Sensemaking
#25Key Findings
Japan performs relatively poorly (rank 25) in the category of sensemaking.
In recent years, the government has relied on specialized advisory councils for policy coordination rather than a central policy unit. Civil servants lack training in strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation. Ministries rarely plan for multiple scenarios, though this is improving.
All new policies have to be evaluated in terms of necessity, efficiency and effectiveness. Regulatory impact assessments are published online, and stakeholders can submit comments. However, costs and benefits are often not fully quantified, and evaluation reports are sometimes published too late to impact regulations. Sustainability is not a focus of RIAs.
All administrative policies must be evaluated after implementation. The office in charge of ex post reviews bureau also conducts surveys to identify inefficiencies in government policies and procedures, with follow-up surveys after six and 18 months to ensure that improvements are sufficient.
In recent years, the government has relied on specialized advisory councils for policy coordination rather than a central policy unit. Civil servants lack training in strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation. Ministries rarely plan for multiple scenarios, though this is improving.
All new policies have to be evaluated in terms of necessity, efficiency and effectiveness. Regulatory impact assessments are published online, and stakeholders can submit comments. However, costs and benefits are often not fully quantified, and evaluation reports are sometimes published too late to impact regulations. Sustainability is not a focus of RIAs.
All administrative policies must be evaluated after implementation. The office in charge of ex post reviews bureau also conducts surveys to identify inefficiencies in government policies and procedures, with follow-up surveys after six and 18 months to ensure that improvements are sufficient.
Graph View
Graph View
To what extent can the central government foster the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization?
10
9
9
The central government can foster the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the central government can foster the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
5
4
3
4
3
The central government is rarely capable of fostering the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
2
1
1
The central government is not capable of fostering the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
Different cabinets in Japan have relied on various organs as central policy units. In 2009, the DPJ government established the National Strategy Unit. However, the unit lacked the necessary resources to adequately perform its tasks. Since returning to power in 2012, the LDP government has relied on advisory councils specializing in separate fields rather than on a single central policy unit for policy coordination.
Civil servants in Japan are not sufficiently trained in strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation, and these skills are not required to pass ministerial entrance exams. The ethos of public officials is based on protecting the interests of their line ministries and following the existing stance of their departments, which does not incite creativity. Most policy proposals among bureaucrats are drafted in a bottom-up manner through the round-robin (ringi) system, which strengthens collectivism and leads to a blurring of responsibility for decisions.
Ministries rarely plan multiple scenarios, though there has been improvement in this field due to the introduction of an ex ante RIA requirement under the Government Policy Evaluations Act from 2001. The necessity to address new challenges in recent years has created the need for seeking innovative policy solutions, though most bureaucrats remain opposed to far-reaching reform. The central government encompasses several organs that support policy implementation in specific areas. In particular, digital transformation and to some extent open government tasks are coordinated by the Digital Agency, which was established in September 2021. About one-third of its initial employees were hired from the private sector, with the aim of making the agency open to new technologies and innovative solutions. Nevertheless, the agency still lacks the budget and staff to achieve its goals in a timely manner. Progress on digitalization has been hindered by resistance from other ministries and agencies.
Citations:
Iio, Jun. 2008. Nihon no Tôchi Kôzô [Structure of Government in Japan]. Tokyo: Chûô Kôron Shinsha.
Shigematsu, Koichiro. 2022. “Digital Agency Struggles to Reform Japanese Bureaucracy 1 Year After Launch.” The Yomiuri Shimbun, Asia News Network, September 1. https://asianews.network/digital-agency-struggles-to-reform-japanese-bureaucracy-1-year-after-launch
Civil servants in Japan are not sufficiently trained in strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation, and these skills are not required to pass ministerial entrance exams. The ethos of public officials is based on protecting the interests of their line ministries and following the existing stance of their departments, which does not incite creativity. Most policy proposals among bureaucrats are drafted in a bottom-up manner through the round-robin (ringi) system, which strengthens collectivism and leads to a blurring of responsibility for decisions.
Ministries rarely plan multiple scenarios, though there has been improvement in this field due to the introduction of an ex ante RIA requirement under the Government Policy Evaluations Act from 2001. The necessity to address new challenges in recent years has created the need for seeking innovative policy solutions, though most bureaucrats remain opposed to far-reaching reform. The central government encompasses several organs that support policy implementation in specific areas. In particular, digital transformation and to some extent open government tasks are coordinated by the Digital Agency, which was established in September 2021. About one-third of its initial employees were hired from the private sector, with the aim of making the agency open to new technologies and innovative solutions. Nevertheless, the agency still lacks the budget and staff to achieve its goals in a timely manner. Progress on digitalization has been hindered by resistance from other ministries and agencies.
Citations:
Iio, Jun. 2008. Nihon no Tôchi Kôzô [Structure of Government in Japan]. Tokyo: Chûô Kôron Shinsha.
Shigematsu, Koichiro. 2022. “Digital Agency Struggles to Reform Japanese Bureaucracy 1 Year After Launch.” The Yomiuri Shimbun, Asia News Network, September 1. https://asianews.network/digital-agency-struggles-to-reform-japanese-bureaucracy-1-year-after-launch
Graph View
To what extent does the government conduct high-quality impact assessments to evaluate the potential effects of prepared legislation before implementation?
10
9
9
The government draws on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
8
7
6
7
6
In most cases, the government draws on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
5
4
3
4
3
The government rarely draws on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
2
1
1
The government does not draw on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
RIAs in Japan are based on the Government Policy Evaluations Act from 2001. All new policies of administrative organs have to be evaluated in terms of necessity, efficiency and effectiveness. Basic guidelines of policy evaluation are prepared by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, which also oversees implementation of RIAs and ensures the government-wide coherence of evaluation. The Implementation Guidelines for Policy Evaluation of Regulations from 2007 specified standard principles concerning the content and procedures of ex ante and ex post regulation evaluations. Reviews have to be conducted within five years.
Since the amendment of the guidelines in 2017, Japan has made progress in conducting RIAs and using their results to reduce administrative costs. All RIAs are published on a unified website and stakeholders may submit comments on subordinate regulations online. In the OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 2021, Japan scored slightly above the OECD average in terms of RIAs but last for stakeholder engagement when developing primary laws.
A major weakness of RIA in Japan is the lack of an independent regulatory oversight body. The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications only compiles the reports submitted by different ministries and lacks the motivation to improve the evaluation process. In many cases, costs and benefits still are not sufficiently quantified. Moreover, it is not uncommon for evaluation reports to be published too late to have any influence on the content of regulations.
Citations:
Kishimoto, Atsuo. 2018. “Kisei Eikyô Hyôka (RIA) no Katsuyô ni mukete: Kokusaitekina Dôkô to Nihon no Genjô to Kadai” [Making Good Use of Regulatory Impact Assessments: International and Domestic Trend and Challenge]. Kantô Gakuin Daigaku “Keizai-kei” 275 (November). https://kguopac.kanto-gakuin.ac.jp/webopac/bdyview.do?bodyid=NI30003274&elmid=Body&fname=005.pdf
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. 2001. “Government Policy Evaluations Act.” https://www.soumu.go.jp/english/kansatu/evaluation/evaluation_09.pdf
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. 2007. “Implementation Guidelines for Policy Evaluation of Regulations.” https://www.soumu.go.jp/main_content/000556223.pdf.
OECD. 2021. “Japan – Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 2021.” https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/japan-country-profile-regulatory-policy-2021.pdf
OECD. 2023. Governance at a Glance 2023. Paris: OECD.
Since the amendment of the guidelines in 2017, Japan has made progress in conducting RIAs and using their results to reduce administrative costs. All RIAs are published on a unified website and stakeholders may submit comments on subordinate regulations online. In the OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 2021, Japan scored slightly above the OECD average in terms of RIAs but last for stakeholder engagement when developing primary laws.
A major weakness of RIA in Japan is the lack of an independent regulatory oversight body. The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications only compiles the reports submitted by different ministries and lacks the motivation to improve the evaluation process. In many cases, costs and benefits still are not sufficiently quantified. Moreover, it is not uncommon for evaluation reports to be published too late to have any influence on the content of regulations.
Citations:
Kishimoto, Atsuo. 2018. “Kisei Eikyô Hyôka (RIA) no Katsuyô ni mukete: Kokusaitekina Dôkô to Nihon no Genjô to Kadai” [Making Good Use of Regulatory Impact Assessments: International and Domestic Trend and Challenge]. Kantô Gakuin Daigaku “Keizai-kei” 275 (November). https://kguopac.kanto-gakuin.ac.jp/webopac/bdyview.do?bodyid=NI30003274&elmid=Body&fname=005.pdf
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. 2001. “Government Policy Evaluations Act.” https://www.soumu.go.jp/english/kansatu/evaluation/evaluation_09.pdf
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. 2007. “Implementation Guidelines for Policy Evaluation of Regulations.” https://www.soumu.go.jp/main_content/000556223.pdf.
OECD. 2021. “Japan – Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 2021.” https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/japan-country-profile-regulatory-policy-2021.pdf
OECD. 2023. Governance at a Glance 2023. Paris: OECD.
To what extent does the government effectively incorporate sustainability assessments within the framework of RIAs?
10
9
9
High-quality sustainability assessments are incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
8
7
6
7
6
High-quality sustainability assessments are, for the most part, incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
5
4
3
4
3
High-quality sustainability assessments are rarely incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
2
1
1
Sustainability assessments are not incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
In December 2016, the SDGs Promotion Headquarters, composed of all ministers, issued the SDGs Implementation Guiding Principles, which set eight priority areas in line with the SDGs. As a result, SDG action plans have subsequently been released on an annual basis. Since 2017, SDG awards have been given to entities who have successfully achieved SDG-related goals.
In October 2023, the SDGs Promotion Headquarters referred to the OECD report from 2022 to demonstrate Japan’s progress in achieving two goals (goal eight: decent work and economic growth; and goal nine: industry, innovation and infrastructure), while pointing to challenges in achieving two other goals (goal five: gender equality; and goal 10: reduced inequalities). However, the verification of SDGs is not based on RIAs. The criteria for evaluating policies from the 2001 Government Policy Evaluations Act refer to three indicators: necessity, efficiency and effectiveness. None of these indicators are directly related to the SDGs. In addition, the Implementation Guidelines for Policy Evaluation of Regulations, amended in 2017, do not give any consideration to sustainability or the SDGs.
The Financial Services Authority in 2022 announced a code of conduct for financial data providers when reporting on ESG data. The Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF), which ranks among the largest in the world, has increasingly adopted ESG criteria in its investment decisions and is evaluating the impact of its investment decisions.
Citations:
Prime Minister’s Office of Japan. 2023. “Jizoku Kanôna Kaihatsu Mokuhyô (SDGs) Jisshi Shishin Kaitei-an” [Draft Revised Implementation Guidelines for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)]. https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/sdgs/pdf/jisshi_shishin_r051027.pdf
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. 2001. “Government Policy Evaluations Act.” https://www.soumu.go.jp/english/kansatu/evaluation/evaluation_09.pdf
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. 2007. “Implementation Guidelines for Policy Evaluation of Regulations.” https://www.soumu.go.jp/main_content/000556223.pdf
OECD. 2023. “Governance at a Glance 2023.” Paris: OECD.
In October 2023, the SDGs Promotion Headquarters referred to the OECD report from 2022 to demonstrate Japan’s progress in achieving two goals (goal eight: decent work and economic growth; and goal nine: industry, innovation and infrastructure), while pointing to challenges in achieving two other goals (goal five: gender equality; and goal 10: reduced inequalities). However, the verification of SDGs is not based on RIAs. The criteria for evaluating policies from the 2001 Government Policy Evaluations Act refer to three indicators: necessity, efficiency and effectiveness. None of these indicators are directly related to the SDGs. In addition, the Implementation Guidelines for Policy Evaluation of Regulations, amended in 2017, do not give any consideration to sustainability or the SDGs.
The Financial Services Authority in 2022 announced a code of conduct for financial data providers when reporting on ESG data. The Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF), which ranks among the largest in the world, has increasingly adopted ESG criteria in its investment decisions and is evaluating the impact of its investment decisions.
Citations:
Prime Minister’s Office of Japan. 2023. “Jizoku Kanôna Kaihatsu Mokuhyô (SDGs) Jisshi Shishin Kaitei-an” [Draft Revised Implementation Guidelines for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)]. https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/sdgs/pdf/jisshi_shishin_r051027.pdf
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. 2001. “Government Policy Evaluations Act.” https://www.soumu.go.jp/english/kansatu/evaluation/evaluation_09.pdf
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. 2007. “Implementation Guidelines for Policy Evaluation of Regulations.” https://www.soumu.go.jp/main_content/000556223.pdf
OECD. 2023. “Governance at a Glance 2023.” Paris: OECD.
To what extent do government ministries utilize ex post evaluations to improve existing policies?
10
9
9
High-quality ex post evaluations serve as the basis for making adjustments to public policies.
8
7
6
7
6
High-quality ex post evaluations frequently serve as the basis for making adjustments to public policies.
5
4
3
4
3
High-quality ex post evaluations rarely serve as the basis for making adjustments to public policies.
2
1
1
High-quality ex post evaluations are not utilized to make adjustments to public policies.
All policies of administrative organs have to be evaluated ex post in terms of necessity, efficiency and effectiveness. The ex post evaluation process is managed by the Administrative Evaluation Bureau in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. The bureau formulates the general rules and standards of evaluation, compiles self-evaluation reports submitted by all ministries, and conducts inspections to improve the quality of evaluations. The bureau also conducts government-wide surveys concerning policies and administrative procedures to propose changes to eliminate inefficiencies. Follow-up surveys are conducted after six and 18 months to ensure the sufficiency of improvement measures.
In the OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 2021, Japan scored well above the OECD average in terms of ex post evaluation of regulations. There is still substantial room for improvement, especially regarding the involvement of stakeholders in the evaluation process. Although there is a unified portal that enables the submission of comments on subordinate regulations, stakeholders are rarely consulted during ex post evaluation.
Citations:
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. “Administrative Evaluation Bureau (AEB).” https://www.soumu.go.jp/english/aeb/index.html
OECD. 2021. “Japan – Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 2021.” https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/japan-country-profile-regulatory-policy-2021.pdf
In the OECD Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 2021, Japan scored well above the OECD average in terms of ex post evaluation of regulations. There is still substantial room for improvement, especially regarding the involvement of stakeholders in the evaluation process. Although there is a unified portal that enables the submission of comments on subordinate regulations, stakeholders are rarely consulted during ex post evaluation.
Citations:
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. “Administrative Evaluation Bureau (AEB).” https://www.soumu.go.jp/english/aeb/index.html
OECD. 2021. “Japan – Indicators of Regulatory Policy and Governance 2021.” https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/japan-country-profile-regulatory-policy-2021.pdf