Developments
in Japanese Public Administration after World War II
Prof. Akira Morita
University
of Tokyo
I would like
to begin by thanking the organizers for inviting me to attend this auspicious
event. It is both an honor and a pleasure to be here and to have the
opportunity to deliver a keynote speech at this International Conference on
“Korean Public Administration, 1948 – 2008” to commemorate the 60th
anniversary of the founding of the Republic
of Korea.
I have been
asked to speak on “Developments in Japanese Public Administration after World
War II”. My focus will be on the
actual processes of public administrative evolution in Japan, not on an academic review of the history
of public administration studies in Japan. Bearing in mind time
limitations, I will strive to cover the “Past,” “Present,” and “Future” of
post-World War II public administration in Japan. Then, I will offer my
perspective on the implications of the Japan
story for public administration in Korea.
1. The Past
By the
past, I refer to the period after World War 2 up to 1990 which is essentially a
period in which Japan
enjoyed unprecedented economic growth. During this period some extraordinary
developments took place in public administration. Notably, it was during this
period that brilliant bureaucrats enabled the government to take on the lead
role in modernization of the country.
Changes
in industrial policy were exemplary of such reforms. During this period, the government
adopted systems and regulations for supporting increasingly proactive
leadership in promoting technological development in Japan and in nurturing industries
that had the capabilities to compete overseas. In the process, enterprises that
would assume dominant roles in global markets in industries such as automobile
manufacturing and information services were cultivated. On the other hand, for
the agriculture that was deemed ill-equipped to compete in international
markets, stringent policies were enacted to insulate farmers from the threat of
international competition.
In addition
to these steering programs for industry, elaborate financial equalization
system among local governments contributed greatly to Japan’s post-war
development. In order to facilitate rapid economic growth, Japan adopted
measures to encourage the concentration of population to urban areas and
bolstered measures to expand the affluence of major cities. Meanwhile, in order
to address the emerging economic disparity between urban and rural areas,
“balanced national growth” measures were adopted to prevent further widening of
the economic gap by adopting reforms designed to redistribute tax revenues back
to rural areas. I feel that the success of these economic redistribution
policies was the critical force behind Japan’s capacity to sustain such an
extended period of growth. As we have seen in many other emerging economies,
the emergent disparity between urban and rural development exhibits a dampening
effect on economic growth.
It should
also be noted that one of the key factors behind the exemplary performance of
public administration at this time was that continued population growth led to
a proliferation of young workers who enhanced levels of productivity. This
development served as a perfect complement to plans for promoting economic growth.
In fact, in many fields, the efforts of these laborers carried the day. One of
the defining characteristics of the public administration structure in Japan is its
strong vertical division of power. Under the extended period of stable
administration by the Liberal Democratic Party, each Ministry competed to
receive their piece of the expanding budgetary pie. It can perhaps be said that
in a period of expansion, such competitiveness produces the most efficient
allocation of resources.
2. The Present
This era
of expansion came to a halt in the 1990’s with the collapse of the bubble
economy. Since the collapse, the conditions influencing public administration
have differed markedly from the high growth period.
The cause
of economic stagnation in the 1990’s has been attributed to a backlash from
overinvestment during the pre-1990 growth period and to the migration of
industry to overseas locations in response to forces of economic globalization.
Continued growth in Japan
was hindered by a burden of excessive national debt and the economy experienced
a reversal of fortunes. Accordingly, the strategies which supported economic
growth in the past were rendered ineffective and a high level of disconnect
emerged between the demands of the era and the administrative systems that
existed.
Although tax
revenues declined significantly, the government was resolute in its desire to
ensure that public administrative services were not entrenched. With
insufficient funds to cover national debt payments and a policy to maintain
current levels of government services, financial conditions worsened. Amidst
these deteriorating conditions, the political landscape also changed. In 1993,
the 38-year continuous rule of the Liberal Democratic Party came to an end and
the country entered a period of political instability. Consequently, in
the mid-1990’s, in response to rising public discontent, the ruling Cabinet
moved to enact a series of reforms of the public administration system.
The first
set of reforms were directed at decentralization of authority. The aim was to
harness national vitality by loosening centralized control of the public
administration structure and delegating a higher degree of administrative
independence to the local governments. The second set of reforms made under the
Hashimoto Cabinet included repositioning of the Prime Minister’s office at the
core of government activities in order to establish a degree of leadership
control over the reforms. This was carried out in conjunction with initiatives
to reorganize and downsize administrative activities in order to respond to
severe budgetary constraints. In the process, the number of Ministries was
reduced and responsibilities were reshuffled. An “executive agency” model
structured on the English approach was adopted wherein administrative
activities were outsourced to “Independent Administrative Organizations”.
Further reforms followed. These included judicial system reform and
corporatization of the national universities. Today the trend continues as reform
of the civil service is underway.
The vast
majority of these reforms were based on the fundamentals of New Public
Management (NPM) that guided public policy reforms throughout Europe
in the 1990s. Under the Koizumi Cabinet which was established in 2001, the NPM
approach was particularly evident. Illustrative of this was postal reform which
privatized the Postal Service in an attempt to reduce government expenditure
and hasten recovery of the eroded public financial base.
I believe that it is too early to evaluate the
effectiveness of these reforms. On one hand, opposition to reforms to curtail
profiteering of vested interests has been evident through resistance shown by
politicians, special interest groups and bureaucrats. On the other hand, it
cannot be denied that it will be difficult to enact the reforms as planned in
this new century, amidst the sudden escalation of costs related to maintenance
of the social welfare system.
3.
The Future
As one considers the future development of public
administration and public policy in Japan, the rapid decline in
population which in turn is giving rise to an aging society is a requisite
point of emphasis. The Japanese population reached its peak of 127 million in
2005 and has been declining since then. It is projected that by 2050, the
population will be less than 100 million in Japan. This population decline
which is attributed to a falling birthrate, will in turn increase the
proportion of aged in the population. In the final outcome, it is projected
that over 30% of the population will be elderly. In such a case, two young
workers will be required to support one elderly pensioner.
Amidst such
a trend, a progressive deterioration of national and regional public finances
can be expected. On one hand, a reduction in workforce numbers portends a
reduction in tax revenues. On the other hand, an aging society exacerbates
demands for the provision of health and welfare support services.
The challenge
for Japan’s
public administrators is how to cope with this social structure change. It is
anticipated that from this point on, the aging of the urban population which
has until now been supporting rural subsistence will quickly escalate. It will
be a difficult challenge to continue to maintain existing governmental services
while at the same time ensuring that the burden of supporting such services is
equitably distributed across regions and across generations. In addition to
confronting the added burden of high taxes, policies must be developed and
implemented to ensure that the universally high standard of social welfare
services that Japanese citizens have become accustomed to can be maintained.
On the
issue of changing population demographics, the essence of Japan’s aging
population problem stems from the population boom of the late 1940’s. Accordingly, it is expected that when
this generation finally passes through the system, a balance in the population
structure will be restored. Therefore, the challenge for policy makers going
forward is to respond accordingly to this long-term trend by recognizing that
the next 20 to 30 year period will be a time for riding out the storm. To do
so, excessive infrastructure and human capital will have to be pared down and a
suitably reduced level of services will have to be put in place in order to
ensure fiscal balance. In actuality, due to the reduced number of 18 year olds
in Japan, the supply of
further higher education institutions in Japan is progressively outpacing
demand.
With all
that I have said in regard to the challenges facing Japanese public
administrators, it begs the question “How will Japan’s public administrative
organizations manage these issues?”
Although personally, I hold the proficiency of Japan’s
bureaucrats in high regard, I also harbor a sense of trepidation.
Japan’s
bureaucrats have demonstrated in the past the ability to draw on their
specialized skills to effectively cope with environmental changes. These
abilities have over time become systematically entrenched. Therefore, I
optimistically expect that we will see a repeat performance of these coping
capabilities in regard to these future challenges.
Regarding my
feelings of trepidation, the first concern I have is that the system in which
these highly competent bureaucrats work is outdated and calcified. To this
point in time, public administrative reforms have been driven by external
pressures. The question is can bold, proactive reform be initiated from inside
government circles?
The second
concern I have pertains to the extensive amount of discontent directed at
public administrators which emerged on the heels of the slump in the 1990’s. In
reality, one cannot deny that the public administration system has had its
share of problems. However, if public criticism of the public administrators
continues to the point that it begins to adversely affect the morale of
bureaucrats, in the end, it will be the citizens who will bear the loss. The
public administration system is indeed in need of reform in order to improve
transparency. In supporting this, it is also imperative for academic enquiry
within the field of public administration studies to investigate these issues.
4.
Regarding
Public Administration in Korea
In closing,
I would like to say a few words in regard to the relevance these developments
have in respect to public administration in Korea. The differences which exist
in regard to the structure of governance and the administrative cultures render
a simplified comparison between Japanese and Korean systems both difficult and
risqué. Nevertheless, as a general
impression, I think that some of the characteristics between the countries are
remarkably similar. In particular, during the latter half of the 20th
century, Korea followed the
model established by Japan
in realizing tremendous economic growth achievements. I believe that as the
government faced the issues it encountered during this growth process, it
developed its administrative activities by studying Japan’s policies and adapting them
to work in a Korean context.
However, as one turns to the future, it appears that
even this pattern will change. In regard to many thematic issues, perhaps Korea will lead and Japan will be forced to play catch
up. The biggest factor supporting this contention relates to the issues of
declining birthrates and aging populations that I touched upon earlier. For the
time being, the rate at which the population is aging is still higher in Japan. However,
the birthrate in Korea is
even lower than the birthrate in Japan
and so Korea is potentially
entering an era of declining population and societal aging that could surpass
even the pace in Japan.
Interestingly, during the 1990’s when the Japanese economy was stagnating, Korea managed to accomplish levels of growth
that far surpassed Japan.
However, like in the Japan
experience, this growth is what has given rise to the impending demographic
transformation. Accordingly, from this time onward we are entering an era in
which Japan will be able to
study Korea’s
policies, and adopt the best of the bunch for its own.
It is worth
noting that the issues of declining population and societal aging have become
commonly held problems in all the countries in the Asian region that have
recently experienced rapid economic growth. However, I feel that as it stands
now there is a high possibility that Korea will continue to lead the
pack in this regard. In confronting such a trend, what type of administrative
system and policy response will be desirable? This is a challenge that scholars
in public administration studies must endeavor to resolve, for this is a
problem that is relevant to all Asian nations. As such, from this point on, it
is vital to cooperate in order to advance research in this regard.