Japan’s Bureaucracy in International Perspective

  • Naomi AokiEmail author
Living reference work entry

Latest version View entry history

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3506-2



Selected institutional features of Japan’s national bureaucracy highlighted and juxtaposed with those of other countries.


Scholars generally agree that the political influence of Japan’s modern national bureaucracy is strong (Bowornwathana and Poocharoen 2010; Nakamura 2002). This cannot be said of all bureaucracies around the world, and countries can vary considerably in what makes their bureaucracy strong or weak. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to provide an exhaustive list of sources illustrating these variations or to comprehensively assess the extent to which Japan’s bureaucracy is stronger or weaker than bureaucracies elsewhere. Instead, this chapter discusses selected institutional features which arguably contribute to the view that Japan’s bureaucracy is rather strong. These features are juxtaposed with institutions in other countries to...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Abelson DE (1995) From policy research to political advocacy: the changing role of think tanks in American politics. Can Rev Am Stud 25(1):93–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akizuki K (2010) History and context of public administration in Japan. In: Berman EM, Moon J, Choi H (eds) Public administration in East Asia: Mainland China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 195–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andeweg RB (2000) Ministers as double agents? The delegtion process between cabinet and ministers. Eur J Polit Res 37:377–395Google Scholar
  4. Aoki N (2015) Let’s get public administration right, but in what sequence? Lessons from Japan and Singapore. Public Adm Develop 35(3):206–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowornwathana B, Poocharoen O-o (2010) Bureaucratic politics and administrative reform: why politics matters. Public Organ Rev Glob J 10:303–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jing Y, Cui Y, Li D (2015) The politics of performance measurement in China. Policy Soc 34(1):49–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Johnson CA (1982) MITI and the Japanese miracle: the growth of industrial policy, 1925–1975. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Kamikawa R (2013) Abenomics-no seijigaku – Dai-2-ji-abenaikaku-no keizaiseisakuketteikatei [Political science of Abenomics – the economic policy process in the second Abe administration]. Mondai-to Kenkyu [Issues and Studies] 42(3):1–48. Retrieved from http://iiro.nccu.edu.tw/attachments/journal/add/10/42-3-1.pdfGoogle Scholar
  9. Knill C (1999) Explaining cross-national variance in administrative reform: autonomous versus instrumental bureaucracies. J Public Policy 19(2):113–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Nakamura A (2002) Problems and prospects for government reform in Japan’s public administration: the rise of the new versus the persistence of the old. J Comp Asian Dev 1(1):33–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nakamura A (2012) Asian model of government re-examined in the aftermath of the global economic crunch: a Japanese perspective from the experience of the triple disasters in March 2011. Int Rev Adm Sci 78:239–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. National Personnel Authority (2015) Heisei-27-nendo nenjihōkokusho chōkitōkeitōshiryō [Annual report 2015: materials including longitudinal data]. Retrieved from http://www.jinji.go.jp/hakusho/pdf/27_choukitoukei.pdf
  13. Neo BS, Chen G (2007) Dynamic governance: embedding culture, capabilities and change in Singapore. World Publishing Company, SingaporeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2008) The state of the public service. OECD Publishing, Paris.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264047990-enCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Painter M (2004) The politics of administrative reform in east and southeast Asia: from gridlock to continuous self-improvement? Governance 17(3):361–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Quah JST (2013) Ensuring good governance in Singapore: is this experience transferable to other Asian countries? Int J Public Sect Manag 26(5):401–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rosenbloom DH (1983) Public administrative theory and the separation of powers. Public Adm Rev 43(3):219–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schneider BR (1993) The career connection: a comparative analysis of bureaucratic preferences and insulation. Comp Polit 25(3):331–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sowell T (2004) Affirmative action around the world. Yale University Press, New Haven/LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Tsuji K (2010) Kōmuinsei-no kenkyū [A study of the civil service system]. Tokyo University Press, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  21. Ueno M (1998) Think tanks in Japan: towards a more democratic society. In: Stone D, Denham A, Gamett M (eds) Think tanks across nations: a comparative approach. Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp 188–201Google Scholar
  22. Urabe N (1990) Rule of law and due process: a comparative view of the United States and Japan. Law Contemp Probl 53:61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lee Kuan Yew School of Public PolicyNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore