NIRA OPINION PAPER
No. 60 | January 2022

NIRA OPINION PAPER
No.60 | January 2022

What Constitutes a Policy Vision That
the Public Can Accept?
- Considering the Issues Based on the Results of a Deliberative Survey (1) -Masaki Taniguchi

President, NIRA
Professor, Graduate Schools for Law and Politics,
The University of Tokyo

In order to delineate a social and economic vision that will be acceptable to the
public, the author selected four themes and attempted to observe “public opinion” after
subjects undertook a process of consideration and deliberation. Based on this study, it ispossible to indicate the following three points. First, the public is quite well aware ofissues such as Japan’s declining birthrate and aging and declining population, and thenation’s problem of public debt. However, the second point is that these issues are not sosimple as to allow members of the public to attain an easy understanding based on
discussion alone. In the surveys discussed in this paper, consideration and deliberation
resulted in a reduction in the number of neutral voters who did not clarify the positions
with which they agreed and disagreed. This does not mean that the distribution of
opinion always leans in either direction, and this may lead to polarization. The third
point that came up is that discussions at the level of abstract principles do not readily
engage people’s sympathies. The difficulty of discussing abstract themes that did nottouch on the interlocutors’ personal lives was perceptible.
What lessons have been learned from these results in relation to the formulationof policy visions? First, there are no grounds for the idea that politics must avoid making
the demand on people that they accept reduced benefits and increased burden. At theleast, many people understand where the problems are situated, and even if it at firstglance the process seems circuitous, tackling issues head-on is the shortest path toalleviating people’s anxieties with regard to the medium- to long-term future. However,when requesting acceptance of a reduction in benefits or an increase in burden, it would
be effective to introduce an affordable burden (affordable by each individual withconsideration of their ability to bear the burden) in parallel with efforts to eliminate
waste. Finally, abstract discussions should be avoided as much as possible and people
should be shown individual and concrete images of problems and solutions.

Copyright Ⓒ 2022 by Nippon Institute for Research Advancement
This is a translation of a paper originally published in Japanese. NIRA bears full responsibility for the translation
presented here.

1

NIRA OPINION PAPER
No. 60 | January 2022

Introduction
The purpose of this project is to delineate a social and economic vision that the public
can accept.
We will look now at the figures resulting from the opinion survey1.
•

A: “Government bonds are being stably absorbed, therefore there is no need to worry about
the budget deficit.”•

B: “The budget deficit has reached a critical level, and we should therefore curtail theissuance of government bonds.”
Which of these statements most accurately describes your own opinion?
→•

Closer to A: 7%; Closer to B: 53%“For the time being, we should mobilize public finances to be employed in measures toboost the economy, rather than curbing spending in order to realize fiscal consolidation”
Do you more agree or disagree with this opinion?
→

Closer to “Agree”: 34％; Closer to “Disagree”: 17％

These two questions were asked in the same survey. In the case of the first question,
the majority of respondents answered that the issuance of government bonds should be curtailed,while for the second question, the number of pro-fiscal stimulus respondents was twice that ofrespondents opposed to the strategy.
It is not possible to determine what people's “true” opinions are simply by aggregating
individual opinion poll results; these are, after all, sometimes inconsistent with each other. What
trajectory do people's opinions follow when they go through the process of fully considering theviews and ideas that lie in the background of multiple conflicting opinions?

Overview of the Surveys
Based on the awareness of the issues discussed above, the Nippon Institute for
Research Advancement (NIRA) selected four themes related to Japanese society and economy
and attempted to observe public opinion following a process of careful deliberation on the partof survey subjects. For details of the survey method and results, please refer to the relevant
separate paper2 , and related detailed discussions (in Japanese). The themes selected are shown

Copyright Ⓒ 2022 by Nippon Institute for Research Advancement
This is a translation of a paper originally published in Japanese. NIRA bears full responsibility for the translation
presented here.

2

NIRA OPINION PAPER
No. 60 | January 2022
below. The themes were selected in order to make it possible to cover a range from comparatively
concrete issues, as represented by the former two, to issues related to abstract principles, as
represented by the latter two.
•

Increasing the burden of personally-borne medical expenses for elderly people of 75 and
above

•

Budget deficit and issuance of government bonds•

Size of government and public burden•

Freedom and equality
Referring to the theory and actual examples of deliberative surveys3 , we decided toincorporate a process of careful deliberation into the surveys. This process is described below.
First, the survey would be conducted twice for the same subjects using an Internet
survey company conducting surveys of respondents.
This internet survey would not select subjects by “random sampling,” the data would
not possess “representativeness” reflecting the thinking of a statistical population (citizens as awhole), and because of this, individual values represented as percentages would not possess asignificant meaning. The reader should note that the survey only allowed observation of trends
such as changes over time4 .
To take an example, the first survey asked the following question:“Considering problems related to the size of the government and the public burden,
which of the following positions is closest to your own:
A: National and local government spending should be reduced from the current level andadministrative services should be streamlined / B: National and local government spending
should be increased from the current level and ample administrative services should be offered.
A: The public burden, such as taxes and insurance premiums, should be reduced from thecurrent level / B: It is unavoidable that the public burden, such as taxes and insurance premiums,
will increase against the current level.”
Looking again at the same issue of “government size and public burden”
employed as an example above, in the second survey, conducted after an interval of about
one month, we approached the problem in the following way:

Copyright Ⓒ 2022 by Nippon Institute for Research Advancement
This is a translation of a paper originally published in Japanese. NIRA bears full responsibility for the translation
presented here.

3

NIRA OPINION PAPER
No. 60 | January 2022
Respondents were asked to answer the same question, but this time having read theopinions of experts representative of the following positions:•

The “big government” position: Citizens should accept a tax burden commensurate with thebolstering of the social safety net•

The “small government” position: It is possible to maintain a small government evenagainst the background of an aging society if efficiency is improved.
―― We asked the respondents to answer the same question as in the first survey after

reading the opinions of experts that represented each of these positions. The respondents wererequested to carefully consider these positions, and to write their thoughts regarding matterssuch as which points in which of the opinions provided a helpful perspective, and whether
reading the opinions changed their own thinking, in the free answer column.
The length of each expert opinion (about 200 characters / 4 sentences) and their levelof difficulty were selected to ensure that they did not lead the respondents in a specific direction.
In addition to these two surveys, 10 to 12 respondents from the first survey were asked
to participate in online interviews concerning each theme, and the change in their opinions after
listening to each other's opinions was observed.

Points Highlighted by Survey Results
I would like to indicate three points here as the main findings consistently highlighted
by the survey results across the four themes.
First, the public is quite well aware of issues such as Japan’s declining birthrate andaging and declining population, and the nation’s problem of public debt.
For example, in responses to the question “Are you for or against raising the burden of
personally-borne medical expenses from the current 10% to 20% for people of 75 years and older
with high incomes (20 million yen or more per year)?,” “Strongly agree” and “Tend to agree” faroutnumbered opposed responses.
With regard to the budget deficit and the issuance of government bonds, in responseto the question
A: “Government bonds are being stably absorbed, therefore there is no need to worry about thebudget deficit.”

Copyright Ⓒ 2022 by Nippon Institute for Research Advancement
This is a translation of a paper originally published in Japanese. NIRA bears full responsibility for the translation
presented here.

4

NIRA OPINION PAPER
No. 60 | January 2022
B: “The budget deficit has reached a critical level, and we should therefore curtail the issuanceof government bonds.”
more respondents in both the 1st and 2nd the surveys recognized that the nation was experiencing
a financial crisis (“Closer to B” = “Close to B” + “Closer to B”) than respondents who felt that
there was no need to worry (“Closer to A”).
Giving consideration to the opinion of experts discussing the same issue, many
respondents rated the following points as the most important: “In continuing to pass the issue
on to future generations, we also face a problem in the political process, in that the voices of theyounger generation and future generations are not adequately reflected. Relying on the
judgment of the younger generation may be one solution” and “The current state of the nation’s
finances is that tax revenues and spending on public services are entirely out of balance. We
can no longer rely on postponing the problem for the future.”
However, the second point is that these issues are not so simple as to allow membersof the public to attain an easy understanding based on discussion alone.
As mentioned above, in both the 1st and 2nd surveys, the number of respondents
supporting an increase in the burden of personally-borne medical expenses for people of 75 years
and above far outnumbered those opposed. However, looking at changes in the distribution of
opinion, we find that while the number of those in agreement has remained largely the same,the number of those opposed to the idea has increased5 . With regard to the issues of the budget
deficit and the issuance of government bonds, in the 2nd survey, which was conducted following
careful deliberation on the part of the survey subjects, a change was observed in that the numberof respondents who were closer to A (the group that considered that there was no need to worry)increased and the number of respondents who were closer to B (the group that were aware of
the nation’s financial crisis) decreased. A decrease in the number of centrists who do not clarify
their agreement or disagreement following a process of deliberation and contemplation does notmean that the distribution of opinions is always skewed in either
direction, and this may lead to polarization.
In addition, even when respondents indicated an understanding of increased burden,
this did not equate to slavish acceptance of the idea. With regard to increasing the burden of
personally-borne medical expenses for those aged 75 and above, the greatest number of
respondents considered the following opinion to be the most important: “Age should not be used

Copyright Ⓒ 2022 by Nippon Institute for Research Advancement
This is a translation of a paper originally published in Japanese. NIRA bears full responsibility for the translation
presented here.

5

NIRA OPINION PAPER
No. 60 | January 2022
to demarcate the ability to bear medical expenses. We should make the transition to the conceptof affordable burden.” Here, the respondents themselves should not necessarily be assumed tobe members of high-income and high-asset groups that will experience increased burden. The
introduction of affordable burden was also supported by many participants in online interviews.
The opinion that there are things that must be done before increasing the burden also
possesses appeal. Among the arguments made in the expert opinions regarding the size of thegovernment and the public burden, many respondents attached the greatest importance to thefollowing point: “If we improve efficiency to ensure that support can be provided directly to those
who need it, it will be quite possible to maintain a small government, even with an aging society.”
In addition, when asked whether the public burden (national and local government expenditure,various taxes and insurance premiums, etc.) should be increased or decreased, the total for“Should be increased” and “Tend to think it should be increased” was the highest for corporate
tax; conversely, the total for “Should be reduced” and “Tend to think it should be reduced” washighest for administrative labor costs. This suggests that because the number of business
managers and civil servants is limited, an “affordable” burden can be accepted when more tax
is extracted from entities other than oneself, and administrative spending is curtailed inasmuch
as it does not relate to oneself.
The third point is that discussions at the level of abstract principles do not readily
engage people’s sympathies.
The words “freedom and equality” both have a positive ring, and they each havenumerous meanings. Because of this, despite their exposure to carefully considered arguments
offered by two experts, the most common answer offered by respondents was “Neither (of the
discussions) influenced my thinking”. In addition, looking at the changes in the distribution of
opinions from the 1st survey to the 2nd survey, there was a significant increase in the response“Cannot answer either way” in relation to the comparatively highly abstract topics of freedom
and equality, as opposed to responses in relation to size of government and public burden. Given
that both experts offered points worthy of being taken up, it may be assumed that it became
difficult for respondents to know which to give their ultimate acceptance to. The difficulty of
discussing abstract themes that do not relate to the level of personal life was also sometimes
observed in the process of “deliberation” in the online interview format.

Conclusion
Copyright Ⓒ 2022 by Nippon Institute for Research Advancement
This is a translation of a paper originally published in Japanese. NIRA bears full responsibility for the translation
presented here.

6

NIRA OPINION PAPER
No. 60 | January 2022
Under today’s conditions, a generous distribution of the economic pie, as was the casein the nation’s period of high economic growth, has become impossible in Japan; the distributionof burden and the sharing of pain are unavoidable. How, then, can we create the conditions forpeople to accept policies that are akin to bitter medicine? The following lessons can be derived
from the survey results discussed up to the previous section.
First, there are no grounds for the idea that politics must avoid making the demand on
people that they accept reduced benefits and increased burden. At the least, many people
understand where the problems exist, and even if at first glance the process seems circuitous,
demonstrating to citizens that they are tackling issues head-on (adopting a clear direction) is
the shortest path to alleviating their anxieties with regard to the medium- to long-term future.
However, when requesting acceptance of a reduction in benefits or an increase inburden, it would be effective to introduce an affordable burden (affordable by each individualwith consideration of their ability to bear the burden) in parallel with efforts to eliminate waste.
Clearly, even if we were to increase the maximum tax rate for high-income earners to 90%, this
could not possibly substitute for an increase in consumption tax. The major cause of Japan’snational budget deficit is an expansion of social security spending; the ratio of civil servants tothe total number of workers in the nation is the lowest among the developed nations, andreducing administrative labor costs would therefore represent a mere drop in the ocean.
However, even if such measures would not be effective, the symbolic effect in deepening
understanding among the public cannot be discounted.
Finally, abstract discussions should be avoided as much as possible. It will be important
to show people individual and concrete images of problems and their solutions; for example,
population decline could mean that the area in which the person lives ceases to exist; financial
collapse could mean that prices rise so rapidly that salary increases cannot keep pace. When
ceremonies are held to mark the signing of a bill into law by the US President, the White House
often invites beneficiaries of the policy to attend, in order to publicize its effectiveness. The mass
media, including the Japanese mass media, do not report on specific policy problems in an
abstract manner, but rather introduce real people in need to discuss the necessity for a solution.
For example, in the case of pensions, simply presenting a “model pension plan”6 (with some
additions in a variety of forms), something which can no longer be considered to be “standard,”
does not encourage people to see the problem as their own.

Copyright Ⓒ 2022 by Nippon Institute for Research Advancement
This is a translation of a paper originally published in Japanese. NIRA bears full responsibility for the translation
presented here.

7

NIRA OPINION PAPER
No. 60 | January 2022
In a period of change characterized by population decline, a declining birthrate and an
aging population, globalization, and the Fourth Industrial Revolution, a variety of social andeconomic visions are under discussion in the public sphere. In delineating such visions, it isessential not only to dream of the summit to be reached, but also to consider the route up themountain that will enable it to be reached. The Nippon Institute for Research Advancement(NIRA) will continue to pursue these visions, in the most comprehensive sense, into the future.

Note
1 “The2017 UTokyo-Asahi Survey” (jointly conducted by Professor Masaki Taniguchi of The
University of Tokyo and the Asahi Shimbun). The data collected by the survey is published at
http://www.masaki.j.u-tokyo.ac.jp/utas/utasindex.html.
2 Mari Kawamoto (2022), “Kouki koureisha iryou wo meguru jukuryo / jukugi-gata chousa” (“A Deliberative Survey

on Medical Care for the Elderly aged 75 and Above”), NIRA Working Paper No. 2.

3 For example, James S. Fishkin (2018), Democracy When the People are Thinking: Revitalizing Our

Politics Through Public Deliberation, Oxford University Press (Translated as Hitobito no koe ga
hibikiau toki: Jukugi kuukan to minshu shugi; Hayakawa Publishing, Inc.)

4 Masashi Hagihara (2015),”Internet chousa ni yoru yoron kansoku no kokoromi – “Kuuki” no henka

wo shousai / jinsoku ni toraeru tame no hassou to jissen,” Seisaku to chousa, 9: 51-58” (“An attempt

to gauge public opinion via an Internet survey – Capturing changes in opinion rapidly and in detail:
Theory and practice,” Policy and Research, 9: 51-58); Shoko Omori (2021), “Internet chousa no
sanpuru tokusei: Kokusei chousa / mensetsu chousa to no hikaku” (“Characteristics of Internet
Survey Samples: A Comparison with Census and Face-to-face Surveys”), NIRA Working Paper No.1.
5 With regard to the issue of the burden of personally-borne medical expenses for elderly people of 75

and above, it is necessary to bear in mind that the format of the question varied slightly between thetwo surveys.
6 This assumes a household in which the husband earns an average income for 40 years, following

which he receives an employees’ pension, and the wife is a full-time homemaker for 40 years. However,as of 2020, there were 5.71 million households in which the wife is a full-time homemaker (that is, ahousehold in which the husband works in industries other than agriculture or forestry and the wife
is not employed outside the home) as opposed to 12.4 million dual-income households (in which
neither the husband nor the wife is employed in the agricultural or forestry industries).

Masaki Taniguchi
Professor Taniguchi is the President of the Nippon Institute for Research
Advancement (NIRA), and a Professor in the Graduate Schools for Law and
Politics of The University of Tokyo. He holds a Doctorate in Law from The
University of Tokyo. Professor Taniguchi specializes in the study of politicalscience and contemporary Japanese politics.

Copyright Ⓒ 2022 by Nippon Institute for Research Advancement
This is a translation of a paper originally published in Japanese. NIRA bears full responsibility for the translation
presented here.

8