Introduction

As policy studies becomes more advanced in Japan, the role of governmental councils (Shingi-kai) in the policy process is attracting a degree of scrutiny. Some of these are formal councils established by ministries and agencies in line with law, others are set up informally. As of July 2012, there were 118 formal councils. Informal councils are impossible to count, and the nature of their work is also diverse. Here, the discussion will focus on how both formal and informal councils analyse and evaluate policy, with particular reference to experiences over the last 12 years since the system of policy evaluation was established in Japan.

Councils in Japan

The characteristics and realities of councils in Japanese central government will be explained with reference to three sources. The first is the National Government Organization Act 1948, which provides for the establishment of consultative bodies under the name of councils and investigation committees. Their prescribed mission is to fill gaps in government knowledge with expertise from the private sector, broadly reflect public opinion in the administration and ensure the fairness and gravity of government (Okabe, 1967: 168). The second is an explanation based on a guidebook used by government officials. This is the Shingikai-souran (Council Handbook), published every year by the Institute of Administrative Management. The Institute was set up in 1977 as a think-tank body for the Administrative Management Agency (now the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications). The fact that it is published by the think tank of a body responsible for the administrative management of Japanese central government means that any organisation listed in the Handbook will be recognised as a formal council.

The third source lies in explanations by Japanese political scientists. In their critical explanation of councils lies the reality of councils in Japan. Specifically, their criticism is that ‘Council discussions usually follow a script set by administrative bodies, turning councils into a mere mouthpiece of the government’ (Sato, 1985). It became a problem that ministers and bureaucrats selected council members and tried to control the meetings and policy discussions (without policy analysis).

A famous example of this negative image came during the tenure of Prime Minister Nakasone (1982–87).