Patterns Of Japanese Policy Making

Experiences from Higher Education

T. J. Pempel

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9780367297916
• eBook ISBN: 9781000313703
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Higher Education
• Index: Social Sciences

The author of this study of policymaking in postwar Japan contends that the prevailing perceptions of the subject advanced to date are inadequate. Professor Pempel identifies three distinct patterns of policymaking within Japan's current system of hegemonic pluralism. One of these, "policymaking by camp conflict, "is associated with broad, highly emotional, ideological issues that polarize political forces and that are resolved only after widely publicized battles in the Diet, the media, and the streets. A second pattern, "incremental policymaking, "involves nonideological problems that are settled largely through bureaucratic procedures almost totally removed from public scrutiny. A third pattern, "pressure group policymaking, "pits a limited number of special interest groups against one or more government agencies; this process is less conflictual and public than camp conflict, but more visible and antagonistic than incremental policymaking.

1.
Introduction

How do governments formulate policies to regulate behavior in their societies? By whom are the decisions made, through what structural arrangements, and in response to which of the many demands and pressures extant in the society; how do these differ from problem to problem, and from regime to regime? Such questions have been at the heart of political science through its long evolution, for it is in grappling with such questions that abstractions such as liberty, equality, authoritarianism, corporatism, capitalism, oppression, and democracy take on tangibility, concreteness, and visibility.

This is a book about policymaking in Japan since World War II. It contends, among other things, that the dominant perceptions of the subject advanced to date are inadequate. Much of the present writing, for example, implies that there is some single, clearly identifiable policymaking process in Japan. Usually this is seen to revolve around a ruling triumvirate of the conservative Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), big business circles, and the senior echelons of the national bureaucracy. All three are seen to rule the country in combination—the three legs of a tripod, each serving as an equally critical support.¹ Other arguments see singularity in policymaking as the consequence of the country’s alleged dominance by class conflict or monopoly capital.² Parallel to both is a perspective that argues that little takes place in Japanese politics without a struggle by, and great attention to, the interests of the relatively autonomous political factions within the LDP.³ Similarly prevalent and complementary are interpretations of Japanese policy formation that assert the alleged uniqueness of a process peculiar to Japan. This last is variously seen as the result of its feudal heritage, its alleged dominance by an emperor system, or various cultural peculiarities.⁴ Such perceptions of uniqueness are often reinforced by the prevalence throughout the literature of vernacularisms which at least implicitly convey a lack of parallel to behavior in other societies: ringisei, hanashiai, nemawashi, keiretsu, oyabun-kobun, giri-ninjo, and the like.

If claims for the existence of some singular, and perhaps uniquely Japanese, pattern of policymaking are at best partly convincing, it will not do to swing blindly to alternative positions, alleging either that Japan’s policymaking is just like that of all other political systems, or conversely that each and every policymaking situation is so unique that it defies categorization. Perhaps at some high level of abstraction it makes sense to analyze all policymaking as essentially the same in terms such as input-output, satisficing, operational environment, or feedback loops.⁵ But such a level inevitably forces one into a factual and practical vacuum, which blurs significant distinctions and obscures important empirical differences. Individual case studies, by way of contrast, though providing important contributions to the study of Japanese policymaking as well as they have elsewhere, all too frequently rely extensively on sui generis explanations, making them of little more value for systematic understanding of complex realities than the oversimplifications and often tautological models they seek to correct.

This book argues for an intermediate-level paradigm. It examines in detail the way in which the Japanese government has, since the end of World War II, formulated state policy in three distinct areas of higher education: control of political activities and disruptions on campus; the shift from general and humanistic educational content to specialized and technical education; and finally the expansion in the overall number of students enrolled in higher educational institutions. These three cover some of the most significant areas where higher education interacts with politics and government. They also provide the basis for more analysis than is possible from any single case study, and yet more hard information and detail than is possible in a purely theoretical work.

On the basis of detailed examinations of the processes by which policy was formulated in these three areas, the book finds little to confirm and much to challenge in existing interpretations of how policy is made in Japan. First of all, there is tremendous variation and little homogeneity in the processes involved. Furthermore, there are numerous instances where little, if any, evidence emerges of business or LDP influence; nowhere is there any evidence whatever that intra-LDP factional considerations were critical. Class conflict, a feudal heritage, the emperor system, and monopoly capital are similarly limited in ability to provide useful explanations. Beyond this, the study shows that most instances of policy formation can be explained with little reliance on any purported uniqueness in Japanese behavior. Far more insight seems possible by examining Japanese behavior in a comparative rather than a culturally specific context.

At the same time, the three are not seen to be entities unto themselves. There is form in Japanese policymaking. The key focus of the book is the isolation of three ideal typical patterns of policymaking, labeled variously “policymaking by camp conflict,” “incremental policymaking,” and “pressure group policymaking.” Which of these three patterns is more likely to occur in any single situation is seen to be a function of the combined interplay between the nature of the issue involved and varying political structures. Certain issues in Japan, as elsewhere, are highly charged emotionally, others are not? some are extremely broad in their intended scope, others are quite narrow and specific? finally, some issues are composed of numerous component parts which can be isolated and dealt with separately while others demand a holistic, yes-or-no solution. Understanding these three critical components takes one a long way in understanding the policymaking process that results when any particular issue arises in government. Beyond this, two essential structural factors influence the process, namely legal requirements and the political resources of the groups and individuals most directly interested in and affected by the issue. Chapter 2 will detail this basic framework for the analysis of differences in policymaking process. It will suggest as well that policy outcomes result from a combination of the issue involved and the process by which it is formulated.

If this book is primarily about policymaking, it is also about policy itself. Although at the present stage in our knowledge of political science it hardly seems necessary to justify a study of policy outcomes as well as policymaking processes, a word on the subject may be useful. In the study of Japanese politics, as more generally throughout the discipline of political science, attention has all too frequently been devoted to political processes at the expense of analyzing political outcomes. Power and influence are clearly manifest in the process of making official decisions? one can learn a great deal about the politics of any society by investigating the way it reaches decisions. At the same time, just as it is only partially correct to describe the complex inner workings of a particular watch or a television set without their respective purposes, adequacy, and impact, so too it is necessary to do more than convey a picture of the inner mechanics of specific policymaking processes in Japan. The policies themselves, their broader societal meaning, and their consequences should also be assessed to provide the political and normative breadth needed to make meaningful statements about “the politics” of a particular country.⁶

Public policy is more than simply the residual of the process whereby it is formulated, and increasingly there has been a recognition of the need to undertake empirical studies of the policies of various states as well as of their policymaking processes.⁷ It will not do to assert with Schumpeter that one can label a nation-state “democratic” on purely procedural grounds.⁸ It strains the use of terms to suggest that, so long as “free elections” are the basis for selecting policymakers, any actions they take and any policies they pursue are ipso facto “democratic.” Similarly, it is important to go beyond process to the investigation of policy content itself and to analyze not only how policymakers do what they do, but to look as well at what it is they choose to do.

At the same time, in examining outcomes it will not do to imply, as certain students of public policy have, that policymaking processes are largely irrelevant.⁹ Outcomes are a legitimate and important subject for political inquiry. But it is intellectually and politically intolerable to suggest that political systems are inherently similar just because similar policies emerge. It is important whether such policies emerge as a consequence of actions by a benevolent despot, an isolated technocratic elite, or open conflict and confrontation. Health policy may be comparable in all three, for example, but the political significance, the balance of power, the channels of public access, and ultimately the lives of the citizenry are inevitably quite different under the three in ways that an investigation of public policy and potential outcome alone would not clarify.¹⁰ Thus, the study of policymaking cannot and should not be isolated from the study of public policy. At the same time, the study of public policy requires attention to the processes of policy formation. Hence, this study will discuss both.

Finally, a few brief words should be said about the three areas being investigated, all of which fall within the functional area of higher education. The choice of three issues within a single functional area makes it difficult to claim that patterns discovered are inherently generalizable across the universe of Japanese policymaking. In the abstract it might have been better to have chosen three issues from a wider array of possible areas. Yet there is a wholeness and unity to the area of higher education (or any other area) that would be lacking in cases chosen randomly from disparate areas such as foreign policy, labor policy, budgetmaking, agricultural policy, or defense policy, for example. By concentrating attention on a single functional area, the most affected and involved political forces remain potentially the same, as do such things as their ideological and cultural values and their political resources. One can more easily compare the differences in reaction of a single ministry, such as the Ministry of Education, on several different issues of higher education, for example, than one can try to generalize about “governmental” or “bureaucratic” actions from a diversity of agencies organized to deal with a range of functionally unique problems. This is one important merit in a study of policymaking and issues within a single functional area. Further, by relating to broad hypotheses and propositions formulated about policymaking and by dealing with three discrete subareas of higher education, it is possible to steer clear of the “barefoot empiricism” and dangerous atypicality of the single case study. Whether the patterns suggested capture all or most instances of Japanese policymaking is both impossible to claim and irrelevant to demand. The study of the subject is simply too underdeveloped at present. Yet familiarity with the secondary literature on Japanese policymaking suggests broader applicability of the patterns and numerous parallels in other functional areas. As such it should be at least suggestive well beyond the area of higher education.

As noted, the study deals with three specific areas of higher educational policy: university administration, specialization and differentiation, and, finally, enrollment expansion. While educators would hardly accept any implication that these three areas encompass the full range or even necessarily the most important aspects of higher educational policies, the three do touch on dimensions of higher education of major political concern: who is educated? in what subjects and in what manner; and under whose overall supervision?

These problems have become critical in Japan, as well as in all the industrial democracies of Western Europe and North America. As the occupational base of these countries has shifted from predominantly agricultural and light industrial to heavier industry, technology, and the service sectors, a university education has increasingly become the sine qua non for individual success and influence. Where higher education was once available only to the offspring of the most socially prominent and economically advantaged families in society, it has become increasingly available, if not to all at least to increasing proportions of these societies. In 1960, for example, only four of twenty-two OECD countries had enrollment rates of more than 10 percent; by 1970 all but four did.¹¹ Increasingly these countries are forced to face the political, not simply educational, question of whom to educate. Is there to be an inevitable trend toward universal higher education, as there once was such a trend in elementary school and later high school? Or are restrictions to be established? If so, on what groups and with what justifications?

Furthermore, education is becoming an increasingly important political and social issue. Higher education enrollments now approach or exceed one-quarter of the age cohort in several societies, including Japan, with expenditures for education accounting for 5 percent or more of GNP in most industrial nations. Moreover, 20–45 percent of government expenditure is allocated to education in all industrial societies, with higher education taking ever-larger proportions of these figures. At the same time, higher educational background plays an integral role in the individual’s eventual career, and the business, scientific, and technical worlds are increasingly demanding specific types of research and student training. As a result of all these things, governments in all industrialized countries are beginning to recognize that it is politically and socially expensive to leave the choice of the subjects studied completely to individual student or faculty preference. More and more, funds are being allocated to encourage particular courses of study and to “produce” particular types of graduates, usually with an eye toward manpower management and presumed occupational needs.

Governments have always been somewhat concerned over the activities of faculty and student members on campuses, most particularly when such activities take the form of antigovernmental protest activities. But in addition to trying to control antigovernmental activities, the state has become more broadly concerned with insuring the “correct” administration of university campuses as these campuses have come to play an increasingly important economic and social role. Few university administrations have been inclined to flaunt university autonomy at the expense of government funds and access to the higher echelons of power? few governments have been willing to let them try. There has instead developed a growing symbiosis between university and state, in which each tends to see itself as the more benefited, but in which government controls have unquestionably increased. University administration in this sense has become a key political problem in a wide range of societies.

Hence, all three questions under investigation—enrollment expansion, specialization and differentiation, and finally university administration—have become central political, as well as educational, problems in most industrialized societies. Higher education is no longer, if ever it was, of concern only to those involved in making its administration more rational, more liberal, or more godly. Sociologists, economists, social engineers, politicians, and technologists all have legitimate and specific areas to investigate in higher education. Its wide impact clearly makes it a public policy issue of valid concern to political scientists.

For the student of Japan, higher education has been at least as politically charged. As will be examined subsequently, many higher educational issues have been injected into the Japanese political world during various periods since World War II, ranging from such rather pedantic problems as the issuance of university charters to the more headline-dominating activities of student radicals. The range and variety of important higher educational issues in postwar Japan thus command the attention of the political scientist interested in understanding how public policy in an area of political significance has been formulated under different problematic conditions within Japan, and with what political as well as educational results.

2.
Framework for Analysis

Using such diverse terms as “decision-making,” “lawmaking,” and “political process,” modern political scientists from Burgess and Bentley through Truman, Almond, and Easton have devoted a great deal of attention to the means by which important political determinations are made. To date there have been two dominant modes of analysis regarding this problem: the case study of a single decision, and the more sweeping theories aimed at isolating patterns common to some universe of policymaking situations. Because these two approaches have too often gone forward in isolation from one another, both in general political analysis and in the study of Japanese politics, there has been an intellectually frustrating gap between theory and reality, between purportedly universalistic verities and the particularities that often seem to defy them. This stud...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Tables and Figures
• Acknowledgments
• 1. INTRODUCTION
• 2. FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS
• 3. NATURE OF THE ISSUES
• 4. NATURE OF POLITICAL STRUCTURES
• 5. POLICYMAKING THROUGH CAMP CONFLICT: UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION
• 6. INCREMENTAL POLICYMAKING: ENROLLMENT EXPANSION
• 7. PRESSURE GROUP POLITICS: DIFFERENTIATION AND SPECIALIZATION
• 8. CONCLUSION
• Notes
• Index
• Studies of the East Asian Institute