著者
宮本 融
出版者
JAPANESE POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION
雑誌
年報政治学 (ISSN:05494192)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.57, no.2, pp.83-124,264, 2006 (Released:2010-04-30)
参考文献数
93
被引用文献数
1

“Japan; Who governs?” This has been one of the main themes in the Japanese political science. Since the bureaucracy had been the core of the pre-war imperial system, the establishment of the elected officials' supremacy under the new Constitution became, the priority objective. This goal was achieved by the decades of the Liberal Democratic Party's one party dominance. However, recent studies have re-discovered the significance of the bureaucracy.After reviewing the academic literature, this article brings three new perspectives. First, the new type of bureaucracy, “administrative conservator, ” is emerging. Second, this “re-discovery” of the Japanese bureaucratic leadership might be temporary. Japan has become a front-runner who has to choose her own shape of the state. Bureaucrats have to work together with politicians since only politicians can make legitimate decisions. Therefore it's time for us to discuss the constructive relationship between those two, instead of asking which has the dominance. This identifies factors that define the bureaucracy itself. Finally, this article demonstrates the knowledge that defines bureaucracy is not some knowledge on particular areas, but the certain attitudes towards policies.
著者
山口 二郎
出版者
JAPANESE POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION
雑誌
年報政治学 (ISSN:05494192)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.57, no.2, pp.202-225,267, 2006 (Released:2010-04-30)

Nowadays, the Koizumi government has put his structural reform into practice to some extent. His policy based on neo-liberal ideology is changing policy system which realized parity among the regions and classes in the post war Japan. As the result of 2005 general election showed, the people give support to his reform. This paper aims at grasping the notion of equality that the LDP and the bureaucracy have been pursuing for fifty years. Then, it tries to answer a puzzle, why ordinary people support the neo-liberal policy which causes pain and disadvantage to themselves.Japanese-style equality was brought about by combination of discretionary policy and socialization of risk. Although the socio-economic system in post war Japan is often called “successful social democracy”, it is far from the true one in west European countries. Universalistic approach was quite weak in social policy, and discretionary policy such as subsidy and public investment projects functioned as redistributive policy for backward sectors. Discretionary approach also caused chronic corruption and unfair vested interests in the bureaucracy.Koizumi was good at attacking this corrupted complex, and aroused expectation among the people. They supported Koizumi's reform because they expected him to slash the corruption and vested interests. However, they do not appreciate real outcome of the structural reform. Our opinion poll in early 2006 shows that they still approve the notion of welfare state and have deep concern about inequality in recent Japanese society.Koizumi's reform removed various shelters in Japanese society, and people become exposed to many kinds of risk. In this context, it is likely that debate on role of the government becomes serious in party politics.
著者
田村 哲樹
出版者
JAPANESE POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION
雑誌
年報政治学 (ISSN:05494192)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.57, no.2, pp.11-35,263, 2006 (Released:2010-04-30)
参考文献数
72

In this article, focusing upon the recent development in deliberative democracy studies, I clarify the current state of relationship between normative theory and empirical research and consider its future.Deliberative democracy had been discussed by normative theorists. But in recent years, some important empirical studies have emerged. There are two ways of inference among those studies: one is descriptive inference, and the other is causal inference.Some normative theorists also try to take some empirical moments into account. We can find two approaches. One is to suggest institutional design of deliberative democracy. The other is to use the empirical knowledge in order to develop normative theory.Some scholars insist that both normative and empirical can not be separated. But it is hard to conceive the dissolution of normative/empirical distinction. One of the most important differences between the two is the way to understand “reality”, while this does not mean that there is no point of intersection between the two.My conclusion is that: there are some points of intersection between normative theory and empirical analysis. Trying to engage in issue-oriented research, we may be able to close the gap between normative and empirical.
著者
陳 天璽
出版者
JAPANESE POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION
雑誌
年報政治学 (ISSN:05494192)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.58, no.2, pp.2_29-2_48, 2007 (Released:2012-11-06)

This article uses cases of statelessness to examine the political dynamic of exclusion and inclusion involved in a system of nationality.   Stateless person means a person with no nationality or one who is not legally a citizen of any nation state. Here, I will pay attention to two cases, one that of ethnic Koreans in Japan, and the other Japanese war orphans coming from China to live in Japan. These two cases are similar in some ways. Firstly, the migrations were forced by the socio-political environment. Secondly, transitions in international relations and the changing policies of nation states resulted in the alteration of their nationalities and even led them to become stateless.   Issues of stateless persons have been neglected and seldom paid attention to. Here, by analyzing these two cases, especially concerning (1) historical background and clarification of how they became stateless, (2) the gap between identity card designations and real nationality, and (3) the mental effects of being stateless, this paper would like to stress the existence of stateless people by clarifying the political dynamic of nationality which has been excluding them. Also, this paper would like to suggest the importance of studying stateless people in this global era, a group of people with a unique identity free from nationalism and ethnicity.