The Intellectual as Adviser
The work of modern governments has become very complicated and, with the increasing welfare obligations that they have accepted, an enormous range of expertise is required. Not all of this can, or should, be provided from within the government itself. Government finds itself constantly in need of fresh inputs from the outside, which may be for many different reasons—ranging from the need for information, evaluation, or reactions, to a desire for validation or for legitimation to particular constituencies. It is not at all uncommon for top bureaucrats and even ministers to call upon academic authorities for their views. "Osetsu o haicho[*] shimasu " (Let me hear your distinguished views) can often be heard in bureaucratic chambers.
The principal way that nongovernment intellectuals make an input into the decision-making process is through serving as consultants of one kind or another. The system of advisory councils, of which the shingikai
(advisory commission) is a typical example, started in 1947, under the influence of the American Occupation's desire to build more citizen-participative institutions in what it perceived as a nonresponsive bureaucracy.[18] Many different types have developed, some permanent and established by law, others ad hoc, some investigative (chosakai[*] ), and some deliberative in character. Although the principle has been more often honored in the breach than in the observance, the advisory commission is expected to include in its membership representatives of all the important constituencies involved in the particular issue, plus relevant experts, as well as representatives of the public interest. All major constituencies, such as business, agriculture, labor, and women, are represented on the councils, although in varying degrees, but intellectuals (mainly academics) rank second only to businessmen in numbers. Therefore, literally thousands of intellectuals sit on hundreds of government commissions that have variable but on the whole important influence on public policy decisions. Almost all government commissions will have some scholars, whether for their expertise or purely for public name value and window dressing.
Every government ministry, with the exception of foreign affairs, makes use of the advisory commissions. Altogether, there are about 240 (as of August 1972), with an average membership of 30, ranging between 5 and 180.[19] They vary in importance, impact, size, internal composition, and degree of representativeness, depending on their subject matter, the department concerned, and the timeliness of their central mission.
They also vary in the extent to which they provide a source of significant outside income to the committee members. Most committees pay purely nominal consulting fees, so that participation is considered a financial loss by many intellectuals. A famous writer was recently reported to have resigned from the Central Education Council when he learned how small the consulting fee was; he could make much more efficient use of his time, he said, by appearing on well-paying television or on panel discussions about educational problems. In a few cases, however, the consulting fee may become significant enough to raise questions about people being "bought." The Public Service System Council, which deals with very sensitive issues and very sensitive constituencies, has representatives from labor and management, and pays its members monthly fees.
As expected, the councils vary widely in their impact. One of the major functions of the advisory commissions is to adjust the conflicting demands of the major constituencies involved in a particular issue. The Rice Price Council, for example, has representatives of the farmers, consumers, workers, businessmen, and the general public. When it agrees on a plan,
[18] For an excellent summary in English, see Yung Ho Park, "The Government Advisory System in Japan," Journal of Comparative Administration 3.4 (February 1972).
[19] These represent the advisory commissions established by law. If we take into account the various study groups and commissions established by ministerial ordinance or even more informally, there will be several hundred more. See ibid., p. 437.
the Council's recommendations carry great weight and are hard for the government to reject. The advisory commission's input may be decisive under other circumstances as well: as final arbiter when the major elements cannot reach agreement, or as a pressure group pushing its own recommendations. In other cases its position may be an important, even if not always decisive, input into the departmental deliberations. Often the advisory commission's position, through publication or reporting in the mass media, plays an important role in establishing the frame of reference for debate and in forming the public opinion that influences the government or Diet decision. This is seen clearly in the role of the Central Education Council, or the People's Livelihood Council of the Economic Planning Agency.
Characteristically, the advisory commission will be one of the decisive elements at certain stages of the process.[20] The Boston Consulting Group analysis of the development of Japan's computer industry gives us a valuable picture of how the advisory commission articulates with other elements in an ongoing process.[21] The government's computer development program started in 1953, but the first real fruits came only in the late 1960s. The process therefore required a sustained effort of about fifteen years. In 1954, after a false start by the Ministry of Education, which, through Tokyo University scientists, had actually developed a vacuumtube computer, the Science and Technology Agency (then within MITI) began the development of a computer logic using transistors as one of its many internal research activities. In 1955, MITI organized a research committee on the computer whose composition "was typically Japanese, representing all constituencies with substantial interest: MITI officials, prospective manufacturers, Japan Telegraph and Telephone managers, and university research scientists were members."[22] In accordance with the Electronics Industry Development Provisional Act, passed by the Diet in 1957, MITI established an advisory commission—the Electronics Industry Deliberation Council (in 1971 renamed the Electronic and Machinery Industries Deliberation Council). It consists of "approximately 40 members including vice-ministers of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Finance, presidents of major electronics hardware manufacturers, the managing director of the industry's trade association, the president of the industry's computer renting company, and distinguished scholars."[23] Although "effectively, the Coun-
[20] In its first years, the Central Education Council's reports, for example, were "almost totally devoid of real influence on the formulation of policy," but its 465-page 1971 report was "touted as the prelude to Japan's third educational revolution." T. J. Pempel, "The Bureaucratization of Policymaking in Postwar Japan," unpublished, 1972, pp. 12–13.
[21] In Eugene J. Kaplan, Japan: The Government-Business Relationship—A Guide for the American Businessman (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of International Commerce, February 1972).
[22] Ibid., p. 80.
[23] Ibid., p. 81.
cil is dominated by its secretariat,"[24] its 1966 report was "the most important document in the industry's history."[25] Thus, the advisory commission was only one of the factors making its impact over the fifteen-year period—along with the industry, the bureaucracy, the business community, and the Diet—but at certain stages its actions were of decisive importance.
In addition to the more or less permanent advisory commissions, the government frequently appoints expert or public commissions of various kinds to make inquiries or recommendations concerning specific problems. These are as variable as the permanent advisory commissions in their impact.
Many people find the structure and powers of these commissions unsatisfactory. One of the most important criticisms is that the government defines the issues for them and the first drafts embodying the commission's deliberations are usually written by the bureaucrats. The commission members simply read over the prepared report, express agreement or disagreement, and propose changes. The bureaucrats then pull these together and issue the final report, which therefore tends to be fairly close to the government's preferred position, or at least not too critical of it.
Another criticism is that the government assures a favorable outcome, or reduces the prospects of an unfavorable outcome, by carefully selecting the members. The first panel of the commission appointed to investigate the famous mercury-poisoning case (involving the question of the Showa[*] Denko[*] Company's responsibility) was criticized for returning a report favorable to the government position. The commissions are often criticized as mere window dressing, lending respectability to a predetermined government position, and in the worst case as pure whitewashing. Anti-establishment intellectuals, as well as labor people and the supporters of the opposition parties, are therefore very wary about some of the advisory commissions. Taking part, they fear, means being co-opted or accepting the underlying premises of the establishment. Many intellectuals also refuse out of fear of being branded a tool of the government by the constituencies they are concerned with. Faculty members of some national universities, for example, were hesitant about sitting on several Ministry of Education commissions because of the opposition of radical student organizations.
Nevertheless, in spite of their many weaknesses and defects, "their deliberations and reports," as Park says, "often constitute an important preliminary in the totality of Japanese policy-making; and there are numerous instances of commissions having authorized persuasive reports which culminated in administrative policies or legislation."[26]
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid., p. 91.
[26] Park, "Government Advisory System," p. 457.