. J. Johnson, MITI and the Japanese Miracle: the Growth of Industrial Policy, 19251975
(Stanford CA, Stanford University Press, 1982).
# Political Studies Association, 1999
942 Review Section
7
M. Muramatsu and E. S. Krauss, `The Conservative Policy Line and the Development of
Patterned Pluralism', in K. Yamamura and Y. Yasuba (eds), The Political Economy of Japan, Vol. 1:
The Domestic Transformation (Stanford CA, Stanford University Press, 1987), p. 60.
8
M. Muramatsu, `Patterned Pluralism under Challenge' in G. D. Allison and Y. Sone (eds),
Political Dynamics in Contemporary Japan (Ithaca NY, Cornell University Press, 1993), pp. 5071.
9 T. Inoguchi, Gendai Nihon seiji Keizai no kozu: Seifu to shijo (Tokyo, Toyo Keizai shimposha,
1983); Y. Murakami, Shin chukan taishu no jidai (Tokyo, Chuo koron Sha, 1983); S. Sato and T.
Matsuzaki, Jimint Seiken (Tokyo, Chuo Koronsha, 1986).
10
J. C. Campbell, `Policy Conict and its Resolution within the Governmental System', in E.
Krauss, T. Rholen and P. Steinho (eds) Conict in Japan, (Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press,
1984), pp. 294334.
# Political Studies Association, 1999
944 Review Section
arguing that a permanent state of conict and contestation may be the natural
order of Japanese politics, paradoxically serving to stabilize the system and to
reinforce the values to which all participants must appeal. Through confronta-
tion and political struggle, they construct `ever denser networks of obligation
and reciprocity tacit compacts and protocols of reciprocal consent'.11
The increasing inuence of the LDP in the policy-making processes in the
past two decades has been attributed to three factors: excessive sectionalism
and jurisdictional inghting within the bureaucracy which presented politicians
with opportunities to support one ministry against another, or to assume a
leadership role when policy making became stalled or deadlocked; and
secondly, to the growth of policy expertise among senior LDP politicians.
The third factor was a shift in the recruitment and preferment of LDP leaders
away from former bureaucrats towards long-serving politicians from rural
constituencies. Through its formal organs, most notably the LDP's Policy
Aairs Research Council (PARC) and its Divisions, Special Committees and
Research Societies, and informally through the emergence of powerful policy
tribes (zoku-giin) but also through the attempts to inuence particular policies
by more active and interventionist Prime Ministers the LDP played a more
active role in policy making. Most accounts date this greater inuence to the
early 1970s, when the LDP responded to the challenge to its political hegemony
with welfare and compensatory policies.
That conventional wisdom has in turn been challenged from a wide-ranging
historical perspective of several policy areas by, among others, Kent Calder,
who demonstrated that the occurrence of politico-electoral crises before the
early 1970s, provoked the LDP to respond with compensatory policies.12 Other
more narrowly focused studies of individual policy sectors have found
comparable evidence of LDP inuence earlier still, in the 1950s and 1960s, to
deny or qualify theories of bureaucratic-led or dominant policy making.13
Silberman roots LDP inuence more explicitly in the historical development
of the state in the early part of the twentieth century.14 Political decisions were
constrained by the adoption of Weberian specialized and scientic rules of
administration, and political parties subordinated to the bureaucracy. The
conditions in which political parties might re-establish and maintain control of
the legislature and make the bureaucracy accountable were spelled out by Prime
Minister Hara (191821): majoritarian politics in the Diet; and a combination
of distributive politics and economic development designed to produce an
appearance of an economically rational strategy for development which neither
the bureaucracy nor private interests could resist. Those conditions proved
impossible of fullment in the inter-war period.
Nevertheless, Silberman argues, that earlier vision was implicit in the
reconstruction of party politics after World War II. The LDP became the ruling
majoritarian party and achieved and sustained a dominant position for 38 years
11
R. Samuels, Rich Nation, Strong Army (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1994), p. 334.
12K. E. Calder, Crisis and Compensation: Public Policy and Political Stability in Japan
(Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1988).
13 D. T. Yasumoto, The Manner of Giving (New York, Lexington, 1986); J. C. Campbell, How
Policies Change: the Japanese Government and the Ageing Society (Princeton, Princeton University
Press, 1993); K. E. Calder, Strategic Capitalism (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1993).
14
B. S. Silberman, `The continuing dilemma: bureaucracy and political parties', Social Science
Japan, 7 (1996), 35.
# Political Studies Association, 1999
Review Section 945
15 T. J. Pempel, `The Unbundling of ``Japan Inc.'': the Changing Dynamics of Japanese Policy
Formation', in K. B. Pyle (ed.), The Trade Crisis: How will Japan Respond? (Seattle, University of
Washington, 1987), p. 152.
16
J. Haley, `Governance by Negotiation: a Reappraisal of Bureaucratic Power in Japan' in Pyle,
The Trade Crisis, pp. 17791.
# Political Studies Association, 1999
946 Review Section
17
For a discussion, see S. Wilks and M. Wright (eds), The Promotion and Regulation of Industry
in Japan (London, Macmillan, 1991) pp. 3945.
18 S. Callon, Divided Sun: MITI and the Breakdown of Japanese High-Tech Industrial Policy,
associations and rms, were more inuential. Secondly, while state structures
matter, they are not undierentiated, as implied in Johnson's MITI-centric
account. State institutions and structures vary sectorally and the amount of
regulatory authority which they possess and dispose aects the coherence of
policy outcomes. Thirdly, the complexity and fragmentation of state structures
at the sectoral level undermined the possibility of achieving broad gauge, cross-
sectoral targeting of the kind conventionally ascribed to the Japanese state.
Fragmentation and decentralization provided the means of access and of the
opportunity for inuence of private sector actors. As a result, fourthly, there
was a pluralist bias to the allocative processes. Relationships between public and
private actors with shared interests in the nancial policy area were institution-
alized within the policy processes in `circles of compensation', through which
the Japanese state allocated benets.
In the struggle for strategy, `one cannot assume the rationality and eective-
ness of industrial policy in developmentally transforming an economy from the
statements and actions of industrial bureaucrats alone'.22 In a similar vein,
Tilton argues that `to understand the true scope of industrial policy, one must
look beyond ocial state-sponsored policies to unocial policies initiated and
implemented by trade associations'.23 Their role in four basic but declining
industries reected a paradigmatic system of private-interest-governance of
Japan's political economy. Bureaucrats did not usually attempt to impose their
will on business; they worked with it to solve common industrial policies in ways
that served national policy goals. Typically MITI provided the encouragement
and sometimes the initiative for the organization of cartels which the rms
wanted but were unable to co-ordinate on their own. Its aim was neither
forward looking nor eciency oriented. It did not try to ease companies out of
inecient declining industries, but to maintain self-suciency in those vital for
national security.
By contrast with these and some other recent studies,24 Vogel's comparative
study of the transformation of the relationships between governments and
markets in Japan, the USA and Western Europe is a compelling re-statement of
the thesis of bureaucratic dominance.25 It challenges the conventional wisdom
that the processes of globalization, privatization and, above all, de-regulation
have led to less government intervention and control. In the Japanese case (as in
the UK) more competition meant more government control, as markets were
`re-regulated'. In the policy-making processes, state actors not only held
autonomous preferences, they `acted upon those preferences, and inuenced
outcomes in ways that we can not understand by focusing on private interests
alone'. But private interests also helped shape policy outcomes; `both state and
societal actors matter'.26 Vogel demonstrates the leading role played by
bureaucrats in policy making, arguing that the state is relatively autonomous
of societal interests. Competition and conict between dierent interest groups
22
Calder, Strategic Capitalism, p. 20.
23M. Tilton, Restrained Trade: Cartels in Japan's Basic Materials Industries (Ithaca NY, Cornell
University Press, 1996), p. 205.
24 E.g., J. E. Vestal, Planning For Change: Industrial Policy and Japanese Economic Development,
19451990 (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1994); R. Uriu, Troubled Industries: the Political
Economy of Industrial Adjustment in Japan (Ithaca NY, Cornell University Press, 1996).
25
S. Vogel, Freer Markets, More Rules (Ithaca NY, Cornell University Press, 1994).
26 Vogel, Freer Markets, p. 268.
leave state actors as the interpreters and arbiters of those interests. To that task
they bring their own specic ideological biases and institutional capabilities, or
pursue a particular conception of the public interest, which partly transcends
that of private interest groups. How state actors dene and interpret the public
interest and how they pursue it is shaped by the `ideological and institutional
context' in which they operate.
`Governance by Negotiation'
While the high ground of strategic industrial policy making has been claimed
(mainly) by the counter-revisionists, the challenge to theories of a dominant
bureaucracy has continued to advance on a broader front encompassing a
variety of both domestic and international policy sectors, institutions and
processes; the list is now too long to give in detail here. Most such studies accept
the need `to engage in extensive historical analysis to determine concrete
instruments, institutions and processes of national goal setting' in order to
understand `how actual public and private organisations operate at the micro-
level'.27 They provide explanations of particular policy outputs, or changes in
policy outputs, and show why attempts to change them succeed or fail. Using
dierent methods, and developing dierent frameworks for analysis their
characterization of the policy processes is nevertheless remarkably similar.
McKean provides an overview, rejects conventional arguments about the
leadership role of the Japanese state, and concludes that Japan does not have a
strong state: `Rather, the state follows when it can, co-ordinates when it must,
and de-regulates when it cannot co-ordinate'.28
Horne's masterly study of Japanese nancial markets can stand as exemplar
for the genre. It analyses the interaction between the LDP, MOF, public and
private nancial institutions, and other corporate and non-corporate bodies
with an interest in the development and implementation of regulatory policy for
Japanese nancial markets in the 1970s and early 1980s.29 It shows rst, that
public policy making for the regulation of nancial markets is complex, rich and
varied. Disaggregation of the sector reveals ve dierent but related policy
areas, for each of which the number and the range of participants and the nature
of their interaction in the policy processes diered. In four of them the LDP had
little or no direct involvement; policy was dominated by the MOF. In postal
savings, however, where there were important electoral implications, the LDP's
view prevailed; MOF was `relatively helpless in the face of eective political
alliances built within the LDP'.30 Secondly, it shows that the role and inuence
of the participants varied with the nature of the policy-making activity. Thus the
LDP was uninterested in the implementation of regulations within settled policy.
`Few politicians within the LDP saw any need for themselves to become
involved explicitly in matters concerning nancial regulations'.31 Thirdly, the
LDP could and did inuence the general context of policy making, without
explicit intervention, like Adam Smith's `invisible hand' or the `ghost in the
machine', by establishing the parameters within which policy options could be
initiated and discussed by MOF. Fourthly, the inuence of the LDP in shaping
policy and its implementation was also evident but not visible, in its support for
the aims of particular interest groups. Fifthly, the institutional structures of
political party, bureaucracy, and private sector were complex, polycentric and
dierentiated. For example, within the MOF there are dierent interests and
objectives among competing bureaux, with dierent jurisdictions, appealing to
dierent constituencies of interest groups.
Harvard University Press, 1993). For an extended, sober and critical review of this and, more
generally, the merits and limitations of rational choice theories, and their application to Japanese
politics, see J. P. Gownder and R. Pekkanen, `The end of political science? Rational choice analyses
in studies of Japanese politics', Journal of Japanese Studies, 22 (1996) 36384.
# Political Studies Association, 1999
950 Review Section
specied by their principals. Thus they can veto bureaucrats' policy proposals,
legislation, and actions; control their careers through promotions and postings;
and, their post-retirement careers through the practice of amakudari, the
`descent from heaven' into lucrative and prestigious private (and public) sector
jobs. Thus bureaucrats acting in their own self-interest provide the LDP with
those policies aimed to maximize their self-interest in holding on to power. In
brief, Japanese bureaucrats are nothing more than the agents of LDP
politicians; bureaucratic dominance is an illusion.
However, Ramseyer and Rosenbluth agree with the `counter-revisionists' on
the need for rigorous empirical testing of their model, and draw upon a wide
range of secondary material in support of their argument. While it provides
some support independently for each of the building blocks used in the
construction of the argument, it fails as a coherent explanation of policy making
when tested against the empirical evidence of dierent policy sectors and issues.
Like all successful political parties, the LDP's conduct in oce is shaped by
both short- and longer-term electoral considerations. Until electoral reform in
1994 the SNTV in multi-member constituencies obliged LDP Dietmen in
dierent factions to compete for votes and build and maintain local personal
networks in which votes and organizations for the mobilization of those votes
are traded for tangible community and personal benets jobs, infrastructure,
environmental amenities, business opportunities and contracts. Bureaucrats
understand the need to take such considerations into account. But it is only one
factor, whose signicance varies between policy sectors, and within them from
one issue to another, and over time. To assert that all policy making is driven by
such a politico-electoral imperative is not supported by the empirical evidence
of the sectoral studies reviewed earlier in this paper. Nor does it follow that the
behaviour of all LDP Dietmen is governed all of the time by such self-interest.
Indeed Ramseyer and Rosenbluth acknowledge the tension between the self-
interest of rank-and-le LDP Dietmen and the collective interest of the party as
a whole represented by the leadership, which they argue may dictate restraint or
policies which contradict or vitiate those immediate local interests.
The application of principal-agent theory to Japanese politics is modelled
closely on earlier applications to Congressional politics in the USA, which
revealed a `dominant legislature'. Moe's famous critique of that model applies
equally to Ramseyer and Rosenbluth's interpretation of Japanese policy
making in which the Diet is accorded a similarly dominant role: for example the
failure to identify and explain the preferences of bureaucrats themselves;
the under-estimation of `agency slack' available to bureaucrats, especially in the
implementation of policies.33 As an explanation of how policy is made in Japan
it has been criticised by many Japanologists as reductionist, over-simplied and
misleading.
Two further comments may be made briey. First, the policy making which
the LDP supposedly dominates is treated by Ramseyer and Rosenbluth as an
undierentiated activity. No distinction is drawn between initiation, formula-
tion, legitimation and implementation all identiable activities undertaken in
policy processes, involving dierent mixes of public and private organizations
and players interacting in dierent `arenas' ministry, Diet, local authorities,
33
T. Moe, `An assessment of the positive theory of ``congressional dominance'' ', Legislative
Studies Quarterly, 4 (1987) 475520.
# Political Studies Association, 1999
Review Section 951
the courts for example. Sectoral studies of social policy,34 education,35 overseas
development aid,36 and defence,37 for example reveal the complexity of the
process of initiating and formulating policy options to which many dierent
societal groups contribute. Studies of policy making of industrial capital and
credit,38 and the regulation of nancial markets,39 point to the lack of interest of
the LDP in some policy-making activities, and its minor role in others. In many
policy areas where the LDP is active, it is interested and involved mainly or
wholly at the stage of the carrying out of policy, for example overseas
development aid, public works, and takes little or no part in the earlier stages of
initiating or revising policy. Thus the second criticism is that an interpretation of
policy making which postulates a relationship of principal and agent does not
allow for a plurality of interests, other than those of the LDP and the
bureaucracy, whose interests may conict with either or both. The potential to
exercise power, dened as the possession of resources of authority, information,
expertise and money, is distributed more widely than Ramseyer and Rosenbluth
allow, and includes a variety of private sector actors, intermediary structures,
and quasi-governmental bodies. It diers between policy sectors, and changes
over time. It is deployed dierently, and with dierent outcomes within policy
sectors, according to issue, circumstance and context.
Ramseyer and Rosenbluth's explanation of policy making drew heavily upon
work then in progress of a number of historical institutionalists.40 McCubbins
and Noble use two key institutional variables electoral system and regime-
type to explore and explain dierences in policy making in the USA and
Japan, drawing a sharp distinction between the `abdication' of authority by
politicians to bureaucrats and `managed delegation'.41 Central to the abdication
thesis ( for which read dominant bureaucracy) is the possession of `hidden
knowledge' of information and expertise by bureaucrats, and their control of
the agenda. The appearance of bureaucratic power is however belied by the
reality of policy making in which, by contrast to abdication, politicians delegate
authority and manage it so that in `equilibrium' there is balance between what
legislators expect of their bureaucratic agents and what those agents deliver.
The model applied to Japanese policy making and the relations between
politicians and bureaucrats allows little qualication: either there is abdication
or there is delegation; bureaucrats have `hidden knowledge' or they do not;
34 S. J. Anderson, Welfare Policy and Politics in Japan (New York, Paragon House, 1993);
control the agenda or not; the legislature is important or not; ministers and
cabinets ineectual or not. In rejecting dominant bureaucracy tout court, an
unqualied thesis of delegation from principals to agents ascribes all policy-
making authority to politicians. In practice, as the empirical evidence of sectoral
studies demonstrates, for some kinds of policy issues in some kinds of policy-
making activity, ministers may or do abdicate authority, may be or are willing to
leave bureaucrats with discretionary authority; in others, they may themselves
prescribe specic policy options.
McCubbins and Noble's application of rational choice theories to Japanese
budgeting provide Ramseyer and Rosenbluth with much of the empirical
underpinning of their explanation of the dominant role of politicians in the
policy-making process. Using disaggregated budget data for the period
195286 they demonstrate that conventional notions about budgeting, incre-
mentalism, fair shares, and non-retrenchment all supposedly indicators of
bureaucratic rather than political inuence are incorrect, and that the LDP
through its control of the Diet had both the constitutional authority and the
electoral incentive to govern budget making, and hence to determine the
priorities of expenditure. However, they concede that MOF is a crucial player,
and that it self-evidently wins some battles. But in so doing it exercises only
delegated authority: `it does not act on its own, and it is not free to follow its
own objectives at the expense of the goals of those of the ruling party, whether
particularistic or collective'.42
The size, distribution and variation in budget outputs are a function of the
base-line used and how `expenditure' is dened. Their reliance on the data
provided by planned expenditure understates the amount of additional (revised)
spending in-year through regular and substantial Supplementary Budgets. Thus
the apparent retrenchment in the main planned budget which they detected was
in reality no more than a slow-down in the rate of growth of the budget,
measured by what was actually spent in-year (out-turn). For example, their
conclusion that `spending on public works was cut drastically in the 1980s' is
contradicted by the evidence of in-year spending.43 Measured by the outturn of
planned and revised expenditures, public works budgets actually increased
throughout the decade, and by very substantial mounts.44 Secondly, their
reliance on the data of the main planned budget and Special Accounts seriously
understates the total amount of resources available to fund public policies. The
Fiscal Investment Loan Programme (FILP), the `second budget', provided
substantial `o-budget' funds for capital investment programmes, and was used
by MOF as an alternative source of funding for some programmes in the main
budget. Throughout the period 197497, FILP grew much faster than the main
budget.45 Thirdly, McCubbins and Noble's analysis of disaggregated data
by budget `items' fails to capture the organizational dimension in determining
budget outputs, the distribution between ministries and agencies. Nor does it
reveal the extent of discrimination between policy groups and their constituent
programmes. Where programmes are shared organizationally the principles of
42 M. D. McCubbins and G. W. Noble, `Perceptions and Realities of Japanese Budgeting', in
Cowhey and McCubbins, Structure and Policy in Japan and the United States, p. 108.
43
McCubbins and Noble, `Perceptions and Realities of Japanese Budgeting', p. 105.
44
M. Wright, `The Outputs of the Budgetary System: Who Wins, Who Loses', Comparative
Budgetary Systems Working Paper Series, Japan, No. 24 (1998).
45 M. Wright, `The Outputs of the Budgetary System'.
`balance' and `fair shares' are more signicant in determining budget outputs.
For example, the budget for public works was shared among the Ministry of
Construction, Ministry of Transport and MAFF in proportions that scarcely
changed over three decades.46
But in any case proving or disproving so-called conventional norms of
budgetary allocations is not indisputable evidence for or against bureaucratic
or political dominance in the budget processes. Non-retrenchment which
McCubbins and Noble claim is a characteristic of bureaucratic inuence is
equally a characteristic of LDP behaviour in some budget programmes, notably
defence spending, agricultural subsidies and above all public works. From the
late 1970s onwards MOF's main scal aim was to cut the scal decit, reduce
government borrowing, and restore a balanced budget. The LDP apparently
acquiesced in that, but in practice exempted and excluded favourite programmes
from the operation of budget controls. A contrary conclusion to that of
McCubbins and Noble may be drawn: politicians inuenced budget-outputs to
slow-down or prevent the retrenchment policies pursued by MOF bureaucrats.
Above all, what this example illustrates is the complexity of the budgetary
processes, and the danger of ascribing dominant inuence to either bureaucrats
or politicians generally in that and other policy areas.
A `Regime Shift'
The theories and hypotheses discussed here were largely constructed and rened
when both the political and economic systems were stable. The volatile
conditions of the `regime shift' which occurred following the collapse of the
`1955 political system' in 1993 will provide a searching test of their robustness
and parsimony.47 The longer-term consequences of that shift for the roles and
46
M. Wright, `The Role and Signicance of Public Works Expenditure in the Budgetary
Process', Comparative Budgetary Systems Working Paper Series, Japan, No. 20 (1998).
47
T. J. Pempel, `Regime shift: Japanese politics in a changing world economy', Journal of
Japanese Studies, 23 (1997), 33361.
# Political Studies Association, 1999
954 Review Section